81 FR 90758 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; Interstate Transport of Fine Particle and Ozone Air Pollution

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 241 (December 15, 2016)

Page Range		90758-90762
FR Document		2016-30052

EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES), the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). These SIP submissions address provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state to submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. The EPA is proposing that all four States have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with the maintenance, of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states, and that Rhode Island and Vermont have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in other states. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 90758-90762]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30052]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0552; FRL-9956-50-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont; Interstate Transport of
Fine Particle and Ozone Air Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME
DEP), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES),
the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). These
SIP submissions address provisions of the Clean Air Act that require
each state to submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely
affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. The
EPA is proposing that all four States have adequate provisions to
prohibit in-state emissions activities from significantly contributing
to nonattainment, or interfering with the maintenance, of the 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states,
and that Rhode Island and Vermont have adequate provisions to prohibit
in-state emissions activities from significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in other states. The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
number EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0552, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via
email to Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be

[[Page 90759]]

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post Office Square,
Boston, Massachusetts. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1664;
Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Rulemaking Information
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Rulemaking Information

EPA is proposing to approve SIP submissions from the ME DEP, the NH
DES, the RI DEM and the VT DEC. The SIPs were submitted on the
following dates: April 24, 2008 (ME); March 11, 2008 (NH); April 30,
2008 and November 6, 2009 (RI); and April 15, 2009 and May 21, 2010
(VT). These SIP submissions address the requirements of Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ EPA previously
approved SIP submissions from New Hampshire and Maine as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ To the extent that these SIP submittals address other
infrastructure elements, such as CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
those requirements are not being addressed in today's action. In
today's rulemaking, EPA is proposing action only with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 18, 1997, EPA established a new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone of
0.08 parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38856). On March 12, 2008, EPA
published a revision to the 8-hour ozone standard, lowering the level
from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. In addition, on July 18, 1997, EPA also
revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new annual and 24-hour
standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator
(62 FR 38652). These revisions established an annual standard of 15
[mu]g/m\3\ and a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. During 2006, EPA
revised the air quality standards for PM2.5. The 2006
standards decreased the level of the 24-hour fine particle standard
from 65 [mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the annual fine
particle standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ In addition, EPA subsequently revised the annual fine
particle NAAQS to a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086; January 15,
2013) and the ozone NAAQS to a level of 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292;
October 26, 2015). These NAAQS updates are not, however, relevant to
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable
``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions to prohibit
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements, or
``prongs,'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses
the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as ``prong one'' and
``prong two.'' These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or
revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
(prong 1) or ``interfere with maintenance'' (prong 2) of the applicable
air quality standard in any other state.
We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion
of the United States in several past regulatory actions.\3\ We most
recently promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the
United States.\4\ CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality
standards, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\5\ On
December 3, 2015, the EPA proposed an update to CSAPR to address the
2008 ozone standard, referred to as the CSAPR Update.\6\ On October 26,
2016, the final CSAPR Update was published (see 81 FR 74504).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\4\ 76 FR 48208.
\5\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
\6\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to
SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\7\
This guidance

[[Page 90760]]

indicated that states excluded from the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) ``should be able to make a relatively simple SIP submission
verifying that the State does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the [1997] 8-hour ozone
or PM2.5 standards in another state.'' EPA promulgated CAIR
in 2005 (see 70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005). The CAIR modeling showed that
none of the four states that are the subject of this proposed action
(Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) were linked to
identified downwind nonattainment receptors, for either the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 or the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
therefore were not considered to significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standards in those
downwind areas. In accordance with the above guidance, each of the four
states' SIP submissions use the CAIR modeling results as the basis for
showing that their State does not contribute significantly to downwind
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 1997 ozone or the
1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions
to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
EPA OAQPS, to EPA Regional Air Division Directors, August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAIR was subject to litigation and ultimately remanded to the EPA
by the D.C. Circuit.\8\ Among other things, the court held that EPA had
failed to give ``independent significance'' to the interfere with
maintenance prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by separately
identifying downwind areas that might be projected to attain the NAAQS,
but that might struggle to maintain the standard due to emissions from
upwind states.\9\ The court concluded that ``EPA must redo its analysis
from the ground up.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
amended on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008).
\9\ 531 F.3d at 910-11.
\10\ Id. at 929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAIR was subsequently replaced by CSAPR. Although the states do not
cite CSAPR or the CSAPR Update in their SIP submissions (as these SIP
submissions pre-date CSAPR), the CSAPR modeling is helpful to EPA in
our review in that it bolsters the case these four states have given
EPA in their SIP submissions showing that they do not cause or
contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment or maintenance for
either the 1997 ozone or 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
In the CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses
to first identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, and
to then determine whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind
air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's
contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not
considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere
with maintenance, of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state
exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated,
taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to
determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary.
In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether
one percent was appropriate.\11\ The EPA evaluated the comments
received and ultimately determined that one percent was an
appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if
relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and
maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to
commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent,
the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze
the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United
States. The EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold
captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting
downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude
increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a
five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport
affecting downwind receptors would be excluded.\12\ In addition, the
EPA determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-
percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated
with ambient ozone even at low levels.\13\ The EPA also determined that
a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest
increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and
ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at
the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent
threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in
additional states that individually have a very small impact on those
receptors -- an indicator that emission controls in those states are
likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor.
We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is
necessary or desirable.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
\12\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID
# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491.
\13\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\15\ The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR,
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, each of the four states
included in this proposed action (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont) have contributions below this significance threshold
finalized in CSAPR. Specifically, the CSAPR modeling indicates that
Maine's ozone contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site
is 0.00 ppb (parts per billion) and Maine's largest contribution to any
projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The CSAPR
modeling indicates that New Hampshire's largest ozone contribution to
any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb and New
Hampshire's largest ozone contribution to any projected downwind
maintenance-only site is 0.07 ppb. The CSAPR modeling indicates that
Rhode Island's largest ozone contribution to any projected downwind
nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb and Rhode Island's largest contribution
to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The CSAPR
modeling indicates that Vermont's largest ozone contribution to any
projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.01 ppb and

[[Page 90761]]

Vermont's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-
only site is 0.05 ppb. These ozone contribution values are all well
below the one percent screening threshold of 0.85 ppb and, therefore,
there are no identified linkages between these four states and downwind
projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.
For the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling indicates that Rhode Island's contribution to
any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.00 micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m\3\) and Rhode Island's contribution to any projected
downwind maintenance-only site is 0.00 ug/m\3\. For the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the CSAPR
modeling indicates that Rhode Island's largest contribution to any
projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.02 ug/m\3\ and Rhode
Island's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-
only site is 0.06 ug/m\3\. For the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling indicates that
Vermont's contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is
0.00 ug/m\3\ and Vermont's contribution to any projected downwind
maintenance-only site is 0.00 ug/m\3\. For the 1997 PM2.5
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling indicates
that Vermont's largest contribution to any projected downwind
nonattainment site is 0.03 ug/m\3\ and Vermont's largest contribution
to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.05 ug/m\3\. These
PM2.5 contribution values are all well below the one percent
screening thresholds of 0.15 ug/m\3\ (annual) and 0.35 ug/m\3\ (24-
hour)\17\ and, therefore, there are no identified linkages between
Rhode Island and Vermont and downwind projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 standards.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Note this is the screening threshold for the more stringent
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
\18\ As noted above, EPA previously approved SIP submissions
from New Hampshire and Maine as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, in CSAPR, the EPA used an air quality analysis to
determine whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air
quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's
contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore, not
considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere
with maintenance, of the standards in those downwind areas.\19\ The
CSAPR modeling showed that none of the four states that are the subject
of this proposed action (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont) were linked to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\20\ Therefore, in the CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA
found that these states do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standards in those
downwind areas. The findings made in the CSAPR rulemaking support the
conclusions by each these four states that they do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in downwind
states for either the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ 76 FR at 48236 (``States whose contributions are below the
thresholds are not included in the Transport Rule for the NAAQS. In
other words, we are finding that states whose contributions are
below these thresholds do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant
NAAQS.'').
\20\ See Table V.D-1, 76 FR at 48240 (contributions to downwind
receptors with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS);
Table V.D-4, 76 FR 48241-242 (contributions to downwind receptors
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS); and Table
V.D-7, 76 FR at 48244-245 (contributions to downwind receptors with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the findings made in the CSAPR rulemaking, and the
information and analysis provided in all four states' SIP submissions,
we are proposing to approve the interstate transport SIPs submitted by
Rhode Island on April 30, 2008 and Vermont on April 15, 2009 as meeting
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also proposing to approve
Maine's April 24, 2008 and New Hampshire's March 11, 2008 SIP
submittals as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Finally, we are proposing to approve Rhode
Island's November 6, 2009 and Vermont's May 21, 2010 SIP submittals as
meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's findings confirm the results of the
states' analyses: Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and Rhode Island and Vermont do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state. EPA has determined that the SIPs contain
adequate provisions to satisfy CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, for Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, for Rhode Island and Vermont.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the
states on the following dates as meeting the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS: April 24, 2008 (Maine); March 11, 2008 (New Hampshire); April
30, 2008 (Rhode Island); and April 15, 2009 (Vermont). In addition, EPA
is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the states on
the following dates as meeting the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS:
April 30, 2008 (Rhode Island); and April 15, 2009 (Vermont). Also, EPA
is proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by Rhode Island on
November 6, 2009 and Vermont on May 21, 2010 as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed these SIP revisions and has
found that they satisfy the relevant CAA requirements discussed above.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed approval of the SIP
revisions, and will consider those comments before taking final action.
However, the EPA is not reopening public comment on the analysis and
policy decisions finalized in the CSAPR rulemaking, including the air
quality modeling and the application of the 1 percent threshold to
identify those states whose contribution to identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors are insignificant.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under

[[Page 90762]]

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 1, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-30052 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

90758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. Children From Environmental Health AGENCY
Risks and Safety Risks
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 40 CFR Part 52
Planning and Review and Executive The EPA interprets Executive Order
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and [EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0552; FRL–9956–50–
13045 as applying only to those Region 1]
Regulatory Review regulatory actions that concern
This action is not a significant environmental health or safety risks that Approval and Promulgation of Air
regulatory action and was therefore not the EPA has reason to believe may Quality Implementation Plans; Maine,
submitted to the Office of Management disproportionately affect children, per New Hampshire, Rhode Island and
and Budget (OMB) for review. the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Vermont; Interstate Transport of Fine
action’’ in section 2–202 of the Particle and Ozone Air Pollution
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Executive Order. This action is not AGENCY: Environmental Protection
subject to Executive Order 13045 Agency (EPA).
This action does not impose an
because it does not impose additional ACTION: Proposed rule.
information collection burden under the
requirements beyond those imposed by
PRA because this action does not
state law. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
impose additional requirements beyond
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
those imposed by state law. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That submissions from the Maine Department
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Significantly Affect Energy Supply, of Environmental Protection (ME DEP),
Distribution, or Use the New Hampshire Department of
I certify that this action will not have Environmental Services (NH DES), the
a significant economic impact on a This action is not subject to Executive
Rhode Island Department of
substantial number of small entities Order 13211, because it is not a Environmental Management (RI DEM)
under the RFA. This action will not significant regulatory action under and the Vermont Department of
impose any requirements on small Executive Order 12866. Environmental Conservation (VT DEC).
entities beyond those imposed by state I. National Technology Transfer and These SIP submissions address
law. Advancement Act (NTTAA) provisions of the Clean Air Act that
require each state to submit a SIP to
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act address emissions that may adversely
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
(UMRA) affect another state’s air quality through
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
This action does not contain any standards in its regulatory activities interstate transport. The EPA is
unfunded mandate as described in unless to do so would be inconsistent proposing that all four States have
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does with applicable law or otherwise adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
not significantly or uniquely affect small impractical. The EPA believes that this emissions activities from significantly
governments. This action does not action is not subject to the requirements contributing to nonattainment, or
impose additional requirements beyond of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because interfering with the maintenance, of the
1997 ozone National Ambient Air
those imposed by state law. application of those requirements would
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other
Accordingly, no additional costs to be inconsistent with the CAA.
states, and that Rhode Island and
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Vermont have adequate provisions to
the private sector, will result from this
Actions To Address Environmental prohibit in-state emissions activities
action.
Justice in Minority Populations and from significantly contributing to
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Low-Income Population nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the 1997 fine
This action does not have federalism The EPA lacks the discretionary particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2006
implications. It will not have substantial authority to address environmental PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. The
direct effects on the states, on the justice in this rulemaking. intended effect of this action is to
relationship between the national propose approval of the SIP revisions
government and the states, or on the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 submitted by Maine, New Hampshire,
distribution of power and Rhode Island, and Vermont. This action
Environmental protection, Air
responsibilities among the various is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
pollution control, Incorporation by
levels of government. DATES: Comments must be received on
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and or before January 17, 2017.
With Indian Tribal Governments recordkeeping requirements, Volatile ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
organic compounds. identified by docket identification
This action does not have tribal number EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0552, at
implications, as specified in Executive Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. http://www.regulations.gov, or via email
Order 13175, because the SIP is not Dated: December 2, 2016. to Arnold.Anne@EPA.gov. For
approved to apply on any Indian Deborah Jordan, comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

reservation land or in any other area Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
follow the online instructions for
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has submitting comments. Once submitted,
[FR Doc. 2016–30179 Filed 12–14–16; 8:45 am]
demonstrated that a tribe has comments cannot be edited or removed
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
jurisdiction, and will not impose from Regulations.gov. For either manner
substantial direct costs on tribal of submission, the EPA may publish any
governments or preempt tribal law. comment received to its public docket.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Do not submit electronically any
apply to this action. information you consider to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Dec 14, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM 15DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 90759

Confidential Business Information (CBI) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part The CAA requires states to submit,
or other information whose disclosure is or section number. within three years after promulgation of
restricted by statute. Multimedia 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be suggest alternatives and substitute the applicable ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements
accompanied by a written comment. language for your requested changes. of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of
The written comment is considered the 4. Describe any assumptions and these applicable infrastructure elements,
official comment and should include provide any technical information and/ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires
discussion of all points you wish to or data that you used. SIPs to contain ‘‘good neighbor’’
make. The EPA will generally not 5. If you estimate potential costs or provisions to prohibit certain adverse
consider comments or comment burdens, explain how you arrived at air quality effects on neighboring states
contents located outside of the primary your estimate in sufficient detail to due to interstate transport of pollution.
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or allow for it to be reproduced. There are four sub-elements, or
other file sharing system). For 6. Provide specific examples to ‘‘prongs,’’ within CAA section
additional submission methods, please illustrate your concerns, and suggest 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action addresses the
contact the person identified in the ‘‘For alternatives. first two sub-elements of the good
Further Information Contact’’ section. 7. Explain your views as clearly as neighbor provisions, at CAA section
For the full EPA public comment policy, possible, avoiding the use of profanity 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as
information about CBI or multimedia or personal threats. ‘‘prong one’’ and ‘‘prong two.’’ These
submissions, and general guidance on 8. Make sure to submit your sub-elements require that each SIP for a
making effective comments, please visit comments by the comment period new or revised standard contain
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ deadline identified. adequate provisions to prohibit any
commenting-epa-dockets. source or other type of emissions
II. Rulemaking Information
Publicly available docket materials activity within the state from emitting
are available either electronically in EPA is proposing to approve SIP air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute
www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. submissions from the ME DEP, the NH significantly to nonattainment’’ (prong
Environmental Protection Agency, DES, the RI DEM and the VT DEC. The 1) or ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’
Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post SIPs were submitted on the following (prong 2) of the applicable air quality
Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. dates: April 24, 2008 (ME); March 11, standard in any other state.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 2008 (NH); April 30, 2008 and We note that the EPA has addressed
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, November 6, 2009 (RI); and April 15, the interstate transport requirements of
excluding Federal holidays. The 2009 and May 21, 2010 (VT). These SIP CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
interested persons wanting to examine submissions address the requirements of eastern portion of the United States in
these documents should make an Clean Air Act (CAA) section several past regulatory actions.3 We
appointment with the office at least 24 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and most recently promulgated the Cross-
hours in advance. 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.1 State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
EPA previously approved SIP which addressed CAA section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
submissions from New Hampshire and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Maine as meeting the requirements of of the United States.4 CSAPR addressed
Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the multiple national ambient air quality
(Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see standards, but did not address the 2008
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 FR 63228). 8-hour ozone standard.5 On December 3,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite On July 18, 1997, EPA established a 2015, the EPA proposed an update to
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone of 0.08 CSAPR to address the 2008 ozone
3912; (617) 918–1664; parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38856). standard, referred to as the CSAPR
Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. On March 12, 2008, EPA published a Update.6 On October 26, 2016, the final
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: revision to the 8-hour ozone standard, CSAPR Update was published (see 81
Throughout this document whenever lowering the level from 0.08 ppm to FR 74504).
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 0.075 ppm. In addition, on July 18, In addition, EPA issued guidance on
EPA. 1997, EPA also revised the NAAQS for August 15, 2006, relating to SIP
Organization of this document. The particulate matter to add new annual submissions to meet the requirements of
following outline is provided to aid in and 24-hour standards for fine particles, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).7 This guidance
locating information in this preamble. using PM2.5 as the indicator (62 FR
I. What should I consider as I prepare my 38652). These revisions established an (78 FR 3086; January 15, 2013) and the ozone
comments for EPA? annual standard of 15 mg/m3 and a 24- NAAQS to a level of 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292;
October 26, 2015). These NAAQS updates are not,
II. Rulemaking Information hour standard of 65 mg/m3. During 2006, however, relevant to today’s action.
III. Proposed Action EPA revised the air quality standards for 3 NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
X
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews PM2.5. The 2006 standards decreased the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May
level of the 24-hour fine particle 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
I. What should I consider as I prepare 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
my comments for EPA? standard from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3, 4 76 FR 48208.
and retained the annual fine particle 5 CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and
When submitting comments, standard at 15 mg/m3.2
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS.
remember to: 6 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 1 To the extent that these SIP submittals address 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3,
number and other identifying other infrastructure elements, such as CAA section 2015).
information (subject heading, Federal 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), those requirements are not being 7 ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Register date, and page number). addressed in today’s action. In today’s rulemaking, Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
EPA is proposing action only with respect to CAA Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
you to respond to specific questions or 2 In addition, EPA subsequently revised the Quality Standards,’’ Memorandum from William T.
organize comments by referencing a annual fine particle NAAQS to a level of 12 mg/m3 Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Dec 14, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM 15DEP1

90760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

indicated that states excluded from the contribution to downwind air quality to emission reduction responsibilities in
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) problems was at or above specific additional states that individually have
‘‘should be able to make a relatively thresholds. If a state’s contribution did a very small impact on those receptors
simple SIP submission verifying that the not exceed the specified air quality — an indicator that emission controls in
State does not significantly contribute to screening threshold, the state was not those states are likely to have a smaller
nonattainment or interfere with considered ‘‘linked’’ to identified air quality impact at the downwind
maintenance of the [1997] 8-hour ozone downwind nonattainment and receptor. We are not convinced that
or PM2.5 standards in another state.’’ maintenance receptors and was selecting a threshold below one percent
EPA promulgated CAIR in 2005 (see 70 therefore not considered to significantly is necessary or desirable.’’14
FR 25172, May 12, 2005). The CAIR contribute to nonattainment, or interfere In the final CSAPR, the EPA
modeling showed that none of the four with maintenance, of the standard in determined that one percent was a
states that are the subject of this those downwind areas. If a state reasonable choice considering the
proposed action (Maine, New exceeded that threshold, the state’s combined downwind impact of multiple
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) emissions were further evaluated, taking upwind states in the eastern United
were linked to identified downwind into account both air quality and cost States, the health effects of low levels of
nonattainment receptors, for either the considerations, to determine what, if fine particulate matter and ozone
1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 or the 1997 any, emissions reductions might be pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of
ozone NAAQS, and therefore were not necessary. a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The
considered to significantly contribute to In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air
nonattainment or interfere with quality screening threshold of one quality threshold equal to one percent of
maintenance of the standards in those percent of the applicable NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08
downwind areas. In accordance with the requested comment on whether one ppm.15 The projected contribution from
above guidance, each of the four states’ percent was appropriate.11 The EPA each state was averaged over multiple
SIP submissions use the CAIR modeling evaluated the comments received and days with projected high modeled
results as the basis for showing that ultimately determined that one percent ozone, and then compared to the one-
their State does not contribute was an appropriately low threshold percent threshold. We concluded that
significantly to downwind because there were important, even if this approach for setting and applying
nonattainment, or interfere with relatively small, contributions to the air quality threshold for ozone was
maintenance, of the 1997 ozone or the identified nonattainment and appropriate because it provided a robust
1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. maintenance receptors from multiple metric, was consistent with the
CAIR was subject to litigation and upwind states. In response to approach for fine particulate matter
ultimately remanded to the EPA by the commenters who advocated a higher or used in CSAPR, and because it took into
D.C. Circuit.8 Among other things, the lower threshold than one percent, the account, and would be applicable to,
court held that EPA had failed to give EPA compiled the contribution any future ozone standards below 0.08
‘‘independent significance’’ to the modeling results for CSAPR to analyze ppm.16
the impact of different possible For purposes of the 1997 ozone
interfere with maintenance prong of
thresholds for the eastern United States. NAAQS, each of the four states included
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by
The EPA’s analysis showed that the one- in this proposed action (Maine, New
separately identifying downwind areas
percent threshold captures a high Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont)
that might be projected to attain the
percentage of the total pollution have contributions below this
NAAQS, but that might struggle to
transport affecting downwind states, significance threshold finalized in
maintain the standard due to emissions
while the use of higher thresholds CSAPR. Specifically, the CSAPR
from upwind states.9 The court
would exclude increasingly larger modeling indicates that Maine’s ozone
concluded that ‘‘EPA must redo its contribution to any projected downwind
percentages of total transport. For
analysis from the ground up.’’ 10 nonattainment site is 0.00 ppb (parts per
example, at a five percent threshold, the
CAIR was subsequently replaced by billion) and Maine’s largest contribution
majority of interstate pollution transport
CSAPR. Although the states do not cite to any projected downwind
affecting downwind receptors would be
CSAPR or the CSAPR Update in their maintenance-only site is 0.08 ppb. The
excluded.12 In addition, the EPA
SIP submissions (as these SIP
determined that it was important to use CSAPR modeling indicates that New
submissions pre-date CSAPR), the
a relatively lower one-percent threshold Hampshire’s largest ozone contribution
CSAPR modeling is helpful to EPA in
because there are adverse health to any projected downwind
our review in that it bolsters the case
impacts associated with ambient ozone nonattainment site is 0.02 ppb and New
these four states have given EPA in their
even at low levels.13 The EPA also Hampshire’s largest ozone contribution
SIP submissions showing that they do to any projected downwind
determined that a lower threshold such
not cause or contribute significantly to maintenance-only site is 0.07 ppb. The
as 0.5 percent would result in relatively
downwind nonattainment or CSAPR modeling indicates that Rhode
modest increases in the overall
maintenance for either the 1997 ozone Island’s largest ozone contribution to
percentages of fine particulate matter
or 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. any projected downwind nonattainment
and ozone pollution transport captured
In the CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA relative to the amounts captured at the site is 0.02 ppb and Rhode Island’s
used detailed air quality analyses to first one-percent level. The EPA determined largest contribution to any projected
identify downwind nonattainment and that a ‘‘0.5 percent threshold could lead downwind maintenance-only site is
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

maintenance receptors, and to then 0.08 ppb. The CSAPR modeling
determine whether an eastern state’s 11 CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August
indicates that Vermont’s largest ozone
2, 2010). contribution to any projected downwind
Harnett, EPA OAQPS, to EPA Regional Air Division 12 See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule
Directors, August 15, 2006. Technical Support Document, Appendix F,
nonattainment site is 0.01 ppb and
8 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID #
2008), amended on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008). EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491. 14 Id.
9 531 F.3d at 910–11. 13 CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 15 Id.
10 Id. at 929. 2011). 16 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Dec 14, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM 15DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 241 / Thursday, December 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 90761

Vermont’s largest contribution to any downwind areas.19 The CSAPR contain adequate provisions to satisfy
projected downwind maintenance-only modeling showed that none of the four CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
site is 0.05 ppb. These ozone states that are the subject of this requirements as to the 1997 ozone
contribution values are all well below proposed action (Maine, New NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, for
the one percent screening threshold of Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
0.85 ppb and, therefore, there are no were linked to identified downwind and Vermont, and the 2006 PM2.5
identified linkages between these four nonattainment and maintenance NAAQS, for Rhode Island and Vermont.
states and downwind projected receptors with respect to the 1997 ozone III. Proposed Action
nonattainment and maintenance sites. and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.20
For the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 annual Therefore, in the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
PM2.5 NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling the EPA found that these states do not revisions submitted by the states on the
indicates that Rhode Island’s significantly contribute to following dates as meeting the interstate
contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment or interfere with transport requirements of CAA section
nonattainment site is 0.00 micrograms maintenance of the standards in those 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone
per cubic meter (ug/m3) and Rhode downwind areas. The findings made in NAAQS: April 24, 2008 (Maine); March
Island’s contribution to any projected the CSAPR rulemaking support the 11, 2008 (New Hampshire); April 30,
downwind maintenance-only site is conclusions by each these four states 2008 (Rhode Island); and April 15, 2009
0.00 ug/m3. For the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 that they do not significantly contribute (Vermont). In addition, EPA is
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the CSAPR to nonattainment, or interfere with proposing to approve the SIP revisions
modeling indicates that Rhode Island’s maintenance, in downwind states for submitted by the states on the following
largest contribution to any projected either the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the dates as meeting the interstate transport
downwind nonattainment site is 0.02 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. requirements of CAA section
ug/m3 and Rhode Island’s largest Based on the findings made in the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5
contribution to any projected downwind CSAPR rulemaking, and the information NAAQS: April 30, 2008 (Rhode Island);
maintenance-only site is 0.06 ug/m3. For and analysis provided in all four states’ and April 15, 2009 (Vermont). Also,
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 annual PM2.5 SIP submissions, we are proposing to EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling indicates approve the interstate transport SIPs revisions submitted by Rhode Island on
that Vermont’s contribution to any submitted by Rhode Island on April 30, November 6, 2009 and Vermont on May
projected downwind nonattainment site 2008 and Vermont on April 15, 2009 as 21, 2010 as meeting the interstate
is 0.00 ug/m3 and Vermont’s transport requirements of CAA section
meeting the CAA section
contribution to any projected downwind 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
maintenance-only site is 0.00 ug/m3. For NAAQS. EPA has reviewed these SIP
1997 ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 revisions and has found that they satisfy
We are also proposing to approve
NAAQS, the CSAPR modeling indicates the relevant CAA requirements
Maine’s April 24, 2008 and New
that Vermont’s largest contribution to discussed above. EPA is soliciting
Hampshire’s March 11, 2008 SIP
any projected downwind nonattainment public comments on the proposed
submittals as meeting the CAA section
site is 0.03 ug/m3 and Vermont’s largest approval of the SIP revisions, and will
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
contribution to any projected downwind consider those comments before taking
1997 ozone NAAQS. Finally, we are
maintenance-only site is 0.05 ug/m3. final action. However, the EPA is not
proposing to approve Rhode Island’s
These PM2.5 contribution values are all reopening public comment on the
November 6, 2009 and Vermont’s May
well below the one percent screening analysis and policy decisions finalized
21, 2010 SIP submittals as meeting the
thresholds of 0.15 ug/m3 (annual) and in the CSAPR rulemaking, including the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
0.35 ug/m3 (24-hour)17 and, therefore, air quality modeling and the application
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
there are no identified linkages between of the 1 percent threshold to identify
NAAQS. The EPA’s findings confirm
Rhode Island and Vermont and those states whose contribution to
the results of the states’ analyses: Maine,
downwind projected nonattainment and identified downwind nonattainment
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
maintenance sites for the 1997 PM2.5 and maintenance receptors are
Vermont do not significantly contribute
and 2006 PM2.5 standards.18 insignificant.
In summary, in CSAPR, the EPA used to nonattainment, or interfere with
an air quality analysis to determine maintenance, of the 1997 ozone NAAQS IV. Statutory and Executive Order
whether an eastern state’s contribution and Rhode Island and Vermont do not Reviews
to downwind air quality problems was significantly contribute to Under the CAA, the Administrator is
at or above specific thresholds. If a nonattainment, or interfere with required to approve a SIP submission
state’s contribution did not exceed the maintenance, of the 1997 PM2.5 and that complies with the provisions of the
specified air quality screening 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. Act and applicable Federal regulations.
threshold, the state was not considered EPA has determined that the SIPs 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 19 76 FR at 48236 (‘‘States whose contributions
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
nonattainment and maintenance are below the thresholds are not included in the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
receptors and was therefore, not Transport Rule for the NAAQS. In other words, we provided that they meet the criteria of
considered to significantly contribute to are finding that states whose contributions are the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
nonattainment, or interfere with below these thresholds do not significantly proposed action merely approves state
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance, of the standards in those maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.’’).
law as meeting Federal requirements
20 See Table V.D–1, 76 FR at 48240 (contributions and does not impose additional
17 Note this is the screening threshold for the
to downwind receptors with respect to the 1997 requirements beyond those imposed by
more stringent 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. annual PM2.5 NAAQS); Table V.D–4, 76 FR 48241– state law. For that reason, this proposed
18 As noted above, EPA previously approved SIP 242 (contributions to downwind receptors with action:
submissions from New Hampshire and Maine as respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS); and
meeting the requirements of CAA section Table V.D–7, 76 FR at 48244–245 (contributions to
• Is not a significant regulatory action
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 downwind receptors with respect to the 1997 ozone subject to review by the Office of
NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228). NAAQS). Management and Budget under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:40 Dec 14, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15DEP1.SGM 15DEP1

Document Created: 2016-12-15 01:10:59
Document Modified: 2016-12-15 01:10:59

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		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2017.
Contact		Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1664; [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 90758
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds