Air Plan Approval; NH; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Ozone, Lead, and Nitrogen Dioxide, 78135-78141 [2015-31525]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
facilitated Exchange (FFE) platform.
Certain changes that affect FFE
processes may make a waiver proposal
not feasible to implement at this time.
Until further guidance is issued, the
Federal platform cannot accommodate
different rules for different states. For
example, waivers that would require
changes to the calculation of Exchange
financial assistance, non-standard
enrollment period determinations,
customized plan management review
options, or changes to the design used
to display plan options are generally not
feasible at this time due to operational
limitations. In addition, the Federal
platform cannot accommodate changes
to its plan management templates in the
near term. States contemplating a
waiver that requires such changes may
consider establishing their own platform
administered by the state.
As noted in Section I.D. of this
guidance, costs associated with changes
to Federal administrative processes are
taken into account in determining
whether a waiver application satisfies
the deficit neutrality requirement.
Regulations at 31 CFR part 33 and 45
CFR part 155, subpart N require that
such costs be included in the 10-year
budget plan submitted by the state.
B. Internal Revenue Service
Certain changes that affect Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) administrative
processes may make a waiver proposal
not feasible to implement. At this time,
the IRS is not generally able to
administer different sets of rules in
different states. As a result, while a state
may propose to entirely waive the
application of one or more of the tax
provisions listed in Section 1332 to
taxpayers in the state, it is generally not
feasible to design a waiver that would
require the IRS to administer an
alteration to these provisions for
taxpayers in the state. For example, it is
generally not feasible to have the IRS
administer a different set of eligibility
rules for the premium tax credit for
residents of a particular state. States
contemplating a waiver proposal that
includes a modified version of a Federal
tax provision may consider waiving the
provision entirely and relying on a tax
program administered by the state.
In addition, a waiver proposal that
completely waives one or more tax
provisions in a state may create
administrative costs for the IRS. As
noted in Section I.D. above, costs
associated with changes to Federal
administrative processes are taken into
account in determining whether a
waiver application satisfies the deficit
neutrality requirement. Regulations at
31 CFR part 33 and 45 CFR part 155,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
subpart N require that such costs be
included in the 10-year budget plan
submitted by the state.
VI. Public Input on Waiver Proposals
Consistent with the statutory
provisions of Section 1332, regulations
at 31 CFR 33.112 and 45 CFR 155.1312
require states to provide a public notice
and comment period for a waiver
application sufficient to ensure a
meaningful level of public input prior to
submitting an application. As part of the
public notice and comment period, a
state with one or more Federallyrecognized tribes must conduct a
separate process for meaningful
consultation with such tribes. Because
State Innovation Waiver applications
may vary significantly in their
complexity and breadth, the regulations
provide states with flexibility in
determining the length of the comment
period required to allow for meaningful
and robust public engagement. The
comment period must be sufficient to
ensure a meaningful level of public
input and in no case can be less than 30
days.
Consistent with HHS regulations,
waiver applications must be posted
online in a manner that meets national
standards to assure access to individuals
with disabilities. Such standards are
issued by the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, and are referred to as ‘‘section
508’’ standards. Alternatively, the
World Wide Web Consortium’s Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0 Level AA standards would
also be considered as acceptable
national standard for Web site
accessibility. For more information, see
the WCAG Web site at https://
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
Section 1332 and its implementing
regulations also require the Federal
Government to provide a public notice
and comment period, once the
Secretaries receive an application. The
period must be sufficient to ensure a
meaningful level of public input and
must not impose requirements that are
in addition to, or duplicative of,
requirements imposed under the
Administrative Procedures Act, or
requirements that are unreasonable or
unnecessarily burdensome with respect
to state compliance. As with the
comment period described above, the
length of the comment period should
reflect the complexity of the proposal
and in no case can be less than 30 days.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78135
Dated: December 8, 2015.
Andrew M. Slavitt,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Dated: December 11, 2015.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
Approved: December 10, 2015.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2015–31563 Filed 12–11–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4150–28–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0950; A–1–FRL–
9940–15–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; NH; Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan
Requirements for Ozone, Lead, and
Nitrogen Dioxide
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving elements of
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from New Hampshire
regarding the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone,
and 2010 nitrogen dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is also converting
conditional approvals for several
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS to
full approval under the CAA.
Furthermore, we are updating the
classification for one of New
Hampshire’s air quality control regions
for ozone based on recent air quality
monitoring data collected by the state,
and are granting the state’s request for
an exemption from the infrastructure
SIP contingency plan obligation for
ozone. Last, we are conditionally
approving certain elements of New
Hampshire’s submittal relating to
prevention of significant deterioration
requirements.
The infrastructure requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality
management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under
the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
15, 2016.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
78136
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2012–0950. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site, although
some information, such as confidential
business information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute is not publically
available. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are also available for public
inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at: Air Resources
Division, Department of Environmental
Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95,
Concord, NH 03302–0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs
Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109–
3912; (617) 918–1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
ADDRESSES:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background and Purpose
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
This rulemaking addresses
infrastructure SIP submissions from the
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NH–DES) for
the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), and
2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The state submitted these infrastructure
SIPs on the following dates: 2008 lead
NAAQS—November 7, 2011; 2008
ozone NAAQS—December 31, 2012;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS—January 28,
2013.
This rulemaking also addresses
certain infrastructure SIP elements for
the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) 1
NAAQS for which EPA previously
issued a conditional approval. See 77
FR 63228, October 16, 2012. The state
submitted these infrastructure SIPs on
April 3, 2008, and September 18, 2009,
respectively. Additionally, in this final
rulemaking we are updating the
classification for one of New
Hampshire’s air quality control regions
for ozone based on recent air quality
monitoring data collected by the state,
and are granting the state’s request for
an exemption from the infrastructure
SIP contingency plan obligation for
ozone. Last, we are conditionally
approving certain elements of New
Hampshire’s submittal relating to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements.
II. Public Comments
EPA received just one set of
comments in response to the NPR.
Those comments—the full set of which
are included in the docket for this final
rulemaking—were submitted by the
Sierra Club and focused
overwhelmingly on our proposed
approval of New Hampshire’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, which is not addressed in this
final rulemaking. Relevant to this
action, one aspect of the comments
touched glancingly on the infrastructure
submittals for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. EPA received no public
comments on our proposed approval of
New Hampshire’s infrastructure
submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter argued,
among other things, that EPA must
disapprove the SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, because New
Hampshire did not include a submittal
to satisfy section 110(D)(i)(I) (the socalled ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ provision). In a
footnote, the commenter contended that
New Hampshire had similarly not
included a submittal to satisfy the same
provision for the 2008 ozone or 2010
NO2 NAAQS. The commenter argued
that these omissions, coming as they did
more than three years after EPA’s
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, are in violation of the Act and
the Supreme Court’s ruling in EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, LP.2
Accordingly, the commenter contended
that ‘‘EPA must take immediate action
1 PM
2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’
particles.
2 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
here to disapprove the SO2 I–SIP
Certification (as well as the 2008 ozone
and 2010 NO2 I–SIPs, for that matter)
and initiate the FIP [Federal
Implementation Plan] process with
regard to the I–SIP’s ‘‘ ‘Good Neighbor’
provisions.’’
Response: To be clear, EPA reiterates
that this final rulemaking does not
address New Hampshire’s infrastructure
SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
EPA will take final action on that
submittal in a future final action, which
will include a response to the Sierra
Club’s comments as to that submittal.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. However, although EPA is acting
on New Hampshire’s submittals for the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in
this rulemaking, EPA is not taking any
action with respect to section
110(D)(i)(I). As the commenter notes,
New Hampshire did not include any
provisions to address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its
December 31, 2012 and January 28, 2013
infrastructure SIP submittals for the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS,
respectively. In the NPR, EPA did not
propose to take any action with respect
to New Hampshire’s obligations
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the December 31, 2012 and January 28,
2013 infrastructure SIP submittals.
Because New Hampshire did not
make a submission in its December 31,
2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP
submittals to address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA is not
required to have proposed or to take
final SIP approval or disapproval action
on this element under section 110(k) of
the CAA. In this case, there has been no
substantive submission for EPA to
evaluate under section 110(k). Nor does
the lack of a submission addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require EPA to
disapprove New Hampshire’s December
31, 2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP
submittals as to the other elements of
section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets its
authority under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA as affording EPA the discretion to
approve, or conditionally approve,
individual elements of New
Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submissions, separate and apart from
any action with respect to the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA views discrete
infrastructure SIP requirements in
section 110(a)(2), such as the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as
severable from the other infrastructure
elements and interprets section
110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
individual severable measures in a plan
submission.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA holding, among
other things, that states had no
obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs
until the EPA had first quantified each
state’s good neighbor obligation.3
Accordingly, under that decision the
submission deadline for good neighbor
SIPs under the CAA would not
necessarily be tied to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. While the
EPA sought review first with the D.C.
Circuit en banc and then with the
United States Supreme Court, the EPA
complied with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling
during the pendency of its appeal. The
D.C. Circuit declined to consider EPA’s
appeal en banc, but, on April 29, 2014,
the Supreme Court reversed the D.C.
Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion and
held, among other things, that under the
plain language of the CAA, states must
submit SIPs addressing the good
neighbor requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA
first provides guidance, technical data
or rulemaking to quantify the state’s
obligation.
With respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, on November 18, 2014, the
Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians
filed a complaint in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California
seeking an order to compel the EPA to
make findings of failure to submit good
neighbor SIPs for over twenty states,
including New Hampshire. On May 15,
2015, the court entered judgment
ordering the EPA to sign a notice issuing
its findings of failure to submit with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
interstate transport SIPs for states
addressed in the case. Effective August
12, 2015, EPA found that 24 states,
including New Hampshire, had not
made a complete good neighbor SIP
submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 39961 (July
13, 2015). Pursuant to CAA section
110(c)(1), EPA is authorized and
obligated to promulgate a FIP, if EPA
takes any of the following actions: (1)
Finds that a state has failed to make a
required SIP submission; (2) finds that
a required submission was incomplete;
or (3) disapproves a required SIP
submission in whole or in part.
Accordingly, EPA must issue a relevant
FIP with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS within two years, if New
Hampshire has not submitted, and EPA
has not approved, a plan revision
appropriately addressing the good
neighbor provision requirements. Thus,
EPA is not required to issue a FIP at this
time but will take appropriate action at
a future date.
With respect to the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, EPA has not issued a similar
finding of failure to submit and,
consequently, the two-year FIP clock
has not yet begun to run. EPA agrees in
general that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2)
of the CAA require states to submit,
within three years of promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, a plan that
addresses cross-state air pollution under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this
rulemaking, however, EPA is only
approving portions of New Hampshire’s
78137
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS, which did not
include provisions for interstate
transport under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A finding of failure to
submit a SIP submission for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS addressing section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) could occur in a
separate rulemaking. As that issue was
not addressed in the July 17, 2015 NPR,4
and is thus not pertinent to this
rulemaking, EPA provides no further
response. In sum, New Hampshire’s
obligations regarding interstate transport
of pollution for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS will be addressed in
later rulemakings.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving SIP submissions
from New Hampshire certifying that the
state’s current SIP is sufficient to meet
the required infrastructure elements
under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2
NAAQS, with the exception of certain
aspects relating to the state’s PSD
program which we are conditionally
approving. On September 25, 2015, we
conditionally approved the portion of
New Hampshire’s PSD program that
pertains to providing notification to
neighboring states of certain permitting
actions in New Hampshire. See 80 FR
57722. Therefore, we are conditionally
approving herein the related portions of
New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submittals affected by our September
25, 2015 conditional approval. A
summary of EPA’s actions regarding
these infrastructure SIP requirements
are contained in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—ACTION TAKEN ON NH INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR LISTED NAAQS
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Element
2008 Pb
2008 Ozone
2010 NO2
(A): Emission limits and other control measures ....................................................................................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ..............................................................................
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures ......................................................................................................
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ...........................................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications .................................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2) .............
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ...........................................................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ....................................................................................................
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement .....................................................................................................
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................
(E)(i): Adequate resources ......................................................................................................................
(E)(ii): State boards .................................................................................................................................
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies ................................................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system ...............................................................................................
(G): Emergency power ............................................................................................................................
(H): Future SIP revisions .........................................................................................................................
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ..................................................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials ..........................................................................................
(J)(ii): Public notification ..........................................................................................................................
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A*
A
A*
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A
NS
A*
A
A*
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A
NS
A*
A
A*
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
3 696
F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
80 FR 42446, 42452 (July 17, 2015) (‘‘In
today’s rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to
4 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
approve or disapprove New Hampshire’s
compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS, since New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIPs
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for these NAAQS do not include a submittal with
respect to transport for sub-element 1, prongs 1 and
2.’’).
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
78138
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—ACTION TAKEN ON NH INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR LISTED NAAQS—Continued
Element
2008 Pb
2008 Ozone
2010 NO2
(J)(iii): PSD ..............................................................................................................................................
(J)(iv): Visibility protection ........................................................................................................................
(K): Air quality modeling and data ...........................................................................................................
(L): Permitting fees ..................................................................................................................................
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .................................................................
A*
+
A
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
In the above table, the key is as
follows:
A .................
A* ................
+ .................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
NS ..............
NA ..............
Approve.
Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to notification
to neighboring states.
Not germane to infrastructure
SIPs.
No Submittal.
Not applicable.
Also, with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is approving
New Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submittals requirements pertaining to
elements (A) and (E)(ii), and the PSD
elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and
(J)(iii) for which a conditional approval
was previously issued. See 77 FR 63228,
October 16, 2012. As discussed in our
July 17, 2015 notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) (see 80 FR 42446),
New Hampshire has since met the
conditions outlined in our October 16,
2012 action. However, in keeping with
the conditional approval we are issuing
today for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and
2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the
notification to neighboring states aspect
of the state’s PSD program, we are also
newly conditionally approving New
Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submittals for elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II)
(prong 3), (D)(ii), and (J)(iii) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, we are incorporating into
the New Hampshire SIP the following
New Hampshire statutes which were
included for approval in New
Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submittals:
Title I, The State and Its Government,
Chapter 21–O: Department of
Environmental Services, Section 21–
O:11, Air Resources Council.
Title X Public Health, Chapter 125–C
Air Pollution Control, Section 125–
C:1—Declaration of Policy and Purpose;
Section 125–C:2—Definitions; Section
125–C:4—Rulemaking Authority;
Subpoena Power; Section 125–C:6—
Powers and Duties of the Commissioner;
Section 125–C:8—Administration of
Chapter; Delegation of Duties; Section
125–C:9—Authority of the
Commissioner in Cases of Emergency;
Section 125–C:10—Devices Contributing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
to Air Pollution; Section 125–C:10a—
Municipal Waste Combustion Units;
Section 125–C:11—Permit Required;
Section 125–C:12—Administrative
Requirements; Section 125–C:13—
Criteria for Denial; Suspension or
Revocation; Modification; Section 125–
C:14—Rehearings and Appeals; Section
125–C:18—Existing Remedies
Unimpaired; Section 125–C:19—
Protection of Powers; and Section 125–
C:21—Severability.
Title X Public Health, Chapter 125–O:
Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program,
Section 125–O:1—Findings and
Purpose; and Section 125–O:3—
Integrated Power Plant Strategy.
Additionally, we are updating the
classification at 40 CFR 52.1521 for the
Merrimack Valley—Southern New
Hampshire air quality control region for
ozone based on recent air quality
monitoring data collected by the state,
and are granting, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.152(d)(1), the state’s request for an
exemption from the infrastructure SIP
contingency plan obligation for ozone.
EPA is conditionally approving an
aspect of New Hampshire’s SIP revision
submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD
program. The outstanding issue with the
PSD program concerns the lack of a
requirement that neighboring states be
notified of the issuance of a PSD permit
by the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. On September
25, 2015, we conditionally approved
New Hampshire’s PSD program for this
reason. See 80 FR 57722. Accordingly,
we are also conditionally approving this
aspect of New Hampshire’s
infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2008
lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 1997 PM2.5,
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. New
Hampshire must submit to EPA a SIP
submittal addressing the above
mentioned deficiency in the state’s PSD
program within the timeframe provided
by our September 25, 2015 action. If the
State fails to do so, the elements we are
conditionally approving in this
rulemaking will be disapproved on that
date. EPA will notify the State by letter
that this action has occurred. At that
time, this commitment will no longer be
a part of the approved New Hampshire
SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a
document in the Federal Register
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
notifying the public that the conditional
approval automatically converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its
commitment within the applicable
timeframe, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving
or disapproving the new submittal. If
EPA disapproves the new submittal, the
conditionally approved aspect of New
Hampshire’s PSD program will also be
disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the revised PSD program
submittal, then the portions of New
Hampshire’s infrastructure SIP
submittals that were conditionally
approved will be fully approved in their
entirety and replace the conditional
approval in the SIP. In addition, final
disapproval of an infrastructure SIP
submittal triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
Other specific requirements of
infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for
EPA’s final action on New Hampshire’s
submittals are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by February 16,
2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 2, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
2. Section 52.1519 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs
(a)(6) through (10) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1519 Identification of plan—
conditional approval.
(a) * * *
(6) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submitted on
December 31, 2012, is conditionally
approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii),
and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect
of the PSD program pertaining to
providing notification to neighboring
states of certain permitting activity
being considered by New Hampshire.
This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to
address these requirements as detailed
within a final conditional approval
dated September 25, 2015.
(7) 2008 Lead NAAQ: The 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submitted on
November 7, 2011, is conditionally
approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78139
elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii),
and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect
of the PSD program pertaining to
providing notification to neighboring
states of certain permitting activity
being considered by New Hampshire.
This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to
address these requirements as detailed
within a final conditional approval
dated September 25, 2015.
(8) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS:
The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on January 28, 2013, is
conditionally approved for Clean Air
Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii),
(D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only as it
relates to the aspect of the PSD program
pertaining to providing notification to
neighboring states of certain permitting
activity being considered by New
Hampshire. This conditional approval is
contingent upon New Hampshire taking
actions to address these requirements as
detailed within a final conditional
approval dated September 25, 2015.
(9) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submitted on April 3,
2008, is conditionally approved for
Clean Air Act (CAA) elements
110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and
(J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of
the PSD program pertaining to
providing notification to neighboring
states of certain permitting activity
being considered by New Hampshire.
This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to
address these requirements as detailed
within a final conditional approval
dated September 25, 2015.
(10) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted
on September 18, 2009, is conditionally
approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii),
and (J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect
of the PSD program pertaining to
providing notification to neighboring
states of certain permitting activity
being considered by New Hampshire.
This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to
address these requirements as detailed
within a final conditional approval
dated September 25, 2015.
■ 3. Section 52.1520 is amended by:
■ a. In the table in paragraph (c), adding
three entries at the end of the table; and
■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding
six entries at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
§ 52.1520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
*
*
78140
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEW HAMPSHIRE REGULATIONS
State citation
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
Title 1 of the New Hampshire Statues: The
State and Its Government, Chapter 21-O.
Title X of the New Hampshire Statutes: Public
Health, Chapter 125–C.
Title X of the New Hampshire Statutes: Public
Health, Chapter 125–O.
EPA approved date 1
*
Explanations
*
*
Department of Environmental Services.
7/1/86
*
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
Section 21–O:11, Air Resources Council.
Air Pollution Control ........
7/1/79
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
7/1/2002
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Section 125–C:1—Declaration of Policy
and Purpose; Section 125–C:2—Definitions; Section 125–C:4—Rulemaking
Authority; Subpoena Power; Section
125–C:6—Powers and Duties of the
Commissioner; Section 125–C:8—Administration of Chapter; Delegation of
Duties; Section 125–C:9—Authority of
the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency; Section 125–C:10—Devices
Contributing to Air Pollution; Section
125–C:10a—Municipal Waste Combustion Units; Section 125–C:11—Permit
Required; Section 125–C:12—Administrative Requirements; Section 125–
C:13—Criteria for Denial; Suspension
or Revocation; Modification; Section
125–C:14—Rehearings and Appeals;
Section 125–C:18—Existing Remedies
Unimpaired; Section 125–C:19—Protection of Powers; and Section 125–
C:21—Severability.
Section 125–O:1—Findings and Purpose;
Section 125—O:3—Integrated Power
Plant Strategy.
Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program.
1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
Infrastructure SIP for
2008 ozone NAAQS.
*
*
Statewide .........................
12/31/2012
*
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Infrastructure SIP for the
2008 Lead NAAQS.
Statewide .........................
11/7/2011
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Infrastructure SIP for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Statewide .........................
1/28/2013
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Infrastructure SIP for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide .........................
7/3/2012
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Infrastructure SIP for
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide .........................
9/18/2009
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Request for exemption
from contingency plan
obligation.
Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire
AQCR.
12/31/2012
12/16/15 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
EPA approved date 3
*
Explanations
*
*
Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519.
Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519.
Approved submittal, except for certain aspects relating to PSD which were conditionally approved. See 52.1519.
Items that were previously conditionally
approved on 10/16/12 now fully approved.
Items that were previously conditionally
approved on 10/16/12 now fully approved.
State’s request for exemption from contingency plan obligation, made pursuant to 40 CFR 51.122(d), is granted in
light of the area’s designation as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
4. In § 52.1521, revise the table to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.1521
Classification of regions.
*
*
78141
*
*
*
Pollutant
Air quality control region
Particulate
matter
Androscoggin Valley Interstate ............................................
Central New Hampshire Intrastate ......................................
Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate ....
[FR Doc. 2015–31525 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0762; FRL–9939–54]
Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens MBI600
(Antecedent Bacillus Subtilis MBI600);
Amendment to an Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation amends the
existing exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the microbial pesticide Bacillus
subtilis strain MBI600 to change the
name to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
strain MBI600 (antecedent Bacillus
subtilis strain MBI600) in or on all food
commodities, including residues
resulting from post-harvest uses, when
applied or used in accordance with
good agricultural practices. BASF
Corporation submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
amendment to the existing exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600.
DATES: This regulation is effective
December 16, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before February 16, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0762, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
Sulfur oxides
IA
III
I
IA
III
I
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Nitrogen
dioxide
Carbon
monoxide
III
III
III
Ozone
III
III
III
III
III
I
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0762 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before February 16, 2016. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2008–0762, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78135-78141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950; A-1-FRL-9940-15-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; NH; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
Requirements for Ozone, Lead, and Nitrogen Dioxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New
Hampshire regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and 2010 nitrogen
dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also
converting conditional approvals for several infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5)
NAAQS to full approval under the CAA. Furthermore, we are updating the
classification for one of New Hampshire's air quality control regions
for ozone based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the
state, and are granting the state's request for an exemption from the
infrastructure SIP contingency plan obligation for ozone. Last, we are
conditionally approving certain elements of New Hampshire's submittal
relating to prevention of significant deterioration requirements.
The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 15, 2016.
[[Page 78136]]
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site, although some
information, such as confidential business information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not publically
available. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air
Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are also available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at: Air
Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
This rulemaking addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-DES) for the
2008 ozone, 2008 lead (Pb), and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The state submitted
these infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: 2008 lead NAAQS--
November 7, 2011; 2008 ozone NAAQS--December 31, 2012; and 2010
NO2 NAAQS--January 28, 2013.
This rulemaking also addresses certain infrastructure SIP elements
for the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) \1\ NAAQS for
which EPA previously issued a conditional approval. See 77 FR 63228,
October 16, 2012. The state submitted these infrastructure SIPs on
April 3, 2008, and September 18, 2009, respectively. Additionally, in
this final rulemaking we are updating the classification for one of New
Hampshire's air quality control regions for ozone based on recent air
quality monitoring data collected by the state, and are granting the
state's request for an exemption from the infrastructure SIP
contingency plan obligation for ozone. Last, we are conditionally
approving certain elements of New Hampshire's submittal relating to
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments
EPA received just one set of comments in response to the NPR. Those
comments--the full set of which are included in the docket for this
final rulemaking--were submitted by the Sierra Club and focused
overwhelmingly on our proposed approval of New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which is not
addressed in this final rulemaking. Relevant to this action, one aspect
of the comments touched glancingly on the infrastructure submittals for
the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA received no public
comments on our proposed approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure
submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter argued, among other things, that EPA must
disapprove the SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, because
New Hampshire did not include a submittal to satisfy section
110(D)(i)(I) (the so-called ``Good Neighbor'' provision). In a
footnote, the commenter contended that New Hampshire had similarly not
included a submittal to satisfy the same provision for the 2008 ozone
or 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The commenter argued that these
omissions, coming as they did more than three years after EPA's
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, are in violation of the Act and
the Supreme Court's ruling in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP.\2\
Accordingly, the commenter contended that ``EPA must take immediate
action here to disapprove the SO2 I-SIP Certification (as
well as the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 I-SIPs, for that matter)
and initiate the FIP [Federal Implementation Plan] process with regard
to the I-SIP's `` `Good Neighbor' provisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: To be clear, EPA reiterates that this final rulemaking
does not address New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA will take final action on that submittal
in a future final action, which will include a response to the Sierra
Club's comments as to that submittal.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) addresses emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in another state. However, although EPA is acting on New Hampshire's
submittals for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in this
rulemaking, EPA is not taking any action with respect to section
110(D)(i)(I). As the commenter notes, New Hampshire did not include any
provisions to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
its December 31, 2012 and January 28, 2013 infrastructure SIP
submittals for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS,
respectively. In the NPR, EPA did not propose to take any action with
respect to New Hampshire's obligations pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the December 31, 2012 and January 28, 2013
infrastructure SIP submittals.
Because New Hampshire did not make a submission in its December 31,
2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP submittals to address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA is not required to have proposed or to
take final SIP approval or disapproval action on this element under
section 110(k) of the CAA. In this case, there has been no substantive
submission for EPA to evaluate under section 110(k). Nor does the lack
of a submission addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require EPA to
disapprove New Hampshire's December 31, 2012 and January 28, 2013 SIP
submittals as to the other elements of section 110(a)(2). EPA
interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as
affording EPA the discretion to approve, or conditionally approve,
individual elements of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submissions,
separate and apart from any action with respect to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP
requirements in section 110(a)(2), such as the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other infrastructure elements
and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on
[[Page 78137]]
individual severable measures in a plan submission.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA holding, among other things, that states
had no obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first
quantified each state's good neighbor obligation.\3\ Accordingly, under
that decision the submission deadline for good neighbor SIPs under the
CAA would not necessarily be tied to the promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS. While the EPA sought review first with the D.C. Circuit
en banc and then with the United States Supreme Court, the EPA complied
with the D.C. Circuit's ruling during the pendency of its appeal. The
D.C. Circuit declined to consider EPA's appeal en banc, but, on April
29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City
opinion and held, among other things, that under the plain language of
the CAA, states must submit SIPs addressing the good neighbor
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA
first provides guidance, technical data or rulemaking to quantify the
state's obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, on November 18, 2014, the
Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California seeking an order to
compel the EPA to make findings of failure to submit good neighbor SIPs
for over twenty states, including New Hampshire. On May 15, 2015, the
court entered judgment ordering the EPA to sign a notice issuing its
findings of failure to submit with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
interstate transport SIPs for states addressed in the case. Effective
August 12, 2015, EPA found that 24 states, including New Hampshire, had
not made a complete good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR
39961 (July 13, 2015). Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA is
authorized and obligated to promulgate a FIP, if EPA takes any of the
following actions: (1) Finds that a state has failed to make a required
SIP submission; (2) finds that a required submission was incomplete; or
(3) disapproves a required SIP submission in whole or in part.
Accordingly, EPA must issue a relevant FIP with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS within two years, if New Hampshire has not submitted, and
EPA has not approved, a plan revision appropriately addressing the good
neighbor provision requirements. Thus, EPA is not required to issue a
FIP at this time but will take appropriate action at a future date.
With respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, EPA has not issued a
similar finding of failure to submit and, consequently, the two-year
FIP clock has not yet begun to run. EPA agrees in general that sections
110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA require states to submit, within three
years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, a plan that addresses
cross-state air pollution under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this
rulemaking, however, EPA is only approving portions of New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which
did not include provisions for interstate transport under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A finding of failure to submit a SIP submission for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
could occur in a separate rulemaking. As that issue was not addressed
in the July 17, 2015 NPR,\4\ and is thus not pertinent to this
rulemaking, EPA provides no further response. In sum, New Hampshire's
obligations regarding interstate transport of pollution for the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS will be addressed in later
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 80 FR 42446, 42452 (July 17, 2015) (``In today's
rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove New
Hampshire's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect
to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS, since New Hampshire's infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS do
not include a submittal with respect to transport for sub-element 1,
prongs 1 and 2.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
EPA is approving SIP submissions from New Hampshire certifying that
the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, with the exception of
certain aspects relating to the state's PSD program which we are
conditionally approving. On September 25, 2015, we conditionally
approved the portion of New Hampshire's PSD program that pertains to
providing notification to neighboring states of certain permitting
actions in New Hampshire. See 80 FR 57722. Therefore, we are
conditionally approving herein the related portions of New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP submittals affected by our September 25, 2015
conditional approval. A summary of EPA's actions regarding these
infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Action Taken on NH Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Listed
NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other A A A
control measures.............
(B): Ambient air quality A A A
monitoring and data system...
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP A A A
measures.....................
(C)(ii): PSD program for major A* A* A*
sources and major
modifications................
(C)(iii): Permitting program A A A
for minor sources and minor
modifications................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to A NS NS
nonattainment/interfere with
maintenance of NAAQS (prongs
1 and 2).....................
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3)..... A* A* A*
(D)(i)(II): Visibility A A A
Protection (prong 4).........
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution A* A* A*
Abatement....................
(D)(ii): International A A A
Pollution Abatement..........
(E)(i): Adequate resources.... A A A
(E)(ii): State boards......... A A A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances NA NA NA
with respect to local
agencies.....................
(F): Stationary source A A A
monitoring system............
(G): Emergency power.......... A A A
(H): Future SIP revisions..... A A A
(I): Nonattainment area plan + + +
or plan revisions under part
D............................
(J)(i): Consultation with A A A
government officials.........
(J)(ii): Public notification.. A A A
[[Page 78138]]
(J)(iii): PSD................. A* A* A*
(J)(iv): Visibility protection + + +
(K): Air quality modeling and A A A
data.........................
(L): Permitting fees.......... A A A
(M): Consultation and A A A
participation by affected
local entities...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................... Approve.
A*..................................... Approve, but conditionally
approve aspect of PSD program
relating to notification to
neighboring states.
+...................................... Not germane to infrastructure
SIPs.
NS..................................... No Submittal.
NA..................................... Not applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
is approving New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals requirements
pertaining to elements (A) and (E)(ii), and the PSD elements (C)(ii),
(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and (J)(iii) for which a conditional approval was
previously issued. See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012. As discussed in
our July 17, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') (see 80 FR
42446), New Hampshire has since met the conditions outlined in our
October 16, 2012 action. However, in keeping with the conditional
approval we are issuing today for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS with respect to the notification to neighboring
states aspect of the state's PSD program, we are also newly
conditionally approving New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals
for elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II) (prong 3), (D)(ii), and (J)(iii) for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, we are incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP the
following New Hampshire statutes which were included for approval in
New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals:
Title I, The State and Its Government, Chapter 21-O: Department of
Environmental Services, Section 21-O:11, Air Resources Council.
Title X Public Health, Chapter 125-C Air Pollution Control, Section
125-C:1--Declaration of Policy and Purpose; Section 125-C:2--
Definitions; Section 125-C:4--Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power;
Section 125-C:6--Powers and Duties of the Commissioner; Section 125-
C:8--Administration of Chapter; Delegation of Duties; Section 125-C:9--
Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency; Section 125-C:10--
Devices Contributing to Air Pollution; Section 125-C:10a--Municipal
Waste Combustion Units; Section 125-C:11--Permit Required; Section 125-
C:12--Administrative Requirements; Section 125-C:13--Criteria for
Denial; Suspension or Revocation; Modification; Section 125-C:14--
Rehearings and Appeals; Section 125-C:18--Existing Remedies Unimpaired;
Section 125-C:19--Protection of Powers; and Section 125-C:21--
Severability.
Title X Public Health, Chapter 125-O: Multiple Pollutant Reduction
Program, Section 125-O:1--Findings and Purpose; and Section 125-O:3--
Integrated Power Plant Strategy.
Additionally, we are updating the classification at 40 CFR 52.1521
for the Merrimack Valley--Southern New Hampshire air quality control
region for ozone based on recent air quality monitoring data collected
by the state, and are granting, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1), the
state's request for an exemption from the infrastructure SIP
contingency plan obligation for ozone.
EPA is conditionally approving an aspect of New Hampshire's SIP
revision submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The
outstanding issue with the PSD program concerns the lack of a
requirement that neighboring states be notified of the issuance of a
PSD permit by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
On September 25, 2015, we conditionally approved New Hampshire's PSD
program for this reason. See 80 FR 57722. Accordingly, we are also
conditionally approving this aspect of New Hampshire's infrastructure
SIP revisions for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 1997
PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Hampshire must
submit to EPA a SIP submittal addressing the above mentioned deficiency
in the state's PSD program within the timeframe provided by our
September 25, 2015 action. If the State fails to do so, the elements we
are conditionally approving in this rulemaking will be disapproved on
that date. EPA will notify the State by letter that this action has
occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the
approved New Hampshire SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a document in
the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval
automatically converted to a disapproval. If the State meets its
commitment within the applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves the new
submittal, the conditionally approved aspect of New Hampshire's PSD
program will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the
revised PSD program submittal, then the portions of New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIP submittals that were conditionally approved will be
fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditional approval
in the SIP. In addition, final disapproval of an infrastructure SIP
submittal triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
Other specific requirements of infrastructure SIPs and the
rationale for EPA's final action on New Hampshire's submittals are
explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a
[[Page 78139]]
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 16, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 2, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
2. Section 52.1519 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) and adding paragraphs (a)(6) through (10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1519 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
(a) * * *
(6) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on
December 31, 2012, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only as it
relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to providing
notification to neighboring states of certain permitting activity being
considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these requirements as
detailed within a final conditional approval dated September 25, 2015.
(7) 2008 Lead NAAQ: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on
November 7, 2011, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act (CAA)
elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only as it
relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to providing
notification to neighboring states of certain permitting activity being
considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these requirements as
detailed within a final conditional approval dated September 25, 2015.
(8) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on January 28, 2013, is conditionally approved for Clean Air
Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii)
only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to
providing notification to neighboring states of certain permitting
activity being considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval
is contingent upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these
requirements as detailed within a final conditional approval dated
September 25, 2015.
(9) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on April 3, 2008, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act
(CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and (J)(iii) only
as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to providing
notification to neighboring states of certain permitting activity being
considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these requirements as
detailed within a final conditional approval dated September 25, 2015.
(10) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on September 18, 2009, is conditionally approved for Clean
Air Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(C)(ii), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), and
(J)(iii) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining
to providing notification to neighboring states of certain permitting
activity being considered by New Hampshire. This conditional approval
is contingent upon New Hampshire taking actions to address these
requirements as detailed within a final conditional approval dated
September 25, 2015.
0
3. Section 52.1520 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c), adding three entries at the end of
the table; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e), adding six entries at the end of the
table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 78140]]
EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approved date \1\ Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Title 1 of the New Hampshire Department of 7/1/86 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Section 21-O:11, Air Resources Council.
Statues: The State and Its Environmental citation].
Government, Chapter 21-O. Services.
Title X of the New Hampshire Air Pollution 7/1/79 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Section 125-C:1--Declaration of Policy and Purpose;
Statutes: Public Health, Control. citation]. Section 125-C:2--Definitions; Section 125-C:4--
Chapter 125-C. Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power; Section 125-
C:6--Powers and Duties of the Commissioner;
Section 125-C:8--Administration of Chapter;
Delegation of Duties; Section 125-C:9--Authority
of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency; Section
125-C:10--Devices Contributing to Air Pollution;
Section 125-C:10a--Municipal Waste Combustion
Units; Section 125-C:11--Permit Required; Section
125-C:12--Administrative Requirements; Section 125-
C:13--Criteria for Denial; Suspension or
Revocation; Modification; Section 125-C:14--
Rehearings and Appeals; Section 125-C:18--Existing
Remedies Unimpaired; Section 125-C:19--Protection
of Powers; and Section 125-C:21--Severability.
Title X of the New Hampshire Multiple 7/1/2002 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Section 125-O:1--Findings and Purpose; Section 125--
Statutes: Public Health, Pollutant citation]. O:3--Integrated Power Plant Strategy.
Chapter 125-O. Reduction
Program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column
for the particular provision.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
New Hampshire NonRegulatory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State
provision nonattainment submittal date/ EPA approved date \3\ Explanations
area effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Infrastructure SIP for 2008 Statewide....... 12/31/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Approved submittal, except for certain aspects
ozone NAAQS. citation]. relating to PSD which were conditionally approved.
See 52.1519.
Infrastructure SIP for the Statewide....... 11/7/2011 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Approved submittal, except for certain aspects
2008 Lead NAAQS. citation]. relating to PSD which were conditionally approved.
See 52.1519.
Infrastructure SIP for the Statewide....... 1/28/2013 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Approved submittal, except for certain aspects
2010 NO2 NAAQS. citation]. relating to PSD which were conditionally approved.
See 52.1519.
Infrastructure SIP for the Statewide....... 7/3/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Items that were previously conditionally approved
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. citation]. on 10/16/12 now fully approved.
Infrastructure SIP for 2006 Statewide....... 9/18/2009 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register Items that were previously conditionally approved
PM2.5 NAAQS. citation]. on 10/16/12 now fully approved.
Request for exemption from Merrimack 12/31/2012 12/16/15 [Insert Federal Register State's request for exemption from contingency plan
contingency plan obligation. Valley--Souther citation]. obligation, made pursuant to 40 CFR 51.122(d), is
n New Hampshire granted in light of the area's designation as
AQCR. unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column
for the particular provision.
[[Page 78141]]
0
4. In Sec. 52.1521, revise the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1521 Classification of regions.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality control region Particulate Nitrogen Carbon
matter Sulfur oxides dioxide monoxide Ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin Valley Interstate.. IA IA III III III
Central New Hampshire Intrastate III III III III III
Merrimack Valley--Southern New I I III III I
Hampshire Interstate...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-31525 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P