81 FR 44542 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 131 (July 8, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 131 (July 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 44542-44554 | |
| FR Document | 2016-15623 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44542-44554] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-15623] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950; FRL-9948-58-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards 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 2010 sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also updating the classification for two of New Hampshire's air quality control regions for sulfur dioxide based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state. 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 final rule is effective on August 8, 2016. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, (617) 918-1657, or by email at [email protected]. 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. Summary of SIP Revision II. Public Comments A. Sierra Club General Comments on Emission Limitations 1. The Plain Language of the CAA 2. The Legislative History of the CAA 3. Case Law 4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a) 5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings B. Sierra Club Comments on New Hampshire SIP SO2 Emission Limits III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of SIP Revision On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for the 1-hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1- hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. On September 13, 2013, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted a SIP revision addressing infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. On July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42446), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of New Hampshire proposing approval of New Hampshire's submittal. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following infrastructure elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement and minor new source review), (D)(i)(II) (Visibility Protection), (D)(ii) (International Pollution Abatement), (E)(i) and (ii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation, public notification, and visibility protection), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA also proposed to approve the PSD program relating to infrastructure elements (C)(ii), D(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii), except to conditionally approve the aspect of the PSD program relating to notification to neighboring states. Within the same NPR, EPA also proposed taking similar action on New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide standards. EPA has already finalized its action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide standards (80 FR 78139, December 16, 2015). In New Hampshire's September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP for the SO2 NAAQS, the state did not submit section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the [[Page 44543]] nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process. This rulemaking action also does not include action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, because New Hampshire's September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal did not include provisions for this element. EPA will take later, separate action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for New Hampshire. The rationale supporting EPA's proposed rulemaking action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the published NPR. The NPR is available in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012- 0950. II. Public Comments and EPA's Responses EPA received comments from the Sierra Club on the August 17, 2015 proposed rulemaking action on New Hampshire's 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP. A full set of these comments is provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action. A. Sierra Club General Comments on Emission Limitations 1. The Plain Language of the CAA Comment 1: Sierra Club (hereafter referred to as Commenter) contends that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative history of the CAA, case law, EPA regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), and EPA interpretations in prior rulemakings require that infrastructure SIPs include enforceable emission limits that ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Accordingly, Commenter contends that any infrastructure SIP where emission limits are inadequate to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS must be disapproved. The Commenter states the main objective of the infrastructure SIP process ``is to ensure that all areas of the country meet the NAAQS'' and states that nonattainment areas are addressed through ``nonattainment SIPs.'' The Commenter asserts the NAAQS ``are the foundation upon which air emissions limitations and standards for the entire country are set,'' including specific emission limitations for most large stationary sources, such as coal-fired power plants. The Commenter discusses the CAA's framework whereby states have primary responsibility to assure air quality within the state, which the states carry out through SIPs such as infrastructure SIPs required by section 110(a)(2). The Commenter also states that on its face the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs ``to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.'' In support, the Commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1), which requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA, which the Commenter claims includes attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The Commenter also notes the use of the word ``attain'' in section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) and suggests this is further evidence that the emission limits provided for in section 110(a)(2)(A) must ensure attainment of the NAAQS. Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 is clear on its face and must be interpreted in the manner suggested by the Commenter. As we have previously explained in response to the Commenter's similar comments on EPA's actions approving other states' infrastructure SIPs, section 110 is only one provision that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 80 FR 46494 (Aug. 5, 2015) (approving Pennsylvania SO2 and ozone infrastructure SIP); 80 FR 11557 (Mar. 4, 2015) (approving Virginia SO2 infrastructure SIP); 79 FR 62022 (Oct. 16, 2014) (approving West Virginia SO2 infrastructure SIP); 79 FR 19001 (Apr. 7, 2014) (approving West Virginia ozone infrastructure SIP); 79 FR 17043 (Mar. 27, 2014) (approving Virginia ozone infrastructure SIP); and 80 FR 63436 (Oct. 20, 2015) (approving Minnesota ozone, NO2, SO2 , and PM2.5 infrastructure SIP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA interprets infrastructure SIPs as more general planning SIPs, consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].'' In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.'' \2\ Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. More detailed, later-enacted [[Page 44544]] provisions govern the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The Commenter misses the mark by citing the word ``attain'' in CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) as evidence that the emission limits submitted to satisfy the infrastructure requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) must ensure attainment of the NAAQS. That portion of section 110(a)(2)(H) is referencing CAA section 110(k)(5)--the ``SIP call'' process--which allows the Administrator to make a finding of substantial inadequacy with respect to a SIP. As discussed at proposal, the existence of section 110(k)(5) bolster's the reasonableness of EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements, which is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Section 110(k)(5) is one of the avenues and mechanisms Congress provided to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. The SIP call process allows EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) ensures that the relevant state agency has the authority to revise the SIP in response to a SIP call. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, section 110 of the CAA is only one provision of the complicated overall structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and must be interpreted in the context of that structure and the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program. EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in section 110 to mean that a state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA has stated in the 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance''), which specifically provides guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 1- 2.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's general assertion that the main objective of infrastructure SIPs is to ensure all areas of the country meet the NAAQS, as we believe the infrastructure SIP process is the opportunity to review the structural requirements of a state's air program. While the NAAQS can be a foundation upon which emission limitations are set, as explained in responses to subsequent comments, these emission limitations are generally set in the attainment planning process envisioned by part D of title I of the CAA, including, but not limited to, CAA sections 172, 181-182, and 191-192. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The Legislative History of the CAA Comment 2: The Commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative history of the 1970 CAA, claiming they support an interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state. The Commenter also contends that the legislative history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations, citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference Report accompanying the 1970 CAA. Response 2: As provided in the previous response, the CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section 110 concerning demonstrating attainment. See also 79 FR at 17046 (responding to comments on Virginia's ozone infrastructure SIP). In any event, the two excerpts of legislative history the Commenter cites merely provide that states should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs, and they do not mention or otherwise address whether states are required to include maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the infrastructure SIP. 3. Case Law Comment 3: The Commenter also discusses several cases applying the CAA which the Commenter claims support its contention that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. The Commenter first cites to language in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement for ``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations ``are the specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets the national standards.'' The Commenter also cites Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991), for the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004), which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in this vein, including Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (``The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (`NAAQS') through enforceable emission limitations.'') and Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001) (EPA's analysis is required to ``reflect consideration of the prospects of meeting current attainment requirements under a revised air quality plan.''). Finally, the Commenter cites Michigan Department of Environmental Quality v. Browner, for the proposition that an infrastructure SIP must ``include[] emission limitations that result in compliance with the NAAQS.'' 230 F.3d 181, 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Train, 421 U.S. at 79). Response 3: None of the cases the Commenter cites support its contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) is clear that infrastructure SIPs must include detailed plans providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With the exception of Train, none of the cases the Commenter cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the courts reference section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background sections of decisions in the context of a challenge to an EPA action on revisions to a SIP that was required and approved or disapproved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action. In Train, the Court was addressing a state revision to an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive criteria. The Court concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue was not whether a section 110 SIP [[Page 44545]] needs to provide for attainment or whether emissions limits providing such are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS, a reference that was removed in 1990. The decision in Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources was also decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps. The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that provision. Yet, even if the Court had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue here. At issue in Mision was the definition of ``emissions limitation,'' not whether section 110 requires the state to demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the opinion the Commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely describes section 110(a)(2)(A); the decision in this case has no bearing here.\4\ In Montana Sulphur, the Court was not reviewing an infrastructure SIP, but rather EPA's disapproval of a SIP and promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP) after a long history of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP in response to EPA's finding under section 110(k)(5) that the previously approved SIP was substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS. The Court cited generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the Court's holding in the case, which focused instead on whether EPA's finding of SIP inadequacy, disapproval of the state's required responsive attainment demonstration under section 110(k)(5), and adoption of a remedial FIP under section 110(c) were lawful. The Commenter suggests that Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision and the Court made no mention of the changed language. Furthermore, the Commenter also quotes the Court's statement that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that statement specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its infrastructure SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ To the extent the comments could be read to include an assertion that New Hampshire's SIP does not contain any ``emissions limitations'' relevant to SO2 , it should be noted that state regulations at Env-A Chapter 400, Sulfur Content Limits in Fuels, which EPA previously approved into the state's SIP, see 40 CFR 52.1520(c), are similar to the regulations that the Mision court found to be an ``emission limitation'' in 1976. See 547 F.2d at 129. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two of the other cases the Commenter cites, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Hall, interpret CAA section 110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA. EPA does not believe any of these court decisions addressed required measures for infrastructure SIPs and believes nothing in the opinions addressed whether infrastructure SIPs need to contain measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a) Comment 4: The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that each plan ``must demonstrate that the measures, rules and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS].'' The Commenter asserts that this regulation requires infrastructure SIPs to include emissions limits necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The Commenter states the provisions of 40 CFR 51.112 are not limited to nonattainment SIPs and instead apply to infrastructure SIPs, which are required to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of a state. The Commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .'' 51 FR 40656, 40656 (Nov. 7, 1986). The Commenter asserts 40 CFR 51.112(a) ``identifies the plans to which it applies as those that implement the NAAQS,'' which it contends means that Sec. 51.112(a) is applicable to infrastructure SIPs. Response 4: The Commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits adequate to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial matter, EPA notes this regulatory provision was initially promulgated and later restructured and consolidated prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). And, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy'' SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 1990, such as sections 175A, 181-182, and 191-192. The Commenter suggests that these provisions must apply to section 110 SIPs because in the preamble to EPA's action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions in part 51, EPA stated the new attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking. It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant merely to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. 51 FR at 40657. Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was [[Page 44546]] replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy: SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data (portion)''). Id. at 40,660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan. 5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings Comment 5: The Commenter references a prior EPA rulemaking action where EPA disapproved a SIP and claims that action shows EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject the SIP. The Commenter points to a 2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing control strategy plans addressing the SO2 NAAQS. The Commenter claims EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) for disapproving a revision to the state plan on the basis that the State failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and claims EPA cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. The Commenter claims the revisions to Missouri's control strategy SIP for SO2 were rejected by EPA because the revised control strategy limits were also in Missouri's infrastructure SIP and thus the weakened limits would have impacted the infrastructure SIP's ability to aid in attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. Response 5: EPA does not agree the prior Missouri rulemaking action referenced by the Commenter establishes how EPA reviews infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from the final Missouri rule that EPA was not reviewing initial infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather reviewing revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. Nothing in that action addresses the necessary content of the initial infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. B. Sierra Club Comments on New Hampshire SIP SO2 Emission Limits The Commenter contends that the New Hampshire 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP revisions did not revise the existing SO2 emission limits in response to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and fail to comport with assorted CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable emission limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment. Comment 6: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the Commenter contends that EPA may not approve New Hampshire's proposed 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP, because it does not include SO2 emissions limits or other required measures sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment, which the Commenter claims is required by section 110(a)(2)(A), and because it does not include SO2 emission limits ``set in light of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or even analyzed in light of the standard.'' The Commenter also contended that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires not only that the state air agency has the authority to adopt future emission limitations, but that the SIP include existing substantive emission limitations. The Commenter also provided results from a refined air dispersion modeling analysis that evaluated SO2 impacts from Schiller Station, which the commenter asserts demonstrate that SO2 emission limits relied on in the infrastructure SIP are insufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS in both New Hampshire and Maine and claims that emissions from this source can in theory, and have in practice, resulted in exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Lastly, the commenter asserted the structure of the Act makes clear that Congress did not intend states to be relieved of their infrastructure SIP obligations under section 110(a)(2)(A) until designations occur. For all of these reasons, the Commenter maintained that EPA should disapprove New Hampshire's SO2 infrastructure SIP and promulgate a FIP. Response 6: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA must disapprove New Hampshire's SO2 infrastructure SIP for the reasons provided by the Commenter, including the Commenter's modeling results and the state's allegedly insufficient SO2 emission limits. EPA is not in this action making a determination regarding the State's current air quality status or regarding whether its control strategy is sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not in this action making any judgment on whether the Commenter's submitted modeling demonstrates the NAAQS exceedances that the Commenter claims. EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit infrastructure SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attainment and maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions should contain a demonstration the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS and show that the SIP has enforceable control measures. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's longstanding position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. As mentioned above, EPA has interpreted this to mean with regard to the requirement for emission limitations that states may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As stated in response to a previous more general comment, section 110 of the CAA is only one provision that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the State demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program. As discussed above, EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in section 110 to mean the state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA stated in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, which specifically provides guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by [[Page 44547]] making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.'' 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2. On April 12, 2012, EPA explained its expectations regarding implementation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS via letters to each of the states. EPA communicated in the April 2012 letters that all states were expected to submit SIPs meeting the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA by June 2013. At the time, EPA was undertaking a stakeholder outreach process to continue to develop possible approaches for determining attainment status under the SO2 NAAQS and implementing this NAAQS. EPA made abundantly clear in the April 2012 letters that EPA did not expect states to submit substantive attainment demonstrations or modeling demonstrations showing attainment for areas not designated nonattainment in infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013. Although EPA had previously suggested in its 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble and in prior draft implementation guidance in 2011 that states should, in the unique SO2 context, use the section 110(a) SIP process as the vehicle for demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS, this approach was never adopted as a binding requirement and was subsequently discarded in the April 2012 letters to states. The April 2012 letters recommended states focus infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, such as New Hampshire's SO2 infrastructure SIP, on traditional ``infrastructure elements'' in section 110(a)(1) and (2) rather than on modeling demonstrations for future attainment for areas not designated as nonattainment.\5\ Therefore, EPA asserts that evaluations of modeling demonstrations such as the one submitted by the Commenter are more appropriately considered in actions that make determinations regarding states' current air quality status or regarding future air quality status. EPA also asserts that SIP revisions for SO2 nonattainment areas, including measures and modeling demonstrating attainment, are due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 5 under part D. Those submissions are due no later than 18 months after an area is designated nonattainment for SO2, under CAA section 191(a). Thus, the CAA directs states to submit these SIP requirements that are specific for nonattainment areas on a separate schedule from the ``structural requirements'' of 110(a)(2) which are due within three years of adoption or revision of a NAAQS and which apply statewide. The infrastructure SIP submission requirement does not move up the date for any required submission of a part D plan for areas designated nonattainment for the new NAAQS. Thus, elements relating to demonstrating attainment for areas not attaining the NAAQS are not necessary for infrastructure SIP submissions,\6\ and the CAA does not provide explicit requirements for demonstrating attainment for areas that have not yet been designated regarding attainment with a particular NAAQS. As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether New Hampshire has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the infrastructure submittal. Emissions limitations and other control measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements. A state, like New Hampshire, may reference preexisting SIP emission limits or other rules contained in part D plans for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission. New Hampshire's existing rules and emission reduction measures in the SIP that control emissions of SO2 were discussed in the state's submittal.\7\ These provisions have the ability to reduce SO2 overall. Although the New Hampshire SIP relies on measures and programs used to implement previous SO2 NAAQS, these provisions are not limited to reducing SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS and will continue to provide benefits for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, as discussed in the NPR, New Hampshire has the ability to revise its SIP when necessary (e.g. in the event the Administrator finds the plan to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or otherwise meet all applicable CAA requirements) as required under element H of section 110(a)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ In EPA's final SO2 NAAQS preamble, 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), and subsequent draft guidance in March and September 2011, EPA had expressed its expectation that many areas would be initially designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available before which states could conduct modeling to support their designations recommendations due in June 2011. In order to address concerns about potential violations in these unclassifiable areas, EPA initially recommended that states submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling by June 2013 (under section 110(a)) that show how their unclassifiable areas would attain and maintain the NAAQS in the future. Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (``2012 Draft White Paper'') (for discussion purposes with Stakeholders at meetings in May and June 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. However, EPA clearly stated in this 2012 Draft White Paper its clarified implementation position that it was no longer recommending such attainment demonstrations for unclassifiable areas for June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. Id. EPA had stated in the preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling and development of SIPs for sections 110 and 191 of the CAA. Section 191 of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs in accordance with section 172 for areas designated nonattainment with the SO2 NAAQS. After seeking such comment, EPA has now issued guidance for the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 191 and 172. See Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors Regions 1-10, April 23, 2014. In September 2013, EPA had previously issued specific guidance relevant to infrastructure SIP submissions due for the NAAQS, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance. \6\ For this reason, EPA disagrees with the comment that the infrastructure SIP process is the appropriate mechanism in which to demonstrate that emission limitations for Merrimack Station are sufficient to ensure the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area attains the standard. \7\ New Hampshire cites to several SIP approved emission limitations relevant to SO2 to demonstrate compliance with section 110(a)(2)(A), including Chapter Env-A 400 (Sulfur Content Limits in Fuels)(renumbered Env-A 1600). Thus, to the extent the Commenter meant to suggest that New Hampshire only has authority to set future emission limitations, but that the SIP contains none relevant to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, we disagree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The requirements for emission reduction measures for an area designated nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS are in sections 172 and 191-192 of the CAA, and therefore, the appropriate avenue for implementing requirements for necessary emission limitations for demonstrating attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is through the attainment planning process contemplated by those sections of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA designated as nonattainment most areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicated violations of the 1-hour SO2 standard. 78 FR 47191. At that time, one area in New Hampshire had monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicating violations of the 1-hour SO2 standard, and this area was designated nonattainment in New Hampshire. See 40 CFR 81.330. On March 2, 2015 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a Consent Decree among the EPA, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council to resolve litigation concerning the deadline for completing designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, EPA will complete additional designations for all remaining areas of the country including remaining areas in New Hampshire.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ The Consent Decree, entered March 2, 2015 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Sierra Club and NRDC v. EPA, Case 3:13-cv-03953-SI (N.D. Cal.) is available at http://www3.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44548]] For the area designated nonattainment in New Hampshire in August 2013, the attainment SIP was due by April 4, 2015 and must contain a demonstration that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018 pursuant to sections 172, 191 and 192 of the CAA, including a plan for enforceable measures to reach attainment of the NAAQS. Similar attainment planning SIPs for any additional areas which EPA subsequently designates nonattainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS will be due for such areas within the timeframes specified in CAA section 191. EPA believes it is not appropriate to interpret the overall section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP obligation to require bypassing the attainment planning process by imposing separate requirements outside the attainment planning process. Such actions would be disruptive and premature absent exceptional circumstances and would interfere with a state's planning process. See In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP and First Energy Generation Corp., Order on Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07, and III 2013-01 (July 30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order) at 10-19 (finding Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition of 1-hour SO2 emission limits on sources independent of the part D attainment planning process contemplated by the CAA). The history of the CAA and intent of Congress for the CAA as described above demonstrate clearly that it is within the section 172 and general part D attainment planning process that New Hampshire must include SO2 emission limits on sources, where needed, for the area designated nonattainment to reach attainment with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and for any additional areas EPA may subsequently designate nonattainment. EPA agrees that the structure of the Act makes clear that Congress did not intend to postpone a state's obligation to submit and infrastructure SIP under section 110(a)(2)(A) until designations occur. EPA disagrees, however, with the Commenter's interpretation that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires a state to submit SO2 emission limitations for individual sources during this infrastructure SIP planning process that ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As stated above, in light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the State demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS. As noted in EPA's preamble for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, determining compliance with the SO2 NAAQS will likely be a source-driven analysis and EPA has explored options to ensure that the SO2 designations process realistically accounts for anticipated SO2 reductions at sources that we expect will be achieved by current and pending national and regional rules. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). As mentioned previously, EPA will act in accordance with the entered Consent Decree's schedule for conducting additional designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and any areas designated nonattainment must meet the applicable part D requirements for these areas. However, because the purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is for more general planning purposes, EPA does not believe New Hampshire was obligated during this infrastructure SIP planning process to account for controlled SO2 levels at individual sources to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A). See Homer City/Mansfield Order at 10-19. Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by the Commenter pursuant to AERMOD for Schiller Station, EPA does not find the modeling information relevant at this time for review of an infrastructure SIP. While EPA has extensively discussed the use of modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for designations, EPA has affirmatively stated such modeling was not needed to demonstrate attainment for the SO2 infrastructure SIPs under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See April 12, 2012 letters to states regarding SO2 implementation and Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.\9\ EPA's Data Requirements Rule contains a process by which state air agencies characterize air quality around SO2 sources through ambient monitoring and/or air quality modeling techniques and submit such data to the EPA. See, e.g., 80 FR 51502 (Aug. 21, 2015). The rule includes a discussion of how EPA anticipates addressing modeling that informs determinations of states' air quality status under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As stated above, EPA believes it is not appropriate to bypass the attainment planning process by imposing separate attainment planning process requirements outside part D and into the infrastructure SIP process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ EPA has provided draft guidance for states regarding modeling analyses to support the designations process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document (draft), EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 2013, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statements that EPA must disapprove New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission because it does not establish specific enforceable SO2 emission limits, either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in order to demonstrate attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS at this time.\10\ Because we are approving New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A), we need not promulgate a federal implementation plan. See CAA section 110(c)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Finally, EPA does not disagree with the Commenter's claim that coal-fired EGUs are a large source of SO2 emissions in New Hampshire based on the 2011 NEI. However, EPA does not agree that this information is relevant to our approval of the infrastructure SIP, which EPA has explained meets requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: The Commenter claims that New Hampshire's proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP lacks emission limitations for Schiller Station informed by air dispersion modeling as well as other large SO2 sources outside of the nonattainment area and therefore fails to ensure New Hampshire will attain and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Commenter claims EPA must disapprove the SO2 infrastructure SIP as it does not ``prevent exceedances'' or ensure attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. Response 7: EPA agrees with the Commenter that air dispersion modeling, such as AERMOD, can be an important tool in the CAA section 107 designations process for SO2 and in developing SIPs for nonattainment areas as required by sections 172 and 191-192, including supporting required attainment demonstrations. EPA agrees that prior EPA statements, EPA guidance, and case law support the use of air dispersion modeling in the SO2 designations process and attainment demonstration process, as well as in analyses of the interstate impact of transported emissions and whether existing approved SIPs remain adequate [[Page 44549]] to show attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. However, as provided in the previous responses, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA must disapprove the New Hampshire SO2 infrastructure SIP for its alleged failure to include source-specific SO2 emission limits that show no exceedances of the NAAQS when modeled or ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In acting to approve or disapprove an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not required to make findings regarding current air quality status of areas within the state, such area's projected future air quality status, or whether existing emissions limits in such area are sufficient to meet a NAAQS in the area. The attainment planning process detailed in part D of the CAA, including sections 172 and 191-192 attainment SIPs, is the appropriate place for the state to evaluate measures needed to bring in-state nonattainment areas into attainment with a NAAQS and to impose additional emission limitations such as SO2 emission limits on specific sources. EPA had initially recommended that states submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble, 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), and in subsequent draft guidance issued in September 2011 for the section 110(a) SIPs due in June 2013 in order to show how areas then- expected to be designated as unclassifiable would attain and maintain the NAAQS. These initial statements in the preamble and 2011 draft guidance, presented only in the context of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and not suggested as a matter of general infrastructure SIP policy, were based on EPA's expectation at the time that, by June 2012, most areas would initially be designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available before which states could conduct modeling to support designations recommendations in 2011. However, after conducting extensive stakeholder outreach and receiving comments from the states regarding these initial statements and the timeline for implementing the NAAQS, EPA subsequently stated in the April 12, 2012 letters and in the 2012 Draft White Paper that EPA was clarifying its 2010 SO2 NAAQS implementation position and was no longer recommending such attainment demonstrations supported by air dispersion modeling for unclassifiable areas (which had not yet been designated) for the June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. Instead, EPA explained that it expected states to submit infrastructure SIPs that followed the general policy EPA had applied under other NAAQS. EPA then reaffirmed this position in the February 6, 2013 memorandum, ``Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' \11\ As previously mentioned, EPA had stated in the preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling and development of SIPs for sections 110, 172 and 191- 192 of the CAA. After receiving such further comment, EPA has now issued guidance for the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 172 and 191-192. See April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. In addition, modeling may be an appropriate consideration for states and EPA in further designations for the SO2 NAAQS in accordance with the Sierra Club and NRDC Consent Decree and the data requirements rule mentioned previously.\12\ While the EPA guidance for attainment SIPs and for designations for CAA section 107 and the process for characterizing SO2 emissions from larger sources discuss the use of air dispersion modeling, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not suggest that states use air dispersion modeling for purposes of the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP. Therefore, as discussed previously, EPA believes the New Hampshire SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal contains the structural requirements to address elements in section 110(a)(2) as discussed in the proposed approval. EPA believes infrastructure SIPs are general planning SIPs to ensure that a state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS. Infrastructure SIP submissions are not intended to act or fulfill the obligations of a detailed attainment and/or maintenance plan for each individual area of the state that is not attaining the NAAQS. While infrastructure SIPs must address modeling authorities in general for section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA believes 110(a)(2)(K) requires infrastructure SIPs to provide the state's authority for air quality modeling and for submission of modeling data to EPA, not specific air dispersion modeling for large stationary sources of pollutants. In the proposal for this rulemaking action, EPA provided an explanation of New Hampshire's ability and authority to conduct air quality modeling when required and its authority to submit modeling data to the EPA. The comments relating to EPA's use of AERMOD or modeling in general in designations pursuant to section 107 are likewise irrelevant as EPA's present approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP is unrelated to the section 107 designations process. As outlined in the August 23, 2010 clarification memo, ``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA, 2010a), AERMOD is the preferred model for single source modeling to address the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the NSR/PSD permit programs. Therefore, as attainment SIPs, designations, and NSR/PSD actions are outside the scope of a required infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a), EPA provides no further response to the Commenter's discussion of air dispersion modeling for these applications. If the Commenter resubmits its air dispersion modeling for the New Hampshire EGU, or updated modeling information in the appropriate context, EPA will address the resubmitted modeling or updated modeling at that time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The February 6, 2013 ``Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' one of the April 12, 2012 state letters, and the May 2012 Draft White Paper are available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. \12\ The Consent Decree in Sierra Club and NRDC v. EPA, Case 3:13-cv-03953-SI (N.D. Cal.) is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf. See 80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015 (EPA's data requirements rule). See also Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, March 20, 2015, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20150320SO2 designations.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commenter, citing administrative law principles regarding consideration of comments provided during a rulemaking process,\13\ contends that EPA must consider the modeling data the Commenter has submitted ``over the years which demonstrate the inadequacy of New Hampshire's rules.'' For the reasons previously explained, however, the purpose for which the Commenter submitted the modeling--namely, to assert that current air quality in the area in which Schiller Station is located does not meet the NAAQS--is not relevant to EPA's action on this infrastructure SIP, and consequently EPA is not required to consider the modeling in evaluating the approvability of the infrastructure SIP. [[Page 44550]] EPA does not believe infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limitations informed by air dispersion modeling in order to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA has evaluated the persuasiveness of the Commenter's submitted modeling in finding that it is not relevant to the approvability of New Hampshire's proposed infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but EPA has made no judgment regarding whether the Commenter's submitted modeling is sufficient to show violations of the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The Commenter cites to Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While EPA does not believe that infrastructure SIP submissions are required to contain emission limits assuring in-state attainment of the NAAQS, as suggested by the Commenter, EPA does recognize that in the past, states have, in their discretion, used infrastructure SIP submittals as a `vehicle' for incorporating regulatory revisions or source-specific emission limits into the state's plan. See 78 FR 73442 (December 6, 2013) (approving regulations Maryland submitted for incorporation into the SIP along with the 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP to address ethics requirements for State Boards in sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)). While these SIP revisions are intended to help the state meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), these ``ride-along'' SIP revisions are not intended to signify that all infrastructure SIP submittals must, in order to be approved by EPA, have similar regulatory revisions or source-specific emission limits. Rather, the regulatory provisions and source-specific emission limits the state relies on when showing compliance with section 110(a)(2) have, in many cases, likely already been incorporated into the state's SIP prior to each new infrastructure SIP submission; in some cases this was done for entirely separate CAA requirements, such as attainment plans required under section 172, or for previous NAAQS. Comment 8: The Commenter asserts that EPA may not approve the proposed New Hampshire SO2 infrastructure SIP because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging time (or, if longer averaging periods are used, more stringent numerical emission limits) that apply at all times. For support, the Commenter cites to the definition of ``emission limitation'' at CAA section 302(k). The Commenter also claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times are necessary for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS citing to EPA's April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, a February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the need for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in a PSD permit, an EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) decision rejecting use of a 3-hour averaging time for a SO2 limit in a PSD permit,\14\ and EPA's disapproval of a Missouri SIP that relied on annual averaging for SO2 emission rates.\15\ Thus, the Commenter contends EPA must disapprove New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP, which the Commenter claims fails to require emission limits with adequate averaging times. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ In re Mississippi Lime Co., 15 E.A.D. 349, 379-82 (EAB Aug. 9, 2011). \15\ 71 FR 12623, 12,624 (Mar. 13, 2006) (disapproving a control strategy SO2 SIP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response 8: EPA disagrees that EPA must disapprove the proposed New Hampshire infrastructure SIP because the SIP does not contain enforceable SO2 emission limitations with 1-hour averaging periods that apply at all times, as this issue is not appropriate for resolution at this stage. The comment does not assert that the SO2 emission limits in New Hampshire's SIP are not enforceable or that they do not apply at all times, instead the comment focuses on the lack of 1-hour averaging times. As EPA has noted previously, the purpose of the section 110(a)(2) SIP is to ensure that the State has the necessary structural components to implement programs for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ As EPA has stated, some areas are designated nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA section 107 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the State. Thus, while the State, at this time, has an obligation to submit attainment plans for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for sections 172, 191 and 192, EPA believes the appropriate time for examining necessity of the averaging periods within any submitted SO2 emission limits on specific sources is within the attainment planning process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While EPA does agree that the averaging time is a critical consideration for purposes of substantive SIP revisions, such as attainment demonstrations, the averaging time of existing rules in the SIP is not relevant for determining that the State has met the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the infrastructure elements addressed in the present SIP action.\17\ Therefore, because EPA finds New Hampshire's SO2 infrastructure SIP approvable without the additional SO2 emission limitations showing in-state attainment of the NAAQS, EPA finds the issues of appropriate averaging periods for such future limitations not relevant at this time. The Commenter has cited to prior EPA discussion on emission limitations required in PSD permits (from an EAB decision and EPA's letter to Kansas' permitting authority) pursuant to part C of the CAA, which is neither relevant nor applicable to the present SIP action. In addition, as previously discussed, the EPA disapproval of the 2006 Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating to a control strategy SIP required pursuant to part D attainment planning and is likewise not relevant to the analysis of infrastructure SIP requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. EPA explained that it is possible, in specific cases, for states to develop control strategies that account for variability in 1-hour emissions rates through emission limits with averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using averaging times as long as 30- days, but still provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as the limits are of at least comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit at the critical emission value. EPA has not yet evaluated any specific submission of such a limit, and so is not at this time prepared to take final action to implement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 9: The Commenter states that enforceable emission limits in SIPs are necessary to avoid additional nonattainment designations in areas where modeling or monitoring shows SO2 levels exceed the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and cites to a February 6, 2013 EPA document, Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, which the Commenter contends discusses how states could avoid future nonattainment designations. The Commenter claims the modeling it conducted for Schiller Station indicates exceedances over a wide area in both New Hampshire and Maine. The Commenter states that additional areas in New Hampshire will have to be designated nonattainment ``if source-specific enforceable emissions limits are not placed on PSNH Schiller Station through this I-SIP.'' In summary, the Commenter asserts that, ``in order to implement the NAAQS, comply with section 110(a)(2)(A), and avoid additional nonattainment designations for areas impacted by'' Schiller Station, EPA must disapprove the New Hampshire infrastructure SIP and ensure that emission limits ``relied upon in the Infrastructure SIP'' will not allow large sources of SO2 to cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Response 9: EPA appreciates the Commenter's concern with avoiding nonattainment designations in New Hampshire for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, Congress designed the CAA such that states have the primary responsibility for achieving and maintaining the NAAQS within their geographic areas by submitting SIPs [[Page 44551]] which will specify the details of how the states will meet the NAAQS. Pursuant to section 107(d), the states make initial recommendations of designations for areas within each state and EPA then promulgates the designations after considering the state's submission and other information. EPA promulgated initial designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in August 2013 for areas in which monitoring at that time showed violations of the NAAQS, but has not yet issued designations for other areas and will complete the required designations pursuant to the schedule contained in the recently entered Consent Decree. EPA will designate additional areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in accordance with CAA section 107 and existing EPA policy and guidance. New Hampshire may, on its own accord, decide to impose additional SO2 emission limitations to avoid future designations to nonattainment. If additional New Hampshire areas are designated nonattainment, New Hampshire will then have the initial opportunity to develop additional emissions limitations needed to attain the NAAQS, and EPA would be charged with reviewing whether the SIP is adequate to demonstrate attainment. See Commonwealth of Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) (discussing that states have primary responsibility for determining an emission reductions program for its areas subject to EPA approval dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets applicable requirements of the CAA). However, such considerations are not required of New Hampshire at the infrastructure SIP stage of NAAQS implementation, as the Commenter's statements concern the separate designations process under section 107.\18\ EPA disagrees that the infrastructure SIP must be disapproved for not including enforceable emissions limitations to prevent future 1-hour SO2 nonattainment designations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ EPA also notes that in EPA's final rule regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA noted that it anticipates several forthcoming national and regional rules, such as the Industrial Boilers standard under CAA section 112, are likely to require significant reductions in SO2 emissions over the next several years. See 75 FR 35520. EPA continues to believe similar national and regional rules will lead to SO2 reductions that will help achieve compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. If it appears that states with areas designated nonattainment in 2013 will nevertheless fail to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable (but no later than October 2018) during EPA's review of attainment SIPs required by section 172, the CAA provides authorities and tools for EPA to solve such failure, including, as appropriate, disapproving submitted SIPs and promulgating federal implementation plans. Likewise, for any areas designated nonattainment after 2013, EPA has the same authorities and tools available to address any areas which do not timely attain the NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 10: The commenter notes that New Hampshire did not include a submittal to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (the so-called ``Good Neighbor'' provision) and asserts that, as a result, ``EPA must take immediate action here to disapprove the SO2 I-SIP Certification . . . and initiate the FIP [Federal Implementation Plan] process with regard to the I-SIP's `Good Neighbor' provisions.'' Response 10: EPA is not taking any action at this time with respect to Element D(i)(I), which addresses emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, also known as ``good neighbor'' SIPs or ``interstate transport'' SIPs. 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 September 13, 2013infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 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 September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal. Because New Hampshire did not make a submission in its September 13, 2013 SIP submittal 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 September 13, 2013 SIP submittal 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) of the CAA. 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 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, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 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. 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. 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. With respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA has not issued a finding of failure to submit, issued a finding of incompleteness, or disapproved the submission in whole or in part. 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 SO2 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 SO2 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,\19\ and is thus not pertinent to this [[Page 44552]] rulemaking, EPA provides no further response. In sum, New Hampshire's and EPA's obligations regarding interstate transport of pollution for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS will be addressed in later rulemakings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See 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.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Final Action EPA is approving a SIP submission from New Hampshire certifying the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 SO2 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 2010 SO2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (A): Emission limits and other control measures........ A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system.... A (C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures.................... A (C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major A * modifications......................................... (C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and A minor modifications................................... (D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with NS maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2)................. (D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3).............................. A * (D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4)............ A (D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement................ A * (D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement............. A (E)(i): Adequate resources............................. A (E)(ii): State boards.................................. A (E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local NA agencies.............................................. (F): Stationary source monitoring system............... A (G): Emergency power................................... A (H): Future SIP revisions.............................. A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under + part D................................................ (J)(i): Consultation with government officials......... A (J)(ii): Public notification........................... A (J)(iii): PSD.......................................... A * (J)(iv): Visibility protection......................... + (K): Air quality modeling and data..................... A (L): Permitting fees................................... A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local A entities.............................................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Additionally, we are updating the classification of two air quality control regions in New Hampshire at 40 CFR 52.1521. The classification of the Androscoggin Valley Interstate control region is being revised from Priority 1A to Priority III and the Merrimack Valley--Southern New Hampshire Interstate control region is being revised from Priority I to Priority III based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state. 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 2010 SO2 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 within 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 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 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). [[Page 44553]] 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 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). 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 September 6, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides. Dated: June 15, 2016. 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 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart EE--New Hampshire 0 2. Section 52.1519 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows: Sec. 52.1519 Identification of plan--conditional approval. (a) * * * (11) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on September 13, 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. * * * * * 0 3. In Sec. 52.1520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry for ``Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * New Hampshire Nonregulatory ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal date/ EPA approved date Explanations provision or nonattainment area effective date \3\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * Infrastructure SIP for the Statewide............. 9/13/2013 7/8/2016 [Insert Approved submittal, 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Federal Register except for certain citation] aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519. [[Page 44554]] * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. 0 4. In Sec. 52.1521, the table is amended by revising the entries for ``Androscoggin Valley Interstate'' and ``Merrimack Valley--Southern New Hampshire Interstate'' to read as follows: Sec. 52.1521 Classification of regions. * * * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Air quality control region Particulate Nitrogen matter Sulfur oxides dioxide Carbon monoxide Ozone -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Androscoggin Valley Interstate..................................... IA III III III III * * * * * * * Merrimack Valley--Southern New Hampshire Interstate................ I III III III I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2016-15623 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![44542 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The bridge owner, Connecticut ACTION: Final rule. A. Sierra Club General Comments on
Department of Transportation, requested Emission Limitations
a temporary deviation from the normal SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 1. The Plain Language of the CAA
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 2. The Legislative History of the CAA
operating schedule to perform timber 3. Case Law
ties replacement and steel repairs at the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from New Hampshire 4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR
bridge. 51.112(a)
Under this temporary deviation, the regarding the infrastructure 5. EPA Interpretations in Other
Metro-North Devon Bridge will operate requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA Rulemakings
according to the schedule below: or Act) for the 2010 sulfur dioxide B. Sierra Club Comments on New
a. From 8 a.m. on September 6, 2016 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Hampshire SIP SO2 Emission Limits
through 4 a.m. on September 9, 2016, (NAAQS). EPA is also updating the III. Final Action
classification for two of New IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
the bridge will not open to marine
traffic. Hampshire’s air quality control regions I. Summary of SIP Revision
b. From 4 a.m. on September 9, 2016 for sulfur dioxide based on recent air
quality monitoring data collected by the On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA
through 8 a.m. on September 12, 2016, promulgated a revised NAAQS for the
the bridge will open fully on signal state. Last, we are conditionally
approving certain elements of New 1-hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts
upon 24 hr advance notice. per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
c. From 8 a.m. on September 12, 2016 Hampshire’s submittal relating to
prevention of significant deterioration average of the annual 99th percentile of
through 4 a.m. on September 16, 2016, 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
the bridge will not open to marine requirements.
The infrastructure requirements are Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
traffic. CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
d. From 4 a.m. on September 16, 2016 designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality meeting the applicable requirements of
through 8 a.m. on September 19, 2016, section 110(a)(2) within three years after
the bridge will open fully on signal management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under promulgation of a new or revised
upon 24 hr advance notice. NAAQS or within such shorter period
Vessels able to pass under the bridge the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on as EPA may prescribe.
in the closed position may do so at On September 13, 2013, the New
anytime. The bridge will not be able to August 8, 2016.
Hampshire Department of
open for emergencies and there is no ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
Environmental Services (NH DES)
immediate alternate route for vessels to docket for this action under Docket ID
submitted a SIP revision addressing
pass. Number EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950. All
infrastructure elements specified in
The Coast Guard will inform the users documents in the docket are listed in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to
of the waterways through our Local the www.regulations.gov Web site.
implement, maintain, and enforce the
Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the Although listed in the electronic docket,
2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS. On July
change in operating schedule for the some information is not publicly
17, 2015 (80 FR 42446), EPA published
bridge so that vessel operations can available, i.e., confidential business
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
arrange their transits to minimize any information (CBI) or other information
for the State of New Hampshire
impact caused by the temporary whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
proposing approval of New Hampshire’s
deviation. Certain other material, such as
submittal. In the NPR, EPA proposed
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), copyrighted material, is not placed on
approval of the following infrastructure
the drawbridge must return to its regular the Internet and will be publicly
elements: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
operating schedule immediately at the available only in hard copy form.
(enforcement and minor new source
end of the effective period of this Publicly available docket materials are
review), (D)(i)(II) (Visibility Protection),
temporary deviation. This deviation available at http://www.regulations.gov
(D)(ii) (International Pollution
from the operating regulations is or at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Abatement), (E)(i) and (ii), (F), (G), (H),
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Agency, EPA New England Regional
(J) (consultation, public notification,
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Dated: July 5, 2016. and visibility protection), (K), (L), and
Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
C.J. Bisignano, (M), or portions thereof. EPA also
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, proposed to approve the PSD program
requests that if at all possible, you
First Coast Guard District. relating to infrastructure elements
contact the contact listed in the FOR
[FR Doc. 2016–16187 Filed 7–7–16; 8:45 am] (C)(ii), D(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii), except
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P to conditionally approve the aspect of
schedule your inspection. The Regional
the PSD program relating to notification
Office’s official hours of business are
to neighboring states. Within the same
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NPR, EPA also proposed taking similar
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
AGENCY action on New Hampshire’s
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: infrastructure SIP submittals for the
Donald Dahl, (617) 918–1657, or by 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and the 2010
40 CFR Part 52
email at dahl.donald@epa.gov. nitrogen dioxide standards. EPA has
[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950; FRL–9948–58– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: already finalized its action on the
Region 1] Throughout this document whenever infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 2008 ozone, and the 2010 nitrogen
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire;
EPA. dioxide standards (80 FR 78139,
Infrastructure Requirements for the Organization of this document. The
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient December 16, 2015).
following outline is provided to aid in In New Hampshire’s September 13,
Air Quality Standards locating information in this preamble. 2013 infrastructure SIP for the SO2
AGENCY: Environmental Protection I. Summary of SIP Revision NAAQS, the state did not submit
Agency (EPA). II. Public Comments section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 44543
nonattainment requirements of part D, carry out through SIPs such as ‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section
Title I of the CAA, since this element is infrastructure SIPs required by section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must
not required to be submitted by the 110(a)(2). The Commenter also states include ‘‘emission limitations,
3-year submission deadline of section that on its face the CAA requires schedules, and timetables for
110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a infrastructure SIPs ‘‘to prevent compliance with such limitations, and
separate process. This rulemaking exceedances of the NAAQS.’’ In such other measures as may be
action also does not include action on support, the Commenter quotes the necessary to insure attainment and
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, language in section 110(a)(1), which maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’
because New Hampshire’s September requires states to adopt a plan for In 1977, Congress recognized that the
13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal implementation, maintenance, and existing structure was not sufficient and
did not include provisions for this enforcement of the NAAQS, and the many areas were still violating the
element. EPA will take later, separate language in section 110(a)(2)(A), which NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the
action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for requires SIPs to include enforceable first time added provisions requiring
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for New emissions limitations as may be states and EPA to identify whether areas
Hampshire. necessary to meet the requirements of of a state were violating the NAAQS
The rationale supporting EPA’s the CAA, which the Commenter claims (i.e., were nonattainment) or were
proposed rulemaking action, including includes attainment and maintenance of meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were
the scope of infrastructure SIPs in the NAAQS. The Commenter also notes attainment) and established specific
general, is explained in the published the use of the word ‘‘attain’’ in section planning requirements in section 172
NPR. The NPR is available in the docket 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) and suggests this is for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In
for this rulemaking at further evidence that the emission limits 1990, many areas still had air quality
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number provided for in section 110(a)(2)(A) not meeting the NAAQS and Congress
EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950. must ensure attainment of the NAAQS. again amended the CAA and added yet
Response 1: EPA disagrees that another layer of more prescriptive
II. Public Comments and EPA’s section 110 is clear on its face and must planning requirements for each of the
Responses be interpreted in the manner suggested NAAQS. At that same time, Congress
EPA received comments from the by the Commenter. As we have modified section 110 to remove
Sierra Club on the August 17, 2015 previously explained in response to the references to the section 110 SIP
proposed rulemaking action on New Commenter’s similar comments on providing for attainment, including
Hampshire’s 2010 SO2 infrastructure EPA’s actions approving other states’ removing pre-existing section
SIP. A full set of these comments is infrastructure SIPs, section 110 is only 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and
provided in the docket for this final one provision that is part of the renumbering subparagraph (B) as
rulemaking action. complicated structure governing section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally,
implementation of the NAAQS program Congress replaced the clause ‘‘as may be
A. Sierra Club General Comments on under the CAA, as amended in 1990, necessary to insure attainment and
Emission Limitations and it must be interpreted in the context maintenance [of the NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as
1. The Plain Language of the CAA of not only that structure, but also of the may be necessary or appropriate to meet
historical evolution of that structure.1 the applicable requirements of this
Comment 1: Sierra Club (hereafter EPA interprets infrastructure SIPs as chapter.’’ 2 Thus, the CAA has
referred to as Commenter) contends that more general planning SIPs, consistent significantly evolved in the more than
the plain language of section with the CAA as understood in light of 40 years since it was originally enacted.
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, legislative its history and structure. When Congress While at one time section 110 of the
history of the CAA, case law, EPA enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not CAA did provide the only detailed SIP
regulations such as 40 CFR 51.112(a), include provisions requiring states and planning provisions for states and
and EPA interpretations in prior the EPA to label areas as attainment or specified that such plans must provide
rulemakings require that infrastructure nonattainment. Rather, states were for attainment of the NAAQS, under the
SIPs include enforceable emission limits required to include all areas of the state structure of the current CAA, section
that ensure attainment and maintenance in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in
of the NAAQS. Accordingly, and section 110 set forth the core the planning process for a specific
Commenter contends that any substantive planning provisions for NAAQS. More detailed, later-enacted
infrastructure SIP where emission limits these AQCRs. At that time, Congress
are inadequate to prevent exceedances anticipated that states would be able to 2 The Commenter misses the mark by citing the
of the NAAQS must be disapproved. address air pollution quickly pursuant word ‘‘attain’’ in CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) as
The Commenter states the main to the very general planning provisions evidence that the emission limits submitted to
satisfy the infrastructure requirements of
objective of the infrastructure SIP in section 110 and could bring all areas 110(a)(2)(A) must ensure attainment of the NAAQS.
process ‘‘is to ensure that all areas of the into compliance with a new NAAQS That portion of section 110(a)(2)(H) is referencing
country meet the NAAQS’’ and states within five years. Moreover, at that CAA section 110(k)(5)—the ‘‘SIP call’’ process—
that nonattainment areas are addressed time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified which allows the Administrator to make a finding
of substantial inadequacy with respect to a SIP. As
through ‘‘nonattainment SIPs.’’ The that the section 110 plan provide for discussed at proposal, the existence of section
Commenter asserts the NAAQS ‘‘are the 110(k)(5) bolster’s the reasonableness of EPA’s
foundation upon which air emissions 1 See 80 FR 46494 (Aug. 5, 2015) (approving approach to infrastructure SIP requirements, which
limitations and standards for the entire Pennsylvania SO2 and ozone infrastructure SIP); 80 is based on a reasonable reading of sections
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
FR 11557 (Mar. 4, 2015) (approving Virginia SO2 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Section 110(k)(5) is one of
country are set,’’ including specific infrastructure SIP); 79 FR 62022 (Oct. 16, 2014) the avenues and mechanisms Congress provided to
emission limitations for most large (approving West Virginia SO2 infrastructure SIP); 79 address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
stationary sources, such as coal-fired FR 19001 (Apr. 7, 2014) (approving West Virginia SIPs. The SIP call process allows EPA to take
power plants. The Commenter discusses ozone infrastructure SIP); 79 FR 17043 (Mar. 27, appropriately tailored action, depending upon the
2014) (approving Virginia ozone infrastructure SIP); nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency.
the CAA’s framework whereby states and 80 FR 63436 (Oct. 20, 2015) (approving Section 110(a)(2)(H)(ii) ensures that the relevant
have primary responsibility to assure air Minnesota ozone, NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 state agency has the authority to revise the SIP in
quality within the state, which the states infrastructure SIP). response to a SIP call.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/2.svg)
![44544 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
provisions govern the substantive maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas Commenter also quotes several
planning process, including planning of the state. The Commenter also additional opinions in this vein,
for attainment of the NAAQS. contends that the legislative history of including Montana Sulphur & Chemical
Thus, section 110 of the CAA is only the CAA supports the interpretation that Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th
one provision of the complicated overall infrastructure SIPs under section Cir. 2012) (‘‘The Clean Air Act directs
structure governing implementation of 110(a)(2) must include enforceable states to develop implementation
the NAAQS program under the CAA, as emission limitations, citing the Senate plans—SIPs—that ‘assure’ attainment
amended in 1990, and must be Committee Report and the subsequent and maintenance of national ambient air
interpreted in the context of that Senate Conference Report quality standards (‘NAAQS’) through
structure and the historical evolution of accompanying the 1970 CAA. enforceable emission limitations.’’) and
that structure. In light of the revisions Response 2: As provided in the Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1161 (9th
to section 110 since 1970 and the later previous response, the CAA, as enacted Cir. 2001) (EPA’s analysis is required to
promulgated and more specific planning in 1970, including its legislative history, ‘‘reflect consideration of the prospects
requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot be interpreted in isolation from of meeting current attainment
reasonably interprets the requirement in the later amendments that refined that requirements under a revised air quality
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the structure and deleted relevant language plan.’’). Finally, the Commenter cites
plan provide for ‘‘implementation, from section 110 concerning Michigan Department of Environmental
maintenance and enforcement’’ to mean demonstrating attainment. See also 79 Quality v. Browner, for the proposition
that the SIP must contain enforceable FR at 17046 (responding to comments that an infrastructure SIP must
emission limits that will aid in attaining on Virginia’s ozone infrastructure SIP). ‘‘include[] emission limitations that
and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that In any event, the two excerpts of result in compliance with the NAAQS.’’
the state demonstrate that it has the legislative history the Commenter cites 230 F.3d 181, 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing
necessary tools to implement and merely provide that states should Train, 421 U.S. at 79).
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate include enforceable emission limits in Response 3: None of the cases the
state personnel and an enforcement their SIPs, and they do not mention or Commenter cites support its contention
program. EPA has interpreted the otherwise address whether states are that section 110(a)(2)(A) is clear that
requirement for emission limitations in required to include maintenance plans infrastructure SIPs must include
section 110 to mean that a state may rely for all areas of the state as part of the detailed plans providing for attainment
on measures already in place to address infrastructure SIP. and maintenance of the NAAQS in all
the pollutant at issue or any new control areas of the state, nor do they shed light
3. Case Law
measures that the state may choose to on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may
submit. Finally, as EPA has stated in the Comment 3: The Commenter also reasonably be interpreted. With the
2013 Guidance on Infrastructure State discusses several cases applying the exception of Train, none of the cases the
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements CAA which the Commenter claims Commenter cites concerned the
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) support its contention that courts have interpretation of CAA section
and 110(a)(2) (‘‘2013 Infrastructure SIP been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of
Guidance’’), which specifically provides requires enforceable emissions limits in the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the courts
infrastructure SIPs to prevent reference section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section
guidance to states in addressing the
exceedances of the NAAQS. The 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, ‘‘[t]he conceptual
Commenter first cites to language in background sections of decisions in the
purpose of an infrastructure SIP
Train v. Natural Resources Defense context of a challenge to an EPA action
submission is to assure that the air
Council, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), on revisions to a SIP that was required
agency’s SIP contains the necessary
addressing the requirement for and approved or disapproved as
structural requirements for the new or
‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating that meeting other provisions of the CAA or
revised NAAQS, whether by
emission limitations ‘‘are the specific in the context of an enforcement action.
establishing that the SIP already
rules to which operators of pollution In Train, the Court was addressing a
contains the necessary provisions, by
sources are subject, and which if state revision to an attainment plan
making a substantive SIP revision to enforced should result in ambient air submission made pursuant to section
update the SIP, or both.’’ 2013 which meets the national standards.’’ 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory
Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 1–2.3 The Commenter also cites Pennsylvania provision at that time regulating such
2. The Legislative History of the CAA Department of Environmental Resources submissions. The issue in that case
Comment 2: The Commenter cites two v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991), concerned whether changes to
excerpts from the legislative history of for the proposition that the CAA directs requirements that would occur before
the 1970 CAA, claiming they support an EPA to withhold approval of a SIP attainment was required were variances
interpretation that SIP revisions under where it does not ensure maintenance of that should be addressed pursuant to
CAA section 110 must include the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, the provision governing SIP revisions or
emissions limitations sufficient to show Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be
1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) addressed under section 110(f) of the
3 Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter CAA of 1970, which contained
general assertion that the main objective of contends that the 1990 Amendments do prescriptive criteria. The Court
infrastructure SIPs is to ensure all areas of the not alter how courts have interpreted concluded that EPA reasonably
country meet the NAAQS, as we believe the the requirements of section 110, quoting interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
infrastructure SIP process is the opportunity to
review the structural requirements of a state’s air
Alaska Department of Environmental a state’s choice of the mix of control
program. While the NAAQS can be a foundation Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 measures needed to attain the NAAQS
upon which emission limitations are set, as (2004), which in turn quoted section and that revisions to SIPs that would
explained in responses to subsequent comments, 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated not impact attainment of the NAAQS by
these emission limitations are generally set in the
attainment planning process envisioned by part D
that ‘‘SIPs must include certain the attainment date were not subject to
of title I of the CAA, including, but not limited to, measures Congress specified’’ to ensure the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the
CAA sections 172, 181–182, and 191–192. attainment of the NAAQS. The issue was not whether a section 110 SIP
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 44545
needs to provide for attainment or language was not part of the Court’s instead apply to infrastructure SIPs,
whether emissions limits providing holding in the case, which focused which are required to attain and
such are needed as part of the SIP; instead on whether EPA’s finding of SIP maintain the NAAQS in all areas of a
rather the issue was which statutory inadequacy, disapproval of the state’s state. The Commenter relies on a
provision governed when the state required responsive attainment statement in the preamble to the 1986
wanted to revise the emission limits in demonstration under section 110(k)(5), action restructuring and consolidating
its SIP if such revision would not and adoption of a remedial FIP under provisions in part 51, in which EPA
impact attainment or maintenance of the section 110(c) were lawful. The stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond the scope of
NAAQS. To the extent the holding in Commenter suggests that Alaska th[is] rulemaking to address the
the case has any bearing on how section Department of Environmental provisions of Part D of the Act . . .’’ 51
110(a)(2)(A) might be interpreted, it is Conservation stands for the proposition FR 40656, 40656 (Nov. 7, 1986). The
important to realize that in 1975, when that the 1990 CAA Amendments do not Commenter asserts 40 CFR 51.112(a)
the opinion was issued, section alter how courts interpret section 110. ‘‘identifies the plans to which it applies
110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section This claim is inaccurate. Rather, the as those that implement the NAAQS,’’
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which it contends means that
requirement to attain the NAAQS, a which, as noted previously, differs from § 51.112(a) is applicable to
reference that was removed in 1990. the pre-1990 version of that provision infrastructure SIPs.
The decision in Pennsylvania and the Court made no mention of the Response 4: The Commenter’s
Department of Environmental Resources changed language. Furthermore, the reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its
was also decided based on the pre-1990 Commenter also quotes the Court’s argument that infrastructure SIPs must
provision of the CAA. At issue was statement that ‘‘SIPs must include contain emission limits adequate to
whether EPA properly rejected a certain measures Congress specified,’’ ensure attainment and maintenance of
revision to an approved plan where the but that statement specifically the NAAQS is not supported. As an
inventories relied on by the state for the referenced the requirement in section initial matter, EPA notes this regulatory
updated submission had gaps. The 110(a)(2)(C), which requires an provision was initially promulgated and
Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the enforcement program and a program for later restructured and consolidated prior
pre-1990 CAA in support of EPA’s the regulation of the modification and to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in
disapproval, but did not provide any construction of new sources. Notably, at which Congress removed all references
interpretation of that provision. Yet, issue in that case was the state’s ‘‘new to ‘‘attainment’’ in section 110(a)(2)(A).
even if the Court had interpreted that source’’ permitting program, not its And, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR
provision, EPA notes that it was infrastructure SIP. 51.112 applies to plans specifically
modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this Two of the other cases the Commenter designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA
decision has little bearing on the issue cites, Michigan Department of interprets these provisions to apply
here. Environmental Quality and Hall, when states are developing ‘‘control
At issue in Mision was the definition interpret CAA section 110(l), the strategy’’ SIPs such as the detailed
of ‘‘emissions limitation,’’ not whether provision governing ‘‘revisions’’ to attainment and maintenance plans
section 110 requires the state to plans, and not the initial plan required under other provisions of the
demonstrate how all areas of the state submission requirement under section CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 110(a)(2) for a new or revised NAAQS, 1990, such as sections 175A, 181–182,
part of their infrastructure SIPs. The such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in and 191–192. The Commenter suggests
language from the opinion the this instance. In those cases, the courts that these provisions must apply to
Commenter quotes does not interpret cited to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for section 110 SIPs because in the
but rather merely describes section the purpose of providing a brief preamble to EPA’s action ‘‘restructuring
110(a)(2)(A); the decision in this case background of the CAA. and consolidating’’ provisions in part
has no bearing here.4 In Montana EPA does not believe any of these 51, EPA stated the new attainment
Sulphur, the Court was not reviewing an court decisions addressed required demonstration provisions in the 1977
measures for infrastructure SIPs and Amendments to the CAA were ‘‘beyond
infrastructure SIP, but rather EPA’s
believes nothing in the opinions the scope’’ of the rulemaking. It is
disapproval of a SIP and promulgation
addressed whether infrastructure SIPs important to note, however, that EPA’s
of a federal implementation plan (FIP)
need to contain measures to ensure action in 1986 was not to establish new
after a long history of the state failing to
attainment and maintenance of the substantive planning requirements, but
submit an adequate SIP in response to
NAAQS. rather was meant merely to consolidate
EPA’s finding under section 110(k)(5)
that the previously approved SIP was and restructure provisions that had
4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR
previously been promulgated. EPA
substantially inadequate to attain or 51.112(a)
noted that it had already issued
maintain the NAAQS. The Court cited Comment 4: The Commenter cites to guidance addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’
generally to sections 107 and 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that each attainment planning obligations. Also,
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the plan ‘‘must demonstrate that the as to maintenance regulations, EPA
proposition that SIPs should assure measures, rules and regulations expressly stated that it was not making
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS contained in it are adequate to provide any revisions other than to re-number
through emission limitations, but this for the timely attainment and those provisions. 51 FR at 40657.
maintenance of the [NAAQS].’’ The Although EPA was explicit that it was
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4 To the extent the comments could be read to
include an assertion that New Hampshire’s SIP does
Commenter asserts that this regulation not establishing requirements
not contain any ‘‘emissions limitations’’ relevant to requires infrastructure SIPs to include interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘Part
SO2, it should be noted that state regulations at emissions limits necessary to ensure D’’ of the CAA, it is clear the regulations
Env-A Chapter 400, Sulfur Content Limits in Fuels, attainment and maintenance of the being restructured and consolidated
which EPA previously approved into the state’s SIP,
see 40 CFR 52.1520(c), are similar to the regulations
NAAQS. The Commenter states the were intended to address control
that the Mision court found to be an ‘‘emission provisions of 40 CFR 51.112 are not strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA
limitation’’ in 1976. See 547 F.2d at 129. limited to nonattainment SIPs and clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/4.svg)
![44546 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control SIP revisions did not revise the existing states to submit infrastructure SIPs that
strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14 SO2 emission limits in response to the reflect the first step in their planning for
(‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2 2010 SO2 NAAQS and fail to comport attainment and maintenance of a new or
(portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of with assorted CAA requirements for revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions
attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82 SIPs to establish enforceable emission should contain a demonstration the
(‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at limits that are adequate to prohibit state has the available tools and
40,660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR NAAQS exceedances in areas not authority to develop and implement
51.112 contains consolidated provisions designated nonattainment. plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS
that are focused on control strategy SIPs, Comment 6: Citing section and show that the SIP has enforceable
and the infrastructure SIP is not such a 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the Commenter control measures. In light of the
plan. contends that EPA may not approve structure of the CAA, EPA’s
New Hampshire’s proposed 2010 SO2 longstanding position regarding
5. EPA Interpretations in Other infrastructure SIP, because it does not
Rulemakings infrastructure SIPs is that they are
include SO2 emissions limits or other general planning SIPs to ensure that the
Comment 5: The Commenter required measures sufficient to ensure state has adequate resources and
references a prior EPA rulemaking attainment and maintenance of the SO2 authority to implement a NAAQS in
action where EPA disapproved a SIP NAAQS in areas not designated general throughout the state and not
and claims that action shows EPA relied nonattainment, which the Commenter detailed attainment and maintenance
on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR claims is required by section plans for each individual area of the
51.112 to reject the SIP. The Commenter 110(a)(2)(A), and because it does not
points to a 2006 partial approval and state. As mentioned above, EPA has
include SO2 emission limits ‘‘set in light
partial disapproval of revisions to interpreted this to mean with regard to
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or even
Missouri’s existing control strategy the requirement for emission limitations
analyzed in light of the standard.’’ The
plans addressing the SO2 NAAQS. The that states may rely on measures already
Commenter also contended that section
Commenter claims EPA cited section in place to address the pollutant at issue
110(a)(2)(A) requires not only that the
110(a)(2)(A) for disapproving a revision or any new control measures that the
state air agency has the authority to
to the state plan on the basis that the state may choose to submit. As stated in
adopt future emission limitations, but
State failed to demonstrate the SIP was response to a previous more general
that the SIP include existing substantive
sufficient to ensure maintenance of the comment, section 110 of the CAA is
emission limitations. The Commenter
SO2 NAAQS after revision of an also provided results from a refined air only one provision that is part of the
emission limit and claims EPA cited to dispersion modeling analysis that complicated structure governing
40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan evaluated SO2 impacts from Schiller implementation of the NAAQS program
demonstrates the rules in a SIP are Station, which the commenter asserts under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
adequate to attain the NAAQS. The demonstrate that SO2 emission limits and it must be interpreted in the context
Commenter claims the revisions to relied on in the infrastructure SIP are of not only that structure, but also of the
Missouri’s control strategy SIP for SO2 insufficient to prevent exceedances of historical evolution of that structure. In
were rejected by EPA because the the NAAQS in both New Hampshire light of the revisions to section 110
revised control strategy limits were also and Maine and claims that emissions since 1970 and the later-promulgated
in Missouri’s infrastructure SIP and thus from this source can in theory, and have and more specific planning
the weakened limits would have in practice, resulted in exceedances of requirements of the CAA, EPA
impacted the infrastructure SIP’s ability the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Lastly, the reasonably interprets the requirement in
to aid in attaining and maintaining the commenter asserted the structure of the section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the
NAAQS. Act makes clear that Congress did not plan provide for ‘‘implementation,
Response 5: EPA does not agree the intend states to be relieved of their maintenance and enforcement’’ to mean
prior Missouri rulemaking action infrastructure SIP obligations under that the SIP must contain enforceable
referenced by the Commenter section 110(a)(2)(A) until designations emission limits that will aid in attaining
establishes how EPA reviews occur. For all of these reasons, the and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that
infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from the Commenter maintained that EPA should the State demonstrate that it has the
final Missouri rule that EPA was not disapprove New Hampshire’s SO2 necessary tools to implement and
reviewing initial infrastructure SIP infrastructure SIP and promulgate a FIP. enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate
submissions under section 110 of the Response 6: EPA disagrees with the state personnel and an enforcement
CAA, but rather reviewing revisions that Commenter that EPA must disapprove program. As discussed above, EPA has
would make an already approved SIP New Hampshire’s SO2 infrastructure SIP interpreted the requirement for emission
designed to demonstrate attainment of for the reasons provided by the limitations in section 110 to mean the
the NAAQS less stringent. EPA’s partial Commenter, including the Commenter’s state may rely on measures already in
approval and partial disapproval of modeling results and the state’s place to address the pollutant at issue or
revisions to restrictions on emissions of allegedly insufficient SO2 emission any new control measures that the state
sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP limits. EPA is not in this action making may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA
in 71 FR 12623 addressed a control a determination regarding the State’s stated in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP
strategy SIP and not an infrastructure current air quality status or regarding Guidance, which specifically provides
SIP. Nothing in that action addresses the whether its control strategy is sufficient guidance to states in addressing the
necessary content of the initial to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 2010 SO2 NAAQS, ‘‘[t]he conceptual
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
infrastructure SIP for a new or revised Therefore, EPA is not in this action purpose of an infrastructure SIP
NAAQS. making any judgment on whether the submission is to assure that the air
Commenter’s submitted modeling agency’s SIP contains the necessary
B. Sierra Club Comments on New demonstrates the NAAQS exceedances structural requirements for the new or
Hampshire SIP SO2 Emission Limits that the Commenter claims. EPA revised NAAQS, whether by
The Commenter contends that the believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the establishing that the SIP already
New Hampshire 2010 SO2 infrastructure CAA is reasonably interpreted to require contains the necessary provisions, by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 44551
which will specify the details of how infrastructure SIP must be disapproved Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31
the states will meet the NAAQS. for not including enforceable emissions (D.C. Cir. 2012), holding, among other
Pursuant to section 107(d), the states limitations to prevent future 1-hour SO2 things, that states had no obligation to
make initial recommendations of nonattainment designations. submit good neighbor SIPs until the
designations for areas within each state Comment 10: The commenter notes EPA had first quantified each state’s
and EPA then promulgates the that New Hampshire did not include a good neighbor obligation. Accordingly,
designations after considering the state’s submittal to satisfy CAA section under that decision the submission
submission and other information. EPA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (the so-called ‘‘Good deadline for good neighbor SIPs under
promulgated initial designations for the Neighbor’’ provision) and asserts that, as the CAA would not necessarily be tied
2010 SO2 NAAQS in August 2013 for a result, ‘‘EPA must take immediate to the promulgation of a new or revised
areas in which monitoring at that time action here to disapprove the SO2 I–SIP NAAQS. While the EPA sought review
showed violations of the NAAQS, but Certification . . . and initiate the FIP first with the D.C. Circuit en banc and
has not yet issued designations for other [Federal Implementation Plan] process then with the United States Supreme
areas and will complete the required with regard to the I–SIP’s ‘Good Court, the EPA complied with the D.C.
designations pursuant to the schedule Neighbor’ provisions.’’ Circuit’s ruling during the pendency of
contained in the recently entered Response 10: EPA is not taking any its appeal. The D.C. Circuit declined to
Consent Decree. EPA will designate action at this time with respect to consider EPA’s appeal en banc, but, on
additional areas for the 2010 SO2 Element D(i)(I), which addresses April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
NAAQS in accordance with CAA emissions that significantly contribute reversed the D.C. Circuit’s EME Homer
section 107 and existing EPA policy and to nonattainment or interfere with City opinion and held, among other
guidance. New Hampshire may, on its maintenance of the NAAQS in another things, that under the plain language of
own accord, decide to impose state, also known as ‘‘good neighbor’’ the CAA, states must submit SIPs
additional SO2 emission limitations to SIPs or ‘‘interstate transport’’ SIPs. As addressing the good neighbor
avoid future designations to the commenter notes, New Hampshire requirement in CAA section
nonattainment. If additional New did not include any provisions to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three years of
Hampshire areas are designated address the requirements of section promulgation of a new or revised
nonattainment, New Hampshire will 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its September 13, NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA
then have the initial opportunity to 2013infrastructure SIP submittal for the first provides guidance, technical data
develop additional emissions 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA did or rulemaking to quantify the state’s
limitations needed to attain the NAAQS, not propose to take any action with obligation.
and EPA would be charged with respect to New Hampshire’s obligations Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1),
reviewing whether the SIP is adequate pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for EPA is authorized and obligated to
to demonstrate attainment. See the September 13, 2013 infrastructure promulgate a FIP, if EPA takes any of
Commonwealth of Virginia v. EPA, 108 SIP submittal. the following actions: (1) Finds that a
F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Because New Hampshire did not state has failed to make a required SIP
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Browner, make a submission in its September 13, submission; (2) finds that a required
57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) 2013 SIP submittal to address the submission was incomplete; or (3)
(discussing that states have primary requirements of section disapproves a required SIP submission
responsibility for determining an 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA is not required to in whole or in part. With respect to the
emission reductions program for its have proposed or to take final SIP 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA has not issued
areas subject to EPA approval approval or disapproval action on this a finding of failure to submit, issued a
dependent upon whether the SIP as a element under section 110(k) of the finding of incompleteness, or
whole meets applicable requirements of CAA. In this case, there has been no disapproved the submission in whole or
the CAA). However, such considerations substantive submission for EPA to in part. Consequently, the two-year FIP
are not required of New Hampshire at evaluate under section 110(k). Nor does clock has not yet begun to run. EPA
the infrastructure SIP stage of NAAQS the lack of a submission addressing agrees in general that sections 110(a)(1)
implementation, as the Commenter’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require EPA to and (a)(2) of the CAA require states to
statements concern the separate disapprove New Hampshire’s submit, within three years of
designations process under section September 13, 2013 SIP submittal as to promulgation of a new or revised
107.18 EPA disagrees that the the other elements of section 110(a)(2). NAAQS, a plan that addresses cross-
EPA interprets its authority under state air pollution under section
18 EPA also notes that in EPA’s final rule section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this rulemaking,
regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA noted that it affording EPA the discretion to approve, however, EPA is only approving
anticipates several forthcoming national and or conditionally approve, individual
regional rules, such as the Industrial Boilers portions of New Hampshire’s
standard under CAA section 112, are likely to elements of New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the
require significant reductions in SO2 emissions over infrastructure SIP submissions, separate 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which did not
the next several years. See 75 FR 35520. EPA and apart from any action with respect include provisions for interstate
continues to believe similar national and regional to the requirements of section
rules will lead to SO2 reductions that will help transport under section
achieve compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. If 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA views 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A finding of failure to
it appears that states with areas designated discrete infrastructure SIP requirements submit a SIP submission for the 2010
nonattainment in 2013 will nevertheless fail to in section 110(a)(2), such as the SO2 NAAQS addressing section
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) could occur in a
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
(but no later than October 2018) during EPA’s
review of attainment SIPs required by section 172, severable from the other infrastructure separate rulemaking. As that issue was
the CAA provides authorities and tools for EPA to elements and interprets section not addressed in the July 17, 2015
solve such failure, including, as appropriate, 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on NPR,19 and is thus not pertinent to this
disapproving submitted SIPs and promulgating individual severable measures in a plan
federal implementation plans. Likewise, for any
areas designated nonattainment after 2013, EPA has submission. 19 See 80 FR 42446, 42452 (July 17, 2015) (‘‘In
the same authorities and tools available to address On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit today’s rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to
any areas which do not timely attain the NAAQS. issued a decision in EME Homer City Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 44553
IV. Statutory and Executive Order • Does not provide EPA with the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Reviews discretionary authority to address, as Environmental protection, Air
Under the Clean Air Act, the appropriate, disproportionate human pollution control, Incorporation by
Administrator is required to approve a health or environmental effects, using reference, Intergovernmental relations,
SIP submission that complies with the practicable and legally permissible Reporting and recordkeeping
provisions of the Act and applicable methods, under Executive Order 12898 requirements, Sulfur dioxides.
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved Dated: June 15, 2016.
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
to apply on any Indian reservation land H. Curtis Spalding,
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet or in any other area where EPA or an Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Accordingly, this action merely tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Code of Federal Regulations is amended
approves state law as meeting Federal Indian country, the rule does not have as follows:
requirements and does not impose tribal implications and will not impose
additional requirements beyond those substantial direct costs on tribal PART 52—APPROVAL AND
imposed by state law. For that reason, governments or preempt tribal law as PROMULGATION OF
this action: specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
• Is not a significant regulatory action FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
subject to review by the Office of The Congressional Review Act, 5 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
Management and Budget under U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small continues to read as follows:
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Business Regulatory Enforcement Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
January 21, 2011); that before a rule may take effect, the Subpart EE—New Hampshire
• Does not impose an information agency promulgating the rule must
collection burden under the provisions submit a rule report, which includes a ■ 2. Section 52.1519 is amended by
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 copy of the rule, to each House of the adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Congress and to the Comptroller General follows:
• Is certified as not having a of the United States. EPA will submit a
§ 52.1519 Identification of plan—
significant economic impact on a report containing this action and other conditional approval.
substantial number of small entities required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and (a) * * *
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
the Comptroller General of the United (11) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted
• Does not contain any unfunded States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule on September 13, 2013, is conditionally
mandate or significantly or uniquely
cannot take effect until 60 days after it approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
affect small governments, as described
is published in the Federal Register. elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii),
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). of the PSD program pertaining to
implications as specified in Executive Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean providing notification to neighboring
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Air Act, petitions for judicial review of states of certain permitting activity
1999); this action must be filed in the United being considered by New Hampshire.
• Is not an economically significant States Court of Appeals for the This conditional approval is contingent
regulatory action based on health or appropriate circuit by September 6, upon New Hampshire taking actions to
safety risks subject to Executive Order 2016. Filing a petition for address these requirements as detailed
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); reconsideration by the Administrator of within a final conditional approval
• Is not a significant regulatory action this final rule does not affect the finality dated September 25, 2015.
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR of this action for the purposes of judicial * * * * *
28355, May 22, 2001); review nor does it extend the time ■ 3. In § 52.1520, the table in paragraph
• Is not subject to requirements of within which a petition for judicial (e) is amended by revising the entry for
Section 12(d) of the National review may be filed, and shall not ‘‘Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2
Technology Transfer and Advancement postpone the effectiveness of such rule NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because or action. This action may not be
application of those requirements would challenged later in proceedings to § 52.1520 Identification of plan.
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; enforce its requirements. (See section * * * * *
and 307(b)(2)). (e) * * *
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY
Applicable State submittal
Name of nonregulatory geographic or date/effective EPA approved date 3 Explanations
SIP provision nonattainment date
area
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
* * * * * * *
Infrastructure SIP for the Statewide .......... 9/13/2013 7/8/2016 [Insert Federal Approved submittal, except for certain aspects re-
2010 SO2 NAAQS. Register citation] lating to PSD which were conditionally approved.
See 52.1519.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/12.svg)
![44554 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY—Continued
Applicable State submittal
Name of nonregulatory geographic or date/effective EPA approved date 3 Explanations
SIP provision nonattainment date
area
* * * * * * *
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 col-
umn for the particular provision.
■ 4. In § 52.1521, the table is amended ‘‘Merrimack Valley—Southern New § 52.1521 Classification of regions.
by revising the entries for Hampshire Interstate’’ to read as * * * * *
‘‘Androscoggin Valley Interstate’’ and follows:
Pollutant
Air quality control region Particulate Nitrogen Carbon
Sulfur oxides Ozone
matter dioxide monoxide
Androscoggin Valley Interstate ............................................. IA III III III III
* * * * * * *
Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate ..... I III III III I
[FR Doc. 2016–15623 Filed 7–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Jul 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08JYR1.SGM 08JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44673/page/13.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-08 00:17:57
Document Modified: 2016-07-08 00:17:57
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on August 8, 2016. | |
| Contact | Donald Dahl, (617) 918-1657, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 44542 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Dioxides |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR