[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15343-15353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07230]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0344; FRL-9976-01-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of two State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
from New Hampshire which address the infrastructure and interstate
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012
fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). 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. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0344 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, tel. (617) 918-1684; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
A. What New Hampshire SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
III. EPA's Review
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government officials;
Public Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
A. What New Hampshire SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses two submissions from the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). The state submitted its
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 fine particle PM2.5 \1\
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on December 22, 2015.
Subsequently, on June 8, 2016, the state submitted a SIP addressing the
``Good Neighbor'' (or ``transport'') provisions for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS (Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA). Under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit
infrastructure SIPs to ensure that SIPs provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting on two related SIP submissions from New Hampshire
that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these
sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.'' This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section
[[Page 15344]]
110(a)(2) includes the specific elements that ``each such plan'' must
address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas
separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's
approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May
13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45.
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This memorandum and other referenced guidance documents and
memoranda are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the Good Neighbor provision, the most recent
relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016,
entitled ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor''
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)''
(2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach to
addressing interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of
relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``Good Neighbor'' provision requirements in
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that
memorandum.
III. EPA's Review
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing action on
two related SIP submissions from the state of New Hampshire. In New
Hampshire's submissions, a detailed list of New Hampshire Laws and
previously SIP-approved Air Quality Regulations show precisely how the
various components of its EPA-approved SIP meet each of the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. The following review evaluates the state's
submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and relevant EPA
guidance.
For New Hampshire's December 22, 2015 submission addressing the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we reviewed all Section 110(a)(2)
elements, including the transport provisions, but excluding the three
areas discussed above under the scope of this rulemaking. For the
state's June 8, 2016, submission, which further addresses the transport
provisions with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we reviewed
infrastructure elements in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
This section (also referred to in this action as an element) of the
Act requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other
control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and
other related matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission
limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due
when nonattainment planning requirements are due.\3\ In the context of
an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP
provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether
the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (November 12,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) at Chapter 21-O
established the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES) and RSA Chapter 125-C provides the Commissioner of NHDES with
the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet state
and Federal ambient air quality standards. New Hampshire also has SIP-
approved emission limits and other measures for specific pollutants.
For example, Chapter Env-A 400 ``Sulfur content limits in fuels'' (57
FR 36603, August 14, 1992); Chapter Env-A 1200 ``Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)'' (77
FR 66921, November 8, 2012; 81 FR 53926, August 15, 2016); Chapter Env-
A 1300 ``Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT'' (79 FR 49458, August,
21, 2014); Chapter Env-A 2100 ``Particulate Matter and Visible
Emissions Standards'' (81 FR 78052, November 7, 2016); Chapter Env-A
2700 ``Particulate Matter emission standards for hot mix asphalt
plants'' (81 FR 78052, November 7, 2016); and Chapter Env-A 2800
``Emission standards for sand and gravel sources, non-metallic mineral
processing plants, cement and concrete sources'' (81 FR 78052, November
7, 2016).
EPA proposes that New Hampshire meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to
SSM or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
[[Page 15345]]
these data available to EPA upon request. Each year, states submit
annual air monitoring network plans to EPA for review and approval.
EPA's review of these annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation
of whether the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations
throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or
Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and (iii) provides EPA
Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to
monitoring sites or the network plan.
NHDES continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved
the state's 2017/2018 Annual Network Review and Plan on August 23,
2017.\4\ Furthermore, NHDES populates EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides EPA
with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring
network or plan. Under element B of its December 22, 2015
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, NHDES
referenced EPA's prior approvals of New Hampshire's annual network
monitoring plans, as well as RSA Chapter 125-C:6 III, IV and XVI, which
provide the Commissioner with ``the power and duty to conduct studies
related to air quality, to disseminate the results, and to assure the
reliability and accuracy of monitoring equipment to meet federal EPA
standards.'' EPA proposes that NHDES has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's approval letter is included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and (iii) a permit program for minor
sources and minor modifications.
Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
NHDES staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to RSA
Chapter 125-C, Air Pollution Control, of the New Hampshire Statutes.
Specifically, RSA Chapter 125-C:15, Enforcement, authorizes the
Commissioner of the NHDES or the authorized representative of the
Commissioner, upon finding a violation of Chapter 125-C has occurred,
to issue a notice of violation or an order of abatement, and to include
within it a schedule for compliance. Additionally, RSA 125-C:15 I-b,
II, III, and IV provide for penalties for violations of Chapter 125-C.
EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the enforcement of SIP measures
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major Sources and Major Modifications
PSD applies to new major sources or modifications made to major
sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is
in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS.
The EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an
infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS demonstrating
that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program in place
satisfying the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.
NHDES's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at Part Env-A 619, contain
provisions that address applicable requirements for all regulated NSR
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
With respect to current requirements for PM2.5, we
evaluate New Hampshire's PSD program for consistency with two EPA
rules. The first is a final rule issued May 16, 2008, entitled
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements
for SIPs to address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other
pollutants that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation,
including requirements for NSR permits to address pollutants
responsible for the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise
known as precursors. As part of identifying precursors to
PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the
definition of ``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase
or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Finally, the 2008 NSR
Rule requires states to account for PM2.5 and
PM10 condensables for applicability determinations and in
establishing emissions limitations for PM2.5 and
PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or after January 1,
2011.\5\ These requirements are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b) and
52.21(b). States were required to revise their SIPs consistent with
these changes to the federal regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit held that EPA should have issued the 2008 NSR Rule in
accordance with the CAA's requirements for PM10
nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4), and not the
general requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1. Nat.
Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428. The EPA's approval of New
Hampshire's infrastructure SIP as to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR Rule
does not conflict with the court's opinion. For more information,
see 80 FR 42446, July 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second is a final rule issued October 20, 2010, entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''
(2010 NSR Rule). See 75 FR 64864. This rule established several
components for making PSD permitting determinations for
PM2.5, including adding the required elements for
PM2.5 into a state's existing system of ``increment
analysis,'' which is the mechanism used in the PSD permitting program
to estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a
pollutant in relation to new source construction or modification. The
2010 NSR Rule revised the existing system for determining increment
consumption by establishing a new ``major source baseline date'' for
PM2.5 and by establishing a trigger date for
PM2.5 in relation to the definition of ``minor source
baseline date.'' Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the definition of
``baseline area'' to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter, annual average, for PM2.5. These
requirements are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b) and (c) and in 40 CFR
52.21(b) and (c). States were required to revise their SIPs consistent
with these changes to the federal regulations.
New Hampshire implements the PSD program by, for the most part,
incorporating by reference the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, as
it existed on a specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD
program by revising the date of incorporation by reference and
submitting the change as a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP revisions
generally reflect changes to PSD requirements that the EPA has
[[Page 15346]]
promulgated prior to the revised date of incorporation by reference. To
address the 2008 NSR Rule and the 2010 NSR Rule, New Hampshire
submitted revisions to its PSD regulations on November 15, 2012, that
incorporated by reference the federal PSD program codified in the July
1, 2011, edition of 40 CFR 52.21. On September 25, 2015, EPA approved
these revisions into the SIP as incorporating the necessary changes
obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule and the 2010 NSR Rule. See 80 FR 57722.
Similarly, New Hampshire's revisions submitted on November 15,
2012, also satisfy the requirements of EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final
Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to
New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They
Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final
Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase 2 Rule) published on November
29, 2005. See 70 FR 71612. Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule
obligated states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone. See id. at 71699-700. The
required revisions to the federal PSD program are codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b) and (i) and in 40 CFR 52.21(b) and (i). By incorporating the
Federal provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(b) and (i) as of July 1, 2011, the
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012, submittal also included the
revisions made to the PSD program by the Phase 2 Rule in 2005 regarding
NOX as a precursor to ozone. See Env-A 619.03(a). Thus, EPA
proposes that New Hampshire's PSD program is consistent with the
requirements of the Phase 2 Rule.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 134
S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA
could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT).
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that
rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to
obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs.
Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds
triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by EPA, the
application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or
``anyway'' sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's
amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation,
including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a
stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit
above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there
is a significant emission increase from a modification.''
In the Federal Register at 80 FR 50199, August 19, 2015, EPA
amended its PSD and Title V regulations to remove from the Code of
Federal Regulations portions of those regulations that the D.C. Circuit
specifically identified as vacated. EPA intends to further revise the
PSD and Title V regulations to fully implement the Supreme Court and
D.C. Circuit rulings in a separate rulemaking. This future rulemaking
will include revisions to additional definitions in the PSD
regulations.
Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD
programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer
not to initiate this process until they have more information about the
additional planned revisions to EPA's PSD regulations. EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of
EPA's additional actions to revise its PSD program rules in response to
the court decisions for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions. At
present, EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SIP is sufficient to
satisfy element C with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting
program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require
that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants
other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of BACT. Although the approved New Hampshire PSD permitting
program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary
in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the
infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP
contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the
application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of
other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of
sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in
light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court
decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of element C.
For the purposes of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP, EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not in the scope of
these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR
Reform regulations for New Hampshire.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with
respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD
permitting program in the SIP that covers the requirements for all
regulated NSR pollutants as required by part C of the Act.
Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulate emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved New
Hampshire's minor NSR program on September 22, 1980 (45 FR 62814), and
approved updates to the program on August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36606). Since
this date, New Hampshire and EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR
program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the
major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
We are proposing to find that New Hampshire has met the requirement
to have a SIP approved minor new source review permit program as
required under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
[[Page 15347]]
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution with which states
must comply. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and
interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; \6\ Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-
element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution
abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-
elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the Act, and these items are further categorized into the four prongs
discussed below, two of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-
elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act
and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of
the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For this sub-element only, we are evaluating two New
Hampshire SIP submittals, the infrastructure SIP for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS submitted on December 22, 2015, and the
supplemental Transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
submitted on June 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to Nonattainment
(Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 2)
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a SIP to prohibit
any emissions activity in the state that will contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
downwind state. EPA commonly refers to these requirements as prong 1
(significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference
with maintenance), or jointly as the ``Good Neighbor'' or ``transport''
provisions of the CAA. This rulemaking proposes action on the portions
of New Hampshire's December 22, 2015 and June 8, 2016, SIP submissions
that address the prong 1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1
and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind;
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard. See 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
EPA's analysis for CSAPR, conducted consistent with the four-step
framework, included air-quality modeling that evaluated the impacts of
38 eastern states on identified receptors in the eastern United States.
EPA indicated that, for step 2 of the framework, states with impacts on
downwind receptors that are below the contribution threshold of 1% of
the relevant NAAQS would not be considered to significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS,
and would, therefore, not be included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220. EPA
further indicated that such states could rely on EPA's analysis for
CSAPR as technical support in order to demonstrate that their existing
or future interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address
the transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the
relevant NAAQS. Id.
In addition, as noted above, on March 17, 2016, EPA released the
2016 memorandum to provide information to states as they develop SIPs
addressing the Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistent with step 1 of the framework, the
2016 memorandum provides projected future-year annual PM2.5
design values for monitors throughout the country based on quality-
assured and certified ambient-monitoring data and recent air-quality
modeling and explains the methodology used to develop these projected
design values. The memorandum also describes how the projected values
can be used to help determine which monitors should be further
evaluated to potentially address if emissions from other states
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites. The 2016
memorandum explained that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality
for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.
Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025
projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated
through the CAMx photochemical model, the memorandum suggests
approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at
sites in 2021.
For all but one monitor site in the eastern United States, the
modeling data provided in the 2016 memorandum showed that monitors were
expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results project that this one monitor,
the Liberty monitor, (ID number 420030064), located in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, will be above the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in 2017, but only under the model's maximum projected conditions,
which are used in EPA's interstate transport framework to identify
maintenance receptors. The Liberty monitor (along with all the other
Allegheny County monitors) is projected to both attain and maintain the
NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 memorandum suggests that under such a condition
(again, where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025, but not in
2017), further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if
the site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (which,
again, is the attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
The memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete
ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest
available data, should be analyzed to determine whether there are
potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by
transported emissions. This rulemaking considers these analyses for New
Hampshire, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA during
review of New Hampshire's submittals.
To develop the projected values presented in the memorandum, EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air-quality modeling that
it recently performed to support several rulemakings related to the
ozone NAAQS. Base-year modeling was performed for 2011. Future-year
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the proposed CSAPR Update
for
[[Page 15348]]
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-year
modeling was also performed for 2025 to support the Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\7\ The outputs from these
model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5 that were
used in conjunction with measured data to project annual average
PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025. Areas that were
designated as moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 must attain the NAAQS by
December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as practicable. Although neither
the available 2017 nor 2025 future-year modeling data corresponds
directly to the future-year attainment deadline for moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the modeling
information is still helpful for identifying potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the 2017-2021 period. Assessing downwind
PM2.5 air-quality problems based on estimates of air-quality
concentrations in a future year aligned with the relevant attainment
deadline is consistent with the instructions from the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (DC Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire's Submissions for Prongs 1 and 2
On December 22, 2015, NH DES submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which included transport provisions
that addressed prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. On June 8, 2016, New Hampshire submitted a supplement to the
December 2015 SIP that provides a technical demonstration. The state's
supplemental SIP relied in part on EPA's analysis performed for the
CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind area.
EPA analyzed the state's December 2015 and June 2016 submittals to
determine whether they fully address the prong 1 and 2 transport
provisions with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As
discussed below, EPA concludes that emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (NOX and SO2) in New
Hampshire will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state.
Analysis of New Hampshire's Submission for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum
identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064),
located in Allegheny County. The memorandum also identified certain
states with incomplete ambient monitoring data as areas that may
require further analysis to determine whether there are potential
downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported
emissions.
While developing the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts
of all 38 eastern states in its modeling domain on fine particulate
matter concentrations at downwind receptors in other states in the 2012
analysis year in order to evaluate the contribution of upwind states on
downwind states with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5.
Although the modeling was not conducted for purposes of analyzing
upwind states' impacts on downwind receptors with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, the contribution analysis for the 1997 and 2006
standards can be informative for evaluating New Hampshire's compliance
with the Good Neighbor provision for the 2012 standard.
This CSAPR modeling showed that New Hampshire had a very small
impact (0.002 [mu]g/m\3\) on the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, which is the only out-of-state monitor that may be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021. Although EPA has not
proposed a particular threshold for evaluating the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes that New Hampshire's impact on the
Liberty monitor is far below the threshold of 1% for the annual 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\) that EPA previously used
to evaluate the contribution of upwind states to downwind air-quality
monitors. (A spreadsheet showing CSAPR contributions for ozone and
PM2.5 is included in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4228.)
Therefore, even if the Liberty monitor were considered a receptor for
purposes of transport, the EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at that monitor.
In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and expected emissions reductions in the
next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured
PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional
components to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors in
Allegheny County have a regional component, with the Liberty monitor
most strongly influenced by local sources. This is confirmed by the
fact that annual average measured concentrations at the Liberty monitor
have consistently been 2-4 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than other monitors in
Allegheny County.
Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional
emissions from upwind states, particularly SO2 and
NOX emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment
at the Liberty monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and
NOX reductions from power plants have occurred in
Pennsylvania and states upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region.
Pennsylvania's energy sector emissions of SO2 will have
decreased 166,000 tons between 2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR
implementation. This is due to both the installation of emissions
controls and retirements of electric generating units (EGUs). Projected
power plant closures and additional emissions controls in Pennsylvania
and upwind states will help further reduce both direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors. Regional emission reductions will
continue to occur from current on-the-books federal and state
regulations such as the federal on-road and non-road vehicle programs,
and various rules for major stationary emissions sources. See proposed
approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS (82 FR 57689; December 7, 2017).
In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should contribute to
further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor
concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have
recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in
southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
SIP.\8\ Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the
Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at
US Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel
Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much
lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate future. The
Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower SO2
emissions resulting
[[Page 15349]]
from vehicle fuel standards, reductions in general emissions due to
declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh region, and several
shutdowns of significant sources of emissions in Allegheny County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_9-14-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP (82
FR 57689).
As noted in the 2016 memorandum, several states have had recent
data-quality issues identified as part of the PM2.5
designations process. In particular, some ambient PM2.5 data
for certain time periods between 2009 and 2013 in Florida, Illinois,
Idaho, Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet all data-quality
requirements under 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of data means
that the relevant areas in those states could potentially be in
nonattainment or be maintenance receptors in 2021. However, as
mentioned above, EPA's analysis for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS determined that New
Hampshire's impact to all these downwind receptors would be well below
the 1% contribution threshold for this NAAQS. That conclusion informs
the analysis of New Hampshire's contributions for purposes of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Given this, and the fact, discussed
below, that the state's PM2.5 design values for all ambient
monitors have been well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS since
2009-2013, EPA concludes that it is highly unlikely that New Hampshire
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in areas with data-
quality issues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ New Hampshire's PM2.5 design values for all
ambient monitors from 2004-2006 through 2013-2015 are available on
Table 6 of the 2015 Design Value Report at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values_.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information in New Hampshire's 2016 supplemental SIP
submission corroborates EPA's proposed conclusion that New Hampshire's
SIPs meets its Good Neighbor obligations. The state's technical
analysis in that submission includes 2012-2014 24-hr and annual average
PM2.5 monitoring data for New Hampshire and the contiguous
states of Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont; projected maximum 2017 and
2025 design values for New Hampshire and contiguous states; as well as
meteorology and New Hampshire PM2.5 control programs. The
annual and design values from all monitors in New Hampshire and
neighboring states show compliance with the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This technical analysis is supported by additional indications
that, in most areas of the state, air quality is improving and
emissions are falling. Specifically, certified annual PM2.5
monitor values recorded since 2014 show that the highest value in 2015
was 8.7 [mu]g/m\3\ at a monitor in Keene, and the highest value in 2016
was 6.7 [mu]g/m\3\ at the same monitor in Keene, with many monitors
continuing to show declines as indicated by 2017 preliminary
results.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for
individual monitoring sites throughout New Hampshire are available
at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, New Hampshire's sources are well-controlled. New
Hampshire's 2016 submission indicates that the state has many SIP-
approved rules and programs that limit emissions of PM2.5
and the interstate transport of pollution, including Chapter Env-A 300
(Ambient air quality standards), Part Env-A 619 (PSD), Part Env-A 618
(NNSR), Chapter Env-A 2300 (Mitigation of Regional Haze), Chapter Env-A
800 (Testing and monitoring procedures), and Chapter Env-A 900
(Recordkeeping and reporting obligations), as well as delegation for a
Title V permitting program.
It should also be noted that New Hampshire is not in the CSAPR
program because EPA analyses show that the state does not emit ozone-
season NOX at a level that contributes significantly to non-
attainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
For the reasons explained herein, EPA agrees with New Hampshire's
conclusions and proposes to determine that New Hampshire will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve the December 2015 and June 2016 infrastructure
SIP submissions from New Hampshire addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-
element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with
measures that are required in any other state's SIP under Part C of the
CAA. As explained in the 2013 Guidance, a state may meet this
requirement with respect to in-state sources and pollutants that are
subject to PSD permitting through a comprehensive PSD permitting
program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies
the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. As discussed above
under element C, New Hampshire has such a PSD permitting program.
For in-state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the
pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA, prong 3 may be
satisfied through an approved NNSR program with respect to any previous
NAAQS. EPA approved New Hampshire's NNSR regulations on July 27, 2001
(66 FR 39104). These regulations contain provisions for how the state
must treat and control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with
40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. EPA proposes that New
Hampshire has met the requirements with respect to the prohibition of
interference with a neighboring state's PSD program for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
With regard to applicable requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and
regional-haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Guidance, 2011 Guidance, and
2013 Guidance recommend that these requirements can be satisfied by an
approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment,
if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. A fully
approved regional haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. New Hampshire's
Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602).
Accordingly, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the visibility
protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
[[Page 15350]]
Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution Abatement
This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with requirements of section 126 relating to interstate
pollution abatement. Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The
statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide
the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources.
On May 25, 2017, EPA approved into the New Hampshire SIP revisions
to the state's PSD program that require the NHDES to provide notice of
a draft PSD permit to, among other entities, any state whose lands may
be affected by emissions from the source. See Env-A 621.03, .04(e)(3);
82 FR 24057 at 24060; see also Env-A 619.07(d). These public notice
requirements are consistent with the Federal SIP-approved PSD program's
public notice requirements for affected states under 40 CFR 51.166(q).
Therefore, we propose to approve New Hampshire's compliance with the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Hampshire has no obligations under any
other provision of section 126 and no source or sources within the
state are the subject of an active finding under section 126 of the CAA
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 relating to
international pollution abatement. There are no final findings under
section 115 of the CAA against New Hampshire with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing that New Hampshire
has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of the CAA (international
pollution abatement) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires each SIP to provide necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP. In addition,
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to comply with the
requirements with respect to state boards under CAA section 128.
Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state relies
upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation
of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility for ensuring
implementation of SIP obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), however, does not apply to this action
because New Hampshire does not rely upon local or regional governments
or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
New Hampshire, through its infrastructure SIP submittal, has
documented that its air agency has authority and resources to carry out
its SIP obligations. New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, ``Powers and Duties of
the Commissioner,'' authorizes the Commissioner of the NHDES to enforce
the state's air laws, establish a permit program, accept and administer
grants, and exercise incidental powers necessary to carry out the law.
Additionally, RSA-125-C:12, ``Administrative Requirements,'' authorizes
the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of reviewing and
acting upon permit applications and enforcing the terms of permits
issued. The New Hampshire SIP, as originally submitted on January 27,
1972, and subsequently amended, provides additional descriptions of the
organizations, staffing, funding and physical resources necessary to
carry out the plan. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
New Hampshire RSA 21-O:11, ``Air Resources Council,'' established
the New Hampshire Air Resources Council, a state board that hears all
administrative appeals from department enforcement and permitting
decisions. The Council consists of 11 members, 6 of whom ``shall
represent the public interest.'' RSA 21-O:11, I. Those representing the
public interest ``may not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may
not serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or
director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship
with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders.'' Id. The
statute further provides that ``[a]ll potential conflicts of interest
shall be adequately disclosed.'' Id. On December 16, 2015, EPA approved
RSA 21-O:11 for incorporation into the New Hampshire SIP as satisfying
the requirements of section 128. See 80 FR 78135. Additional details
are provided in our July 17, 2015 proposal notification. See 80 FR
42446. New Hampshire's SIP continues to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and, we propose to approve the infrastructure
SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, ``Powers and Duties of the
Commissioner,'' authorizes the Commissioner of NHDES to require the
installation, maintenance, and use of emissions monitoring devices and
to require periodic reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and
extent of the emissions. This authority also enables the Commissioner
to correlate this information to any applicable emissions standard and
to make such
[[Page 15351]]
information available to the public. NHDES implements Chapter Env-A
800, ``Testing and Monitoring Procedures,'' and Chapter Env-A 900,
``Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations,'' as the
primary means of fulfilling these obligations. New Hampshire's Chapters
Env-A 800 and 900 have been approved into the SIP (See 77 FR 66388;
November 5, 2012). Additionally, under RSA 125-C:6, VII, and Env-A
103.04, emissions data are not considered confidential information. EPA
recognizes that New Hampshire routinely collects information on air
emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information
available to the public.
Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
This section requires that a plan provide for state authority
analogous to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event
that ``it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.''
We propose to find that New Hampshire's submittals and certain
state statutes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303.
New Hampshire's submittals specify that RSA 125-C:9, ``Authority of the
Commissioner in Cases of Emergency,'' authorizes the Commissioner of
NHDES, with the consent of the Governor and Air Resources Council, to
issue an order requiring actions to be taken as the Commissioner deems
necessary to address an air pollution emergency. Such orders are
effective immediately upon issuance. Id. We note also that RSA 125-
C:15, I, provides that, ``[u]pon a finding by the commissioner that
there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health
or welfare or the environment, the commissioner shall issue an order of
abatement requiring immediate compliance and said order shall be final
and enforceable upon issuance, but may be appealed to the council
within 30 days of its issuance, and the council may, after hearing,
uphold, modify, or abrogate said order.'' With regard to the authority
to bring suit, RSA 125-C:15, II, further provides that violation of
such an order ``shall be subject to enforcement by injunction,
including mandatory injunction, issued by the superior court upon
application of the attorney general.''
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires a state to submit for EPA
approval a contingency plan (also known as an emergency episode plan)
to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority for any Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR) within the state that is classified as
Priority I, IA, or II for certain pollutants. See 40 CFR 51.150. AQCRs
classified as Priority III do not require contingency plans. 40 CFR
51.152(c). In general, contingency plans for Priority I, IA, and II
areas must meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H (40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (``Prevention of Air Pollution
Emergency Episodes'') for the relevant NAAQS, if the NAAQS is covered
by those regulations. In the case of PM2.5, EPA has not
promulgated regulations that provide the ambient levels to classify
different priority levels for the 2012 standard (or any
PM2.5 NAAQS). For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's
2009 Guidance recommends that states develop emergency episode plans
for any area that has monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5
levels greater than 140 [mu]g/m\3\ since 2006. EPA's review of New
Hampshire's certified air quality data in AQS indicates that the
highest 24-hour PM2.5 level recorded since 2006 was 61.5
[mu]g/m\3\, which occurred in 2015 in the city of Keene in Cheshire
County. Therefore, EPA proposes that a specific contingency plan from
New Hampshire for PM2.5 is not required. Furthermore,
although not expected, if PM2.5 conditions in New Hampshire
were to change, NHDES has general authority to order a source to reduce
or discontinue air pollution as required to protect the public health
or safety or the environment, as discussed earlier. In addition, as a
matter of practice, New Hampshire posts on the internet daily
forecasted fine particulate levels through the EPA AIRNOW and EPA
ENVIROFLASH systems. Information regarding these two systems is
available on EPA's website at www.airnow.gov. When levels are forecast
to exceed the 24-hour fine particulate standard in New Hampshire,
notices are sent out to ENVIROFLASH participants, the media are alerted
via a press release, and the National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted
to issue an Air Quality Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert
system. These actions are similar to the notification and communication
requirements of 40 CFR 51.152.
Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire, through the combination
of statutes and regulations discussed above and participation in EPA's
AirNow program, has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from
time to time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the
NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and
whenever the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate. New
Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, ``Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,''
provides that the Commissioner of NHDES may develop a comprehensive
program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement
of air pollution. Additionally, Chapter Env-A 200, ``Procedural
Rules,'' which was approved into the New Hampshire SIP on October 28,
2002 (67 FR 65710) provides for public hearings for SIP revision
requests prior to their submittal to EPA. EPA proposes that New
Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Visibility
Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires that each SIP ``meet the
applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to
consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public
notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air
quality and visibility protection).'' The evaluation of the submission
from New
[[Page 15352]]
Hampshire with respect to these requirements is described below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
Pursuant to CAA section 121, a state must provide a satisfactory
process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) in carrying out its NAAQS implementation requirements.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, ``Powers and Duties of the
Commissioner,'' authorizes the Commissioner of NHDES to advise,
consult, and cooperate with the cities, towns, and other agencies of
the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other groups
or agencies in matters relating to air quality. Additionally, RSA 125-
C:6 enables the Commissioner to coordinate and regulate the air
pollution control programs of political subdivisions to plan and
implement programs for the control and abatement of air pollution.
Furthermore, New Hampshire regulations at Part Env-A 621 direct NHDES
to notify town officials, regional planning agencies, and FLMs, among
others, of the receipt of certain permit applications and the NH DES'
preliminary determination to issue, amend, or deny such permits. EPA
proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 121 with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Pursuant to CAA section 127, states must notify the public if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area, advise the public of health hazards associated
with exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures that can be
taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the public can
participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
As part of the fulfillment of RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire issues
press releases and posts warnings on its website advising people what
they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse health
effects on poor air quality days. New Hampshire is also an active
partner in EPA's AIRNOW and ENVIROFLASH air quality alert programs. EPA
proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 127 with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
EPA has already discussed New Hampshire's PSD program in the
context of infrastructure SIPs in the paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and determined that it satisfies
the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. Therefore, the SIP
also satisfies the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, as noted in EPA's 2013 guidance, we find that there is no
new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when
a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Based on the above analysis, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
To satisfy Element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it
has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on
air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such
data to EPA upon request.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commissioner of NHDES in
RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire reviews the potential impact of major
sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, ``Guidelines on Air
Quality Models.'' The modeling data are sent to EPA along with the
draft major permit. For non-major sources, Part Env-A 606, Air
Pollution Dispersion Modeling Impact Analysis Requirements, specifies
the air pollution dispersion modeling impact analysis requirements that
apply to owners and operators of certain sources and devices in order
to demonstrate compliance with the New Hampshire SIP, RSA 125-C, RSA
125-I, and any rules adopted thereunder. The state also collaborates
with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Air Management Association, and EPA in order to perform large scale
urban airshed modeling. Based on the above, EPA proposes that New
Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the costs of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
New Hampshire implements and operates the Title V permit program,
which EPA approved on September 24, 2001. See 66 FR 48806. Chapter Env-
A 700, Permit Fee System, establishes a fee system requiring the
payment of fees to cover the costs of: Reviewing and acting upon
applications for the issuance of, amendment to, modification to, or
renewal of a temporary permit, state permit to operate, or Title V
operating permit; implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions
of these permits; and developing, implementing, and administering the
Title V operating permit program. In addition, Part Env-A 705
establishes the emission-based fee program for Title V and non-Title V
sources. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities
To satisfy Element M, states must provide for consultation with,
and participation by, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
As previously mentioned, Chapter Env-A 200, Part Env-A 204 provides a
public participation process for all stakeholders that includes a
minimum of a 30-day comment period and an opportunity for public
hearing for revisions to the SIP. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6, ``Powers
and Duties of the Commissioner,'' authorizes the Commissioner to
consult and cooperate with the cities, towns, other agencies of the
state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected
agencies or groups in matters relating to air quality.
EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the elements of the infrastructure SIPs
submitted by New Hampshire on December 22, 2015 and June 8, 2016, for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA's proposed action
regarding each infrastructure SIP requirement is contained in Table 1
below.
[[Page 15353]]
Table 1--Proposed Action on New Hampshire's Infrastructure SIP Submittal
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012
Element PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures.............. A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system.......... A
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures............................ A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major modifications.. A
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor modifications.. A
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance A
of NAAQS....................................................
(D)2: PSD.................................................... A
(D)3: Visibility Protection.................................. A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement......................... A
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement...................... A
(E)1: Adequate resources..................................... A
(E)2: State boards........................................... A
(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies.... NA
(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)1: Consultation with government officials................. A
(J)2: Public notification.................................... A
(J)3: PSD.................................................... A
(J)4: 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.
NA.............................. Not applicable.
+............................... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting comments
to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-07230 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P