Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 15336-15343 [2018-07231]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15336
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
PART 135—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND
ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND
RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON
BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0604; A–1–FRL–
9976–36—Region 1]
1. The authority citation for part 135
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706,
40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–
44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101–
45105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C.
44730).
2. Amend § 135.611 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (b) to read
as follows:
■
§ 135.611 IFR operations at locations
without weather reporting.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) * * *
(1) The certificate holder must obtain
a weather report from a weather
reporting facility operated by the NWS,
a source approved by the NWS, or a
source approved by the FAA, that is
located within 15 nautical miles of the
airport. If a weather report is not
available, the certificate holder may
obtain weather reports, forecasts, or any
combination of them from the NWS, a
source approved by the NWS, or a
source approved by the FAA, for
information regarding the weather
observed in the vicinity of the airport;
*
*
*
*
*
(3) In Class G airspace, IFR departures
with visual transitions are authorized
only after the pilot in command
determines that the weather conditions
at the departure point are at or above
takeoff minimums depicted in a
published Departure Procedure or VFR
minimum ceilings and visibilities in
accordance with § 135.609.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each helicopter air ambulance
operated under this section must be
equipped with functioning severe
weather detection equipment, unless the
pilot in command reasonably
determines severe weather will not be
encountered at the destination, the
alternate, or along the route of flight.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued under authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44730 in
Washington, DC, on April 3, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–07296 Filed 4–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
Air Plan Approval; Vermont;
Infrastructure Requirement for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the remaining portion of a November 2,
2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Vermont. This revision addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the
good neighbor provision, with respect to
the primary 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). This action proposes to
approve Vermont’s demonstration that
the State is meeting its obligations
regarding the transport of SO2 emissions
into other states. 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–2014–0604 at
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
dahl.donald@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. Publicly available docket
materials are available at
www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs 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) 918–1657; or by email at
dahl.donald@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. The following outline is provided
to aid in locating information in this
preamble.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
IV. Section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical
Approaches for Criteria Pollutants
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate
Transport Requirements of the 2010
Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2
Emissions
A. Prong 1 Analysis—Significant
Contribution to SO2 Nonattainment
1. Impact on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area
2. SO2 Emissions Trends
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
4. Federally Enforceable Regulations
Specific to SO2 and Permitting
Requirements
5. Conclusion
B. Prong 2 Analysis—Interference With
Maintenance of the NAAQS
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA
promulgated a revised primary NAAQS
for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on
a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required
to submit SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years after promulgation of a new
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
or revised NAAQS, or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe.1
These SIPs, which EPA has historically
referred to as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs,’’ are
to provide for the ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such
NAAQS, and the 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. A detailed history,
interpretation, and rationale of these
SIPs and their requirements can be
found in, among other documents,
EPA’s May 13, 2014 proposed rule
titled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP requirements
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,’’ in the
section ‘‘What is the scope of this
rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 27241 at
27242–27245). As noted above, section
110(a) of the CAA imposes an obligation
upon states to submit to EPA a SIP
submission for a new or revised
NAAQS. The content of individual state
submissions may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances, and may
also vary depending upon what
provisions the state’s approved SIP
already contains.
On November 2, 2015, the Vermont
Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC) submitted
proposed revisions to its SIP, certifying
that its SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS. On June
27, 2017 (82 FR 29005), EPA approved
VT DEC’s certification that its SIP was
adequate to meet most of the program
elements required by section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA with respect to the 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA conditionally approved
the State’s submission in relation to
subsections (C), (D), and (J) of CAA
section 110(a)(2) in relation to the
prevention of significant deterioration
permit program.
However, at that time, EPA did not
take action on VT DEC’s certification
that its SIP met the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS. EPA is now
proposing to approve VT DEC’s
November 2, 2015 certification that its
SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for purposes of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
II. State Submittal
Vermont presented several facts in its
SIP submission on the effect of SO2
1 This requirement applies to both primary and
secondary NAAQS, but EPA’s approval in this
document applies only to the 2010 primary NAAQS
for SO2 because EPA did not establish in 2010 a
new secondary NAAQS for SO2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
emissions from sources within Vermont
on downwind and neighboring states’
SO2 nonattainment areas and those
states’ ability to maintain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. The SIP submission notes
statewide SO2 emissions from point
sources in 2011 were less than 500 tons
total. Vermont also included two data
points regarding ambient monitoring
data in its November 2015 submittal.
First, the design value from an instate
monitor in Rutland for the period 2012–
2014 was 13 ppb, which is only 17% of
the 2010 SO2 standard. Vermont also
stated the most recent design value
(2013) for the central New Hampshire
nonattainment area was 23 ppb. Finally,
Vermont states in its SIP submission
that ‘‘[n]o source or sources within
Vermont have been identified as
contributing significantly to
nonattainment in any other state or are
the subject of an active finding under
section 126 of the CAA with respect to
SO2 or any other air pollutant.’’
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
This proposed approval of Vermont’s
November 2, 2015 SIP submission
addressing interstate transport of SO2 is
intended to show that the State is
meeting its obligations regarding CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the
primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS.2 Interstate
transport requirements for all NAAQS
pollutants prohibit any source, or other
type of emissions activity, in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. As part of this
analysis, and as explained in detail
below, EPA has taken several
approaches to addressing interstate
transport in other actions based on the
characteristics of the pollutant, the
interstate problem presented by
emissions of that pollutant, the sources
that emit the pollutant, and the
information available to assess transport
of that pollutant.
Despite being emitted from a similar
universe of point and nonpoint sources,
2 This proposed approval of Vermont’s SIP
submission under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is
based on the information contained in the
administrative record for this action, and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may
make other determinations regarding Vermont’s air
quality status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on
their own administrative records and EPA’s
analyses of information that becomes available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA’s
Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21,
2015) and information submitted to EPA by states,
air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as
citizen groups and industry representatives.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15337
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the
transport of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) or ozone that EPA has addressed
in other actions, in that SO2 is not a
regional mixing pollutant that
commonly contributes to widespread
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS over
a large, multi-state area. While in certain
respects transport of SO2 is more
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb)
because SO2’s and Pb’s physical
properties result in localized impacts
very near the emissions source, in
another respect the physical properties
and release height of SO2 are such that
impacts of SO2 do not experience the
same sharp decrease in ambient
concentrations as rapidly and as nearby
as they do for Pb. While emissions of
SO2 travel farther and have sufficiently
wider-ranging impacts than emissions of
Pb such that it is reasonable to require
a different approach for assessing SO2
transport than assessing Pb transport,
the differences are not significant
enough to treat SO2 in a manner similar
to the way in which EPA treats and
analyzes regional transport pollutants
such as ozone or PM2.5.
Put simply, a different approach is
needed for interstate transport of SO2
than the approach used for the other
pollutants identified above: The
approaches EPA has adopted for Pb
transport are too tightly circumscribed
to the source, and the approaches for
ozone or PM2.5 transport are too
regionally focused. SO2 transport is
therefore a unique case, and EPA’s
evaluation of whether Vermont has met
is transport obligations in relation to
SO2 was accomplished in several
discrete steps.
First, EPA evaluated the universe of
sources in Vermont likely to be
responsible for SO2 emissions that could
contribute to interstate transport. An
assessment of the 2014 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Vermont
made it clear that the vast majority of
SO2 emissions in Vermont are from fuel
combustion at point and nonpoint
sources,3 and therefore it would be
reasonable to evaluate the downwind
impacts of emissions from these two
fuel combustion source categories,
combined, in order to help determine
whether the State has met is transport
obligations.
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale—
essentially, the geographic area and
distance around the point sources in
which we could reasonably expect SO2
impacts to occur—that would be
3 See EPA’s web page, www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory-nei, for a description of what types of
sources of air emissions are considered point and
nonpoint sources.
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
15338
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
appropriate for its analysis, ultimately
settling on utilizing an ‘‘urban scale’’
with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers
from point and nonpoint sources, given
the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and
the effectiveness of large-scale pollution
control strategies. As such, EPA utilized
an assessment up to 50 kilometers from
fuel-combustion sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality
that might have an impact on the
transport of SO2 from Vermont to
downwind states.
Third, EPA assessed all available data
at the time of this rulemaking regarding
SO2 emissions in Vermont and their
possible impacts in downwind states,
including: (1) SO2 ambient air quality;
(2) SO2 emissions and SO2 emissions
trends; (3) SIP-approved SO2 regulations
and permitting requirements; and (4)
other SIP-approved or federallypromulgated regulations which may
yield reductions of SO2 at Vermont’s
fuel-combustion point and nonpoint
sources.
Fourth, using the universe of
information identified in steps 1–3 (i.e.,
emissions sources, spatial scale and
available data, and enforceable
regulations), EPA then conducted an
analysis under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether or
not fuel-combustion sources in Vermont
would significantly contribute to SO2
nonattainment in other states, and then
whether emissions from those sources
would interfere with maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS in other states.
Based on the analysis provided by the
State in its November 2, 2015 SIP
submission and EPA’s assessment of the
information discussed at length below,
EPA proposes to find that sources or
other emissions activity within Vermont
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, nor will they interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical
Approaches for Criteria Pollutants
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs
to include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from emitting any
air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. The two clauses of this section are
referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance
of the NAAQS).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
EPA’s most recent infrastructure SIP
guidance, the September 13, 2013
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2),’’ did not explicitly
include criteria for how the Agency
would evaluate infrastructure SIP
submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).4 With respect to
certain pollutants, such as ozone and
particulate matter, EPA has addressed
interstate transport in eastern states in
the context of regional rulemaking
actions that quantify state emission
reduction obligations.5 In other actions,
such as EPA action on western state
SIPs addressing ozone and particulate
matter, EPA has considered a variety of
factors on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether emissions from one
state interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state. In such actions, EPA has
considered available information such
as current air quality, emissions data
and trends, meteorology, and
topography.6
For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA
has suggested the applicable interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a
state’s assessment as to whether or not
emissions from Pb sources located in
close proximity to its borders have
emissions that impact a neighboring
state such that they contribute
4 At
the time the September 13, 2013 guidance
was issued, EPA was litigating challenges raised
with respect to its Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(‘‘CSAPR’’), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements with respect to the
1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7. EPA
subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit’s
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted
in June 2013. As EPA was in the process of
litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP
guidance was issued, EPA did not issue guidance
specific to that provision. The Supreme Court
subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision
and remanded the case to that court for further
review. 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). On July 28, 2015, the
D.C. Circuit issued a decision upholding CSAPR,
but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
5 NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
X
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May
12, 2005); CSAPR, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
6 See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate
Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance
Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516,
14616–14626 (March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR
34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24Hour PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121,
27124–27125 (May 12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR
47862 (August 10, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in that state.
For example, EPA noted in an October
14, 2011 memorandum titled,
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP
Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS,’’ 7 that the physical properties
of Pb prevent its emissions from
experiencing the same travel or
formation phenomena as PM2.5 or
ozone, and there is a sharp decrease in
Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse
fraction, as the distance from a Pb
source increases. Accordingly, while it
may be possible for a source in a state
to emit Pb in a location and in
quantities that may contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other state, EPA anticipates that this
would be a rare situation, e.g., where
large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.8 Our rationale and
explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, consistent with EPA’s
interpretation of the October 14, 2011
guidance document, can be found in,
among other instances, the proposed
approval and a subsequent final
approval of interstate transport SIPs
submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.9
B. Approach for Addressing the
Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont
This document describes EPA’s
evaluation of Vermont’s conclusion
contained in the State’s November 2,
2015 infrastructure SIP submission that
the State satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.10
As previously noted, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation
of any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state and how emissions
from these sources or activities may
impact air quality in other states. As the
analysis contained in Vermont’s
submittal demonstrates, a state’s
obligation to demonstrate that it is
meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot
7 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/
collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_
infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
8 Id. at pp 7–8.
9 See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and
79 FR 41439 (July 16, 2014).
10 EPA notes that the evaluation of other states’
satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS can be informed by similar factors
found in this proposed rulemaking, but may not be
identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for Vermont, depending on available
information and state-specific circumstances.
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
be based solely on the fact that there are
no data requirements rule (DRR) sources
within the state. Therefore, EPA
believes that a reasonable starting point
for determining which sources and
emissions activities in Vermont are
likely to impact downwind air quality
with respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by
using information in the NEI.11 The NEI
is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions of criteria
pollutants, criteria precursors, and
hazardous air pollutants from air
emissions sources, and is updated every
three years using information provided
by the states. At the time of this
rulemaking, the most recently available
dataset is the 2014 NEI, and the state
summary for Vermont is included in the
table below.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI
SO2 DATA FOR VERMONT
Emissions
(tons per
year)
Category
2
442
891
61
65
30
10
Total ........................................
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities ...........................................
Fuel Combustion: Industrial ........
Fuel Combustion: Other .............
Waste Disposal and Recycling ...
Highway Vehicles .......................
Off-Highway ................................
Miscellaneous .............................
1,501
The EPA observes that according to
the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of SO2
emissions in Vermont originate from
fuel combustion at point and nonpoint
sources. Therefore, an assessment of
Vermont’s satisfaction of all applicable
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS may reasonably be based
upon evaluating the downwind impacts
of emissions from the combined fuel
combustion categories (i.e., electric
utilities, industrial processes, and other
sources 12).
The definitions contained in
Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are
helpful indicators of the travel and
formation phenomenon for SO2
originating from stationary sources in its
stoichiometric gaseous form in the
context of the 2010 primary SO2
NAAQS. Notably, section 4.4 of
Appendix D titled, ‘‘Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria’’ provides
definitions for SO2 Monitoring Spatial
Scales for microscale, middle scale,
11 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
national-emissions-inventory.
12 The ‘‘other’’ category of fuel combustion in
Vermont is comprised almost entirely of residential
heating through fuel oil and wood combustion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
neighborhood, and urban scale
monitors. The microscale includes areas
in close proximity to SO2 point and area
sources, and those areas extend
approximately 100 meters from a
facility. The middle scale generally
represents air quality levels in areas 100
meters to 500 meters from a facility, and
may include locations of maximum
expected short-term concentrations due
to the proximity of major SO2 point,
area, and non-road sources. The
neighborhood scale characterizes air
quality conditions between 0.5
kilometers and 4 kilometers from a
facility, and emissions from stationary
and point sources may under certain
plume conditions, result in high SO2
concentrations at this scale. Lastly, the
urban scale is used to estimate
concentrations over large portions of an
urban area with dimensions of 4 to 50
kilometers from a facility, and such
measurements would be useful for
assessing trends and concentrations in
area-wide air quality, and hence, the
effectiveness of large-scale pollution
control strategies. Based on these
definitions contained in EPA’s own
regulations, we believe that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of
emissions from electric utilities and
industrial processes in Vermont in
distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km
from the facility. In other words, SO2
emissions from stationary sources in the
context of the 2010 primary NAAQS do
not exhibit the same long-distance
travel, regional transport or formation
phenomena as either ozone or PM2.5, but
rather, these emissions behave more like
Pb with localized dispersion. Therefore,
an assessment up to 50 kilometers from
potential sources would be useful for
assessing trends and SO2 concentrations
in area-wide air quality.13
The largest category of SO2 emissions
in Table 1 is for ‘‘other’’ fuel
combustion sources. The majority of
emissions in this category is from
residential fuel combustion (758 tons
per year), or 50% of the total statewide
SO2 emissions for 2014. Residential
homes combusting fuel are considered
nonpoint sources. For any state where
the SO2 contribution from nonpoint
sources make up a majority of all
statewide SO2 emissions, EPA believes
it is reasonable to evaluate any
regulations intended to address fuel oil,
specifically with respect to the sulfur
content in order to determine interstate
transport impacts from the category of
‘‘other’’ sources of fuel combustion.
13 EPA recognizes in Appendix A.1 titled,
‘‘AERMOD (AMS/EPA Regulatory Model)—’’ of
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 that the model is
appropriate for predicting SO2 up to 50 kilometers.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15339
Our current implementation strategy
for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
includes the flexibility to characterize
air quality for stationary sources via
either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the
points of maximum concentration, or air
dispersion modeling.14 Our assessment
of SO2 emissions from fuel combustion
categories in the State and their
potential impacts on neighboring states
are informed by all available data at the
time of this rulemaking, and include:
SO2 ambient air quality; SO2 emissions
and SO2 emissions trends; SIP-approved
SO2 regulations and permitting
requirements; and, other SIP-approved
or federally promulgated regulations
which may yield reductions of SO2.
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration
for SO2 Emissions
A. Prong 1 Analysis—Significant
Contribution to SO2 Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor
provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of a NAAQS in another
state. In order to evaluate Vermont’s
satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated
the State’s SIP submission in relation to
the following five factors: (1) The
impact on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area; (2) SO2 emission
trends for Vermont and neighboring
states; (3) SO2 ambient air quality data;
(4) SIP-approved regulations specific to
SO2 emissions and permit requirements;
and (5) other SIP-approved or federallyenforceable regulations that, while not
directly intended to address or reduce
SO2 emissions, may yield reductions of
the pollutant. A detailed discussion of
each of these factors is below.
1. Impact on the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area
The nearest nonattainment area to
Vermont for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is in
New Hampshire. On August 5, 2013,
EPA designated the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area, an area
surrounding Merrimack Station, a coalfired power plant, as nonattainment for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191.
On September 28, 2017, EPA proposed
approval of New Hampshire’s
attainment plan for this nonattainment
area. See 82 FR45242. The State’s plan
did not rely on any reductions in SO2
emissions from sources in Vermont to
demonstrate the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area will
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018
14 https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/2010-1hour-sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-national-ambientair-quality-standards-naaqs.
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
15340
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
attainment date. Furthermore, no
comments received on EPA’s proposed
approval of the State’s plan suggest SO2
emissions from sources in Vermont
should be considered in any attainment
demonstration.15
2. SO2 Emissions Trends
As noted above, EPA’s approach for
addressing the interstate transport of
SO2 in Vermont is based upon
emissions from fuel combustion at
electric utilities, industrial sources, and
residential heating. As part of the SIP
submittal, Vermont observed that, in
accordance with the most recently
available designations guidance at the
time,16 there were no facilities in
Vermont with reported actual emissions
greater than or equal to 500 tons per
year of SO2 in 2014.
According to the 2014 NEI data, the
highest SO2 emissions from a single
point source was 158 tons from
Agrimark in Middlebury, Vermont and
the next largest emitter of SO2 from an
industrial or electric generating facility
in Vermont was Fibermark, located in
Brattleboro, which emitted 12 tons of
SO2.
As demonstrated by the data in Table
2, statewide SO2 emissions in Vermont
and in its three neighboring states, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and New
York, have significantly decreased over
time. This decreasing trend should
continue into the near future in
Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts
as these three states have adopted
strategies to lower the sulfur content (by
weight) of fuel oil.17 By July 1, 2018, the
home heating oil in these three states
will be limited to 15 parts per million
(ppm) of sulfur by weight.
TABLE 2—STATEWIDE SO2 DATA (Tons per Year) FOR VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW YORK, AND
MASSACHUSETTS 18
State
2000
Vermont ................................................................................
New Hampshire ...................................................................
Massachusetts .....................................................................
New York .............................................................................
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
2005
9,438
68,768
208,146
543,868
7,038
63,634
139,937
386,568
Vermont indicates that the monitored
values of SO2 in the State have
remained below the NAAQS. Relevant
data from Air Quality Standards (AQS)
Data collected at an ambient air
quality monitor located in Rutland,
2010
% Change
from 2000
to 2016
2016
3,659
35,716
57,892
170,247
¥85
¥92
¥94
¥89
1,455
5,462
13,518
59,520
Design Value (DV) 19 reports for recent
and complete 3-year periods are
summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3—TREND IN SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE AQS MONITOR IN VERMONT
AQS monitor site
Monitor location
2012–2014
DV
(ppb)
2013–2015
DV
(ppb)
2014–2016
DV
(ppb)
50–021–0002 ........................................................
Rutland .................................................................
13
9
6
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs
at the Rutland monitor for all periods
between 2012 and 2016 have decreased.
The most recent DV for the Rutland
monitor, covering the years 2014–2016,
is 6 ppb, which is 92% below the
NAAQS.20
However, the absence of a violating
ambient air quality monitor within the
State is insufficient to demonstrate that
Vermont has met its interstate transport
obligation. While the decreasing DVs
may help to assist in characterizing air
quality within Vermont, prong 1 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically
addresses what effects sources within
Vermont may have on air quality in
neighboring states. Therefore, an
evaluation and analysis of SO2
emissions data from facilities within the
State, together with the potential effects
of such emissions on ambient air quality
in neighboring states, is appropriate.
As previously discussed, EPA’s
definitions of spatial scales for SO2
monitoring networks indicate that the
maximum impacts from stationary
sources can be expected within 4
kilometers of such sources, and that
distances up to 50 kilometers would be
useful for assessing trends and
concentrations in area-wide air quality.
The only neighboring states within 50
km of an SO2 source in Vermont are
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
New York. As a result, no further
analysis of other Northeast states was
conducted for assessing the impacts of
the interstate transport of SO2 pollution
from facilities located in Vermont.
There are four ambient SO2 monitors
operating in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and New York within 50 km
of Vermont’s border. These monitors are
identified in Table 4, along with those
monitors’ DVs for SO2 in the last three,
three-year periods. As shown in Table 4,
SO2 DVs for these monitors are
decreasing, with the exception of
Wilmington, NY which increased 1 ppb
between the 2013–2015 and 2014–2016
15 See docket for Air Plan Approval; NH;
Attainment Plan for the Central New Hampshire
2010 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R01-OAR2017-0083.
16 March 24, 2011 guidance document titled,
‘‘Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.’’ See, e.g., https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/
AirQuality/documents/
SO2DesignationsGuidance2011.pdf.
17 On May 22, 2012, EPA approved Vermont’s low
sulfur fuel regulation. See 77 FR 30212. On
September 19, 2013, EPA approved Massachusetts’
low sulfur fuel regulation. See 78 FR 57487. On
August 8, 2012, EPA approved New York’s low
sulfur fuel statute. See 77 FR 51915.
18 See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
19 A ‘‘Design Value’’ is a statistic that describes
the air quality status of a given location relative to
the level of the NAAQS. The interpretation of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 parts per
billion [ppb]) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for
determining compliance with the NAAQS can be
found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
20 There is another ambient monitor in Underhill,
Vermont that only had a valid DV for 2014–2016.
The DV was 2 ppb.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
15341
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
periods. The highest DV for the most
recent DV period (between 2014–2016)
is 8% of the NAAQS.
TABLE 4—TREND IN SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR AQS MONITORS WITHIN 50 km OF VERMONT
2012–2014
DV
(ppb)
AQS monitor site
Monitor location
25–015–4002 .........................
33–011–5001 .........................
36–001–00012 .......................
36–031–0003 .........................
Quabbin Summit, MA ..............................................................
Pack Monadock, NH ...............................................................
Loudonville Reservoir, NY ......................................................
Wilmington, NY .......................................................................
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Federally Enforceable Regulations
Specific to SO2 and Permitting
Requirements
The State has various regulations to
ensure that SO2 emissions are not
expected to substantially increase in the
future. One notable example consists of
the federally-enforceable conditions
contained in Vermont’s Air Pollution
Control Regulation (APCR), Subchapter
II, Section 5–221, ‘‘Prohibition of
Pollution Potential Materials in Fuel.’’
This regulation, last approved by EPA
into the SIP on May 22, 2012 (77 FR
30212) limits the amount of sulfur by
weight in fuel oil. As discussed earlier
in this document, the 2014 NEI
indicates that the single largest, albeit
diffuse, source category of SO2
emissions in Vermont is from fuel
combustion for residential heating (891
tons). Starting on July 1, 2014 the sulfur
content for home heating oil in Vermont
was lowered to 500 parts per million
(ppm), or 0.05% by weight. An
additional reduction in the amount of
SO2 emissions from the use of home
heating oil will occur after July 1, 2018
when the sulfur content will be reduced
from 500 ppm to 15 ppm or 0.0015% by
weight, representing a 97% decrease in
SO2 emissions from residential oil
combustion.
In addition, for the purposes of
ensuring that SO2 emissions at new or
modified stationary sources in Vermont
do not adversely impact air quality, the
State’s SIP-approved nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) and
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs are contained in APCR,
Subchapter V ‘‘Review of New Air
Contaminant Sources.’’ This regulation
ensures that SO2 emissions due to new
facility construction or to modifications
at existing facilities will not adversely
impact air quality in Vermont and will
likely not adversely impact air quality
in neighboring states.
21 See 77 FR 30212 (May 22, 2012) for Vermont,
78 FR 57487 (September 19, 2013) for
Massachusetts, and 77 FR 51915 (August 8, 2012),
for New York.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
Finally, in addition to the State’s SIPapproved regulations, EPA observes that
facilities in Vermont are also subject to
the federal requirements contained in
regulations such as the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters. This regulation
reduces acid gases, which have a cobenefit of reducing SO2 emissions.
5. Conclusion
As discussed, EPA has considered the
following information in evaluating the
State’s satisfaction of the requirements
of prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) Past and projected SO2 emission
trends demonstrate that ambient SO2 air
quality issues in neighboring states are
unlikely to occur due to SO2 emissions
from sources in Vermont; and
(2) Current SIP provisions and other
federal programs will further reduce
SO2 emissions from sources within
Vermont.
Based on the analysis provided by the
State in its November 2, 2015 SIP
submission and based on each of the
factors listed above, EPA proposes to
find that any sources or other emissions
activity within the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 primary SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
B. Prong 2 Analysis—Interference With
Maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS
Prong 2 of the good neighbor
provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. Given the continuing
trend of decreased SO2 emissions from
sources within Vermont, EPA believes
that a reasonable criterion to ensure that
sources or other emissions activity
originating within Vermont do not
interfere with its neighboring states’
ability to maintain the NAAQS consists
22 See emission factors at https://www3.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2013–2015
DV
(ppb)
6
5
8
3
2014–2016
DV
(ppb)
5
5
8
3
4
3
6
4
of evaluating whether these decreases in
emissions can be maintained over time.
As shown in Table 2, above, statewide SO2 emissions in Vermont, and the
three neighboring states of
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
New York, have significantly decreased
since 2000. Three of these states
(Massachusetts, New York, and
Vermont) have EPA-approved low
sulfur fuel oil requirements in their
SIPs, requiring the sulfur content in
home heating oil and other sources
using distillate oil to be lowered by an
additional 97% no later than July 1,
2018.21 According to 2014 NEI data,
home heating oil is the largest category
of SO2 emissions in three of the states,
Vermont, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire. In New York, home heating
oil was not the largest category of SO2
emissions in the 2014 NEI because the
sulfur content in home heating oil was
reduced by the State to 15 ppm on July
1, 2012.
Utilizing home heating oil usage data
from the U. S. Energy Information
Administration and SIP-approved limits
on the sulfur content of home heating
oil, future SO2 emissions from home
heating oil can be forecasted in
Massachusetts and Vermont where the
reduction in sulfur content to 15 ppm
will not take effect until July 1, 2018.
According to EPA’s guidance titled
‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP42)’’ Chapter 1.3 titled,
‘‘Fuel Oil Combustion,’’ 22 more than
95% of the sulfur in fuel is converted to
SO2. Table 5 provides the estimated SO2
emissions from Massachusetts and
Vermont based on home heating oil
usage in 2016 and using the average
annual home heating oil usage over a
five-year period (2012–2016) 23 to
estimate the SO2 emissions in 2019,
when the sulfur content limit of 15 ppm
will be in place for the entire calendar
year heating season.
23 See residential fuel oil usage at https://
www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_821usea_a_epd0_
var_mgal_a.htm.
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
15342
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—ESTIMATED SO2 EMISSIONS FROM HOME HEATING OIL
Average home
heating oil
usage
2012–2016
(1,000 gal)
State
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Vermont .......................................................................................................................................
Massachusetts .............................................................................................................................
While EPA does not currently have a
way to quantify the impacts of multiple
small, diffuse sources of SO2 on air
quality in neighboring states, the drastic
decrease in the allowable sulfur content
in fuel oil in Vermont and the
associated reductions in SO2 emissions,
combined with the diffuse nature of
these emissions, makes it unlikely that
the current and future emissions from
residential combustion of fuel oil are
likely to lead to interference of
maintenance of the NAAQS in a
neighboring state. Specifically, by 2018,
in both Massachusetts and Vermont, the
yearly SO2 emissions from a household
using 1,000 gallons of fuel oil will drop
to under 0.21 pounds per year.
As shown in Table 2, statewide SO2
emissions in Vermont have decreased
over time. Several factors have caused
this decrease in emissions, including
the effective date of APCR Subchapter
II, Section 5–221 and industrial boilers
switching to lower sulfur emitting fuels
due to economics. According to
emission trends data,24 SO2 emissions
from industrial sources decreased in
Vermont by almost 90% from 2000 to
2016. The EPA believes that since actual
SO2 emissions from the facilities
currently operating in Vermont have
decreased between 2000 and 2016, this
trend shows that emissions originating
in Vermont are not expected to interfere
with the neighboring states’ ability to
maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
As discussed above, EPA expects SO2
from point sources combusting fuel oil
in Vermont will be lower in the future
due to the lowering of the sulfur content
in fuels as required by APCR
Subchapter II, Section 5–221.
Lastly, any future large sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by
Vermont’s SIP-approved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
Future minor sources of SO2 emissions
will be addressed by the State’s minor
new source review permit program. The
permitting regulations contained within
these programs, along with the other
factors already discussed, are expected
24 See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
to help ensure that ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire or New York are not
exceeded as a result of new facility
construction or modification occurring
in Vermont.
It is also worth noting the air quality
trends for ambient SO2 in the
Northeastern United States.25 This
region has experienced a 77% decrease
in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between
2000 and 2015 based on 46 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available
data for 2015 indicates that the mean
value at these sites was 17.4 ppb, a
value less than 25% of the NAAQS.
When this trend is evaluated alongside
the monitored SO2 concentrations
within the State of Vermont as well as
the SO2 concentrations recorded at
monitors in Massachusetts, New York,
and New Hampshire within 50 km of
Vermont’s border, EPA does not believe
that sources or emissions activity from
within Vermont are significantly
different than the overall decreasing
monitored SO2 concentration trend in
the Northeast region. As a result, EPA
finds it unlikely that sources or
emissions activity from within Vermont
will interfere with other states’ ability to
maintain the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
Based on each of factors contained in
the prong 2 maintenance analysis above,
EPA proposes to find that sources or
other emissions activity within the State
will not interfere with maintenance of
the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
VI. Proposed Action
Considering the above analysis, EPA
is proposing to approve Vermont’s
November 2, 2015 infrastructure
submittal for the 2010 primary SO2
NAAQS as it pertains to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested
parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting
25 See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfurdioxide-trends.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Estimate of
SO2 emissions
(tons) from
households
using oil
(2016)
Estimate of
SO2 emissions
(tons) from
households
using oil
(2019)
70,701
545,075
254
1,643
8
58
comments to this proposed rule by
following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.
VII. 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 Orders12866 (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
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018–07231 Filed 4–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Apr 09, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
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-epadockets.
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; simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
DATES:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15343
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.
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
1 PM
2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ‘‘fine’’
particles.
E:\FR\FM\10APP1.SGM
10APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15336-15343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07231]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604; A-1-FRL-9976-36--Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure Requirement for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the remaining portion of a November 2, 2015 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont.
This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with
respect to the primary 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action proposes to approve
Vermont's demonstration that the State is meeting its obligations
regarding the transport of SO2 emissions into other states.
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-2014-0604 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs 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) 918-1657; or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
IV. Section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
of the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions
A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2
Nonattainment
1. Impact on the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
2. SO2 Emissions Trends
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
4. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2
and Permitting Requirements
5. Conclusion
B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new
[[Page 15337]]
or revised NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe.\1\ These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as
``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the 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. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale of these SIPs and their requirements can be found in, among
other documents, EPA's May 13, 2014 proposed rule titled,
``Infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,'' in the
section ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at
27242-27245). As noted above, section 110(a) of the CAA imposes an
obligation upon states to submit to EPA a SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS. The content of individual state submissions may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances, and may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement applies to both primary and secondary
NAAQS, but EPA's approval in this document applies only to the 2010
primary NAAQS for SO2 because EPA did not establish in
2010 a new secondary NAAQS for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2015, the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC) submitted proposed revisions to its SIP,
certifying that its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 primary NAAQS. On June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29005), EPA
approved VT DEC's certification that its SIP was adequate to meet most
of the program elements required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA conditionally approved the State's submission in relation to
subsections (C), (D), and (J) of CAA section 110(a)(2) in relation to
the prevention of significant deterioration permit program.
However, at that time, EPA did not take action on VT DEC's
certification that its SIP met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. EPA is
now proposing to approve VT DEC's November 2, 2015 certification that
its SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for
purposes of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
II. State Submittal
Vermont presented several facts in its SIP submission on the effect
of SO2 emissions from sources within Vermont on downwind and
neighboring states' SO2 nonattainment areas and those
states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP
submission notes statewide SO2 emissions from point sources
in 2011 were less than 500 tons total. Vermont also included two data
points regarding ambient monitoring data in its November 2015
submittal. First, the design value from an instate monitor in Rutland
for the period 2012-2014 was 13 ppb, which is only 17% of the 2010
SO2 standard. Vermont also stated the most recent design
value (2013) for the central New Hampshire nonattainment area was 23
ppb. Finally, Vermont states in its SIP submission that ``[n]o source
or sources within Vermont have been identified as contributing
significantly to nonattainment in any other state or are the subject of
an active finding under section 126 of the CAA with respect to
SO2 or any other air pollutant.''
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
This proposed approval of Vermont's November 2, 2015 SIP submission
addressing interstate transport of SO2 is intended to show
that the State is meeting its obligations regarding CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the primary 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\2\ Interstate transport requirements for all NAAQS pollutants
prohibit any source, or other type of emissions activity, in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. As part of this analysis, and as explained in
detail below, EPA has taken several approaches to addressing interstate
transport in other actions based on the characteristics of the
pollutant, the interstate problem presented by emissions of that
pollutant, the sources that emit the pollutant, and the information
available to assess transport of that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This proposed approval of Vermont's SIP submission under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information contained in
the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any
other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding
Vermont's air quality status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own
administrative records and EPA's analyses of information that
becomes available at those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling
analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's Data Requirements Rule (80 FR
51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to EPA by states,
air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups
and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone that EPA has
addressed in other actions, in that SO2 is not a regional
mixing pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large, multi-state area. While in
certain respects transport of SO2 is more analogous to the
transport of lead (Pb) because SO2's and Pb's physical
properties result in localized impacts very near the emissions source,
in another respect the physical properties and release height of
SO2 are such that impacts of SO2 do not
experience the same sharp decrease in ambient concentrations as rapidly
and as nearby as they do for Pb. While emissions of SO2
travel farther and have sufficiently wider-ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb such that it is reasonable to require a different
approach for assessing SO2 transport than assessing Pb
transport, the differences are not significant enough to treat
SO2 in a manner similar to the way in which EPA treats and
analyzes regional transport pollutants such as ozone or
PM2.5.
Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport
of SO2 than the approach used for the other pollutants
identified above: The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport are
too tightly circumscribed to the source, and the approaches for ozone
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's
evaluation of whether Vermont has met is transport obligations in
relation to SO2 was accomplished in several discrete steps.
First, EPA evaluated the universe of sources in Vermont likely to
be responsible for SO2 emissions that could contribute to
interstate transport. An assessment of the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for Vermont made it clear that the vast majority of
SO2 emissions in Vermont are from fuel combustion at point
and nonpoint sources,\3\ and therefore it would be reasonable to
evaluate the downwind impacts of emissions from these two fuel
combustion source categories, combined, in order to help determine
whether the State has met is transport obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See EPA's web page, www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei, for a description of what types of
sources of air emissions are considered point and nonpoint sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale--essentially, the geographic
area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably
expect SO2 impacts to occur--that would be
[[Page 15338]]
appropriate for its analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an
``urban scale'' with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers from point and
nonpoint sources, given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies. As such, EPA utilized an assessment
up to 50 kilometers from fuel-combustion sources in order to assess
trends in area-wide air quality that might have an impact on the
transport of SO2 from Vermont to downwind states.
Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in Vermont and their
possible impacts in downwind states, including: (1) SO2
ambient air quality; (2) SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; (3) SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; and (4) other SIP-approved or federally-
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2 at
Vermont's fuel-combustion point and nonpoint sources.
Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3
(i.e., emissions sources, spatial scale and available data, and
enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an analysis under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether or not fuel-combustion
sources in Vermont would significantly contribute to SO2
nonattainment in other states, and then whether emissions from those
sources would interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
other states.
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015
SIP submission and EPA's assessment of the information discussed at
length below, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within Vermont will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\4\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, EPA has addressed interstate transport in
eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking actions that
quantify state emission reduction obligations.\5\ In other actions,
such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, EPA has considered a variety of factors on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In
such actions, EPA has considered available information such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
\5\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\6\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be
met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that
impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example,
EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,'' \7\ that the physical properties of
Pb prevent its emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation
phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease
in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance
from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.\8\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the October 14, 2011 guidance document, can be found
in, among other instances, the proposed approval and a subsequent final
approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
\8\ Id. at pp 7-8.
\9\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont
This document describes EPA's evaluation of Vermont's conclusion
contained in the State's November 2, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission
that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can
be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking,
but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for Vermont, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state and how emissions from these sources or activities may impact air
quality in other states. As the analysis contained in Vermont's
submittal demonstrates, a state's obligation to demonstrate that it is
meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot
[[Page 15339]]
be based solely on the fact that there are no data requirements rule
(DRR) sources within the state. Therefore, EPA believes that a
reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions
activities in Vermont are likely to impact downwind air quality with
respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the
NEI.\11\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources, and is updated every three
years using information provided by the states. At the time of this
rulemaking, the most recently available dataset is the 2014 NEI, and
the state summary for Vermont is included in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Vermont
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Category (tons per
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities......................... 2
Fuel Combustion: Industrial................................. 442
Fuel Combustion: Other...................................... 891
Waste Disposal and Recycling................................ 61
Highway Vehicles............................................ 65
Off-Highway................................................. 30
Miscellaneous............................................... 10
-----------
Total..................................................... 1,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority
of SO2 emissions in Vermont originate from fuel combustion
at point and nonpoint sources. Therefore, an assessment of Vermont's
satisfaction of all applicable requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may
reasonably be based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of emissions
from the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric utilities,
industrial processes, and other sources \12\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The ``other'' category of fuel combustion in Vermont is
comprised almost entirely of residential heating through fuel oil
and wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definitions contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are
helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for
SO2 originating from stationary sources in its
stoichiometric gaseous form in the context of the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS. Notably, section 4.4 of Appendix D titled,
``Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria'' provides
definitions for SO2 Monitoring Spatial Scales for
microscale, middle scale, neighborhood, and urban scale monitors. The
microscale includes areas in close proximity to SO2 point
and area sources, and those areas extend approximately 100 meters from
a facility. The middle scale generally represents air quality levels in
areas 100 meters to 500 meters from a facility, and may include
locations of maximum expected short-term concentrations due to the
proximity of major SO2 point, area, and non-road sources.
The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality conditions between 0.5
kilometers and 4 kilometers from a facility, and emissions from
stationary and point sources may under certain plume conditions, result
in high SO2 concentrations at this scale. Lastly, the urban
scale is used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an
urban area with dimensions of 4 to 50 kilometers from a facility, and
such measurements would be useful for assessing trends and
concentrations in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness
of large-scale pollution control strategies. Based on these definitions
contained in EPA's own regulations, we believe that it is appropriate
to examine the impacts of emissions from electric utilities and
industrial processes in Vermont in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km
from the facility. In other words, SO2 emissions from
stationary sources in the context of the 2010 primary NAAQS do not
exhibit the same long-distance travel, regional transport or formation
phenomena as either ozone or PM2.5, but rather, these
emissions behave more like Pb with localized dispersion. Therefore, an
assessment up to 50 kilometers from potential sources would be useful
for assessing trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA recognizes in Appendix A.1 titled, ``AERMOD (AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model)--'' of Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 that the model
is appropriate for predicting SO2 up to 50 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest category of SO2 emissions in Table 1 is for
``other'' fuel combustion sources. The majority of emissions in this
category is from residential fuel combustion (758 tons per year), or
50% of the total statewide SO2 emissions for 2014.
Residential homes combusting fuel are considered nonpoint sources. For
any state where the SO2 contribution from nonpoint sources
make up a majority of all statewide SO2 emissions, EPA
believes it is reasonable to evaluate any regulations intended to
address fuel oil, specifically with respect to the sulfur content in
order to determine interstate transport impacts from the category of
``other'' sources of fuel combustion.
Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary sources via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration,
or air dispersion modeling.\14\ Our assessment of SO2
emissions from fuel combustion categories in the State and their
potential impacts on neighboring states are informed by all available
data at the time of this rulemaking, and include: SO2
ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; and, other SIP-approved or federally
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/2010-1-hour-sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions
A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2 Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Vermont's
satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submission in
relation to the following five factors: (1) The impact on the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area; (2) SO2 emission trends
for Vermont and neighboring states; (3) SO2 ambient air
quality data; (4) SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2
emissions and permit requirements; and (5) other SIP-approved or
federally-enforceable regulations that, while not directly intended to
address or reduce SO2 emissions, may yield reductions of the
pollutant. A detailed discussion of each of these factors is below.
1. Impact on the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
The nearest nonattainment area to Vermont for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS is in New Hampshire. On August 5, 2013, EPA
designated the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, an area
surrounding Merrimack Station, a coal-fired power plant, as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191. On
September 28, 2017, EPA proposed approval of New Hampshire's attainment
plan for this nonattainment area. See 82 FR45242. The State's plan did
not rely on any reductions in SO2 emissions from sources in
Vermont to demonstrate the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018
[[Page 15340]]
attainment date. Furthermore, no comments received on EPA's proposed
approval of the State's plan suggest SO2 emissions from
sources in Vermont should be considered in any attainment
demonstration.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See docket for Air Plan Approval; NH; Attainment Plan for
the Central New Hampshire 2010 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. SO2 Emissions Trends
As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate
transport of SO2 in Vermont is based upon emissions from
fuel combustion at electric utilities, industrial sources, and
residential heating. As part of the SIP submittal, Vermont observed
that, in accordance with the most recently available designations
guidance at the time,\16\ there were no facilities in Vermont with
reported actual emissions greater than or equal to 500 tons per year of
SO2 in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ March 24, 2011 guidance document titled, ``Area
Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' See, e.g., https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/documents/SO2DesignationsGuidance2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2014 NEI data, the highest SO2
emissions from a single point source was 158 tons from Agrimark in
Middlebury, Vermont and the next largest emitter of SO2 from
an industrial or electric generating facility in Vermont was Fibermark,
located in Brattleboro, which emitted 12 tons of SO2.
As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, statewide SO2
emissions in Vermont and in its three neighboring states, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York, have significantly decreased
over time. This decreasing trend should continue into the near future
in Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts as these three states have
adopted strategies to lower the sulfur content (by weight) of fuel
oil.\17\ By July 1, 2018, the home heating oil in these three states
will be limited to 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ On May 22, 2012, EPA approved Vermont's low sulfur fuel
regulation. See 77 FR 30212. On September 19, 2013, EPA approved
Massachusetts' low sulfur fuel regulation. See 78 FR 57487. On
August 8, 2012, EPA approved New York's low sulfur fuel statute. See
77 FR 51915.
Table 2--Statewide SO2 Data (Tons per Year) for Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts \18\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Change from
State 2000 2005 2010 2016 2000 to 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont......................... 9,438 7,038 3,659 1,455 -85
New Hampshire................... 68,768 63,634 35,716 5,462 -92
Massachusetts................... 208,146 139,937 57,892 13,518 -94
New York........................ 543,868 386,568 170,247 59,520 -89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data collected at an ambient air quality monitor located in
Rutland, Vermont indicates that the monitored values of SO2
in the State have remained below the NAAQS. Relevant data from Air
Quality Standards (AQS) Design Value (DV) \19\ reports for recent and
complete 3-year periods are summarized in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
(set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance
with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
Table 3--Trend in SO2 Design Values for the AQS Monitor in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014 DV 2013-2015 DV 2014-2016 DV
AQS monitor site Monitor location (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50-021-0002.............................. Rutland.................... 13 9 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs at the Rutland monitor for all
periods between 2012 and 2016 have decreased. The most recent DV for
the Rutland monitor, covering the years 2014-2016, is 6 ppb, which is
92% below the NAAQS.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ There is another ambient monitor in Underhill, Vermont that
only had a valid DV for 2014-2016. The DV was 2 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that Vermont has met
its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs may help
to assist in characterizing air quality within Vermont, prong 1 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses what effects sources
within Vermont may have on air quality in neighboring states.
Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of SO2 emissions data
from facilities within the State, together with the potential effects
of such emissions on ambient air quality in neighboring states, is
appropriate.
As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for
SO2 monitoring networks indicate that the maximum impacts
from stationary sources can be expected within 4 kilometers of such
sources, and that distances up to 50 kilometers would be useful for
assessing trends and concentrations in area-wide air quality. The only
neighboring states within 50 km of an SO2 source in Vermont
are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. As a result, no further
analysis of other Northeast states was conducted for assessing the
impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 pollution from
facilities located in Vermont.
There are four ambient SO2 monitors operating in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York within 50 km of Vermont's
border. These monitors are identified in Table 4, along with those
monitors' DVs for SO2 in the last three, three-year periods.
As shown in Table 4, SO2 DVs for these monitors are
decreasing, with the exception of Wilmington, NY which increased 1 ppb
between the 2013-2015 and 2014-2016
[[Page 15341]]
periods. The highest DV for the most recent DV period (between 2014-
2016) is 8% of the NAAQS.
Table 4--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors Within 50 km of Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014 DV 2013-2015 DV 2014-2016 DV
AQS monitor site Monitor location (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-015-4002........................... Quabbin Summit, MA...... 6 5 4
33-011-5001........................... Pack Monadock, NH....... 5 5 3
36-001-00012.......................... Loudonville Reservoir, 8 8 6
NY.
36-031-0003........................... Wilmington, NY.......... 3 3 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2 and
Permitting Requirements
The State has various regulations to ensure that SO2
emissions are not expected to substantially increase in the future. One
notable example consists of the federally-enforceable conditions
contained in Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR),
Subchapter II, Section 5-221, ``Prohibition of Pollution Potential
Materials in Fuel.'' This regulation, last approved by EPA into the SIP
on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30212) limits the amount of sulfur by weight in
fuel oil. As discussed earlier in this document, the 2014 NEI indicates
that the single largest, albeit diffuse, source category of
SO2 emissions in Vermont is from fuel combustion for
residential heating (891 tons). Starting on July 1, 2014 the sulfur
content for home heating oil in Vermont was lowered to 500 parts per
million (ppm), or 0.05% by weight. An additional reduction in the
amount of SO2 emissions from the use of home heating oil
will occur after July 1, 2018 when the sulfur content will be reduced
from 500 ppm to 15 ppm or 0.0015% by weight, representing a 97%
decrease in SO2 emissions from residential oil combustion.
In addition, for the purposes of ensuring that SO2
emissions at new or modified stationary sources in Vermont do not
adversely impact air quality, the State's SIP-approved nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs are contained in APCR, Subchapter V ``Review of New Air
Contaminant Sources.'' This regulation ensures that SO2
emissions due to new facility construction or to modifications at
existing facilities will not adversely impact air quality in Vermont
and will likely not adversely impact air quality in neighboring states.
Finally, in addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA
observes that facilities in Vermont are also subject to the federal
requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This
regulation reduces acid gases, which have a co-benefit of reducing
SO2 emissions.
5. Conclusion
As discussed, EPA has considered the following information in
evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements of prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) Past and projected SO2 emission trends demonstrate
that ambient SO2 air quality issues in neighboring states
are unlikely to occur due to SO2 emissions from sources in
Vermont; and
(2) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further
reduce SO2 emissions from sources within Vermont.
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015
SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA
proposes to find that any sources or other emissions activity within
the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased SO2
emissions from sources within Vermont, EPA believes that a reasonable
criterion to ensure that sources or other emissions activity
originating within Vermont do not interfere with its neighboring
states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether
these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time.
As shown in Table 2, above, state-wide SO2 emissions in
Vermont, and the three neighboring states of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and New York, have significantly decreased since 2000. Three
of these states (Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont) have EPA-
approved low sulfur fuel oil requirements in their SIPs, requiring the
sulfur content in home heating oil and other sources using distillate
oil to be lowered by an additional 97% no later than July 1, 2018.\21\
According to 2014 NEI data, home heating oil is the largest category of
SO2 emissions in three of the states, Vermont,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In New York, home heating oil was not
the largest category of SO2 emissions in the 2014 NEI
because the sulfur content in home heating oil was reduced by the State
to 15 ppm on July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 77 FR 30212 (May 22, 2012) for Vermont, 78 FR 57487
(September 19, 2013) for Massachusetts, and 77 FR 51915 (August 8,
2012), for New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilizing home heating oil usage data from the U. S. Energy
Information Administration and SIP-approved limits on the sulfur
content of home heating oil, future SO2 emissions from home
heating oil can be forecasted in Massachusetts and Vermont where the
reduction in sulfur content to 15 ppm will not take effect until July
1, 2018. According to EPA's guidance titled ``Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP42)'' Chapter 1.3 titled, ``Fuel Oil
Combustion,'' \22\ more than 95% of the sulfur in fuel is converted to
SO2. Table 5 provides the estimated SO2 emissions
from Massachusetts and Vermont based on home heating oil usage in 2016
and using the average annual home heating oil usage over a five-year
period (2012-2016) \23\ to estimate the SO2 emissions in
2019, when the sulfur content limit of 15 ppm will be in place for the
entire calendar year heating season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See emission factors at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf.
\23\ See residential fuel oil usage at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_821usea_a_epd0_var_mgal_a.htm.
[[Page 15342]]
Table 5--Estimated SO2 Emissions From Home Heating Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Estimate of
Average home SO2 emissions SO2 emissions
heating oil (tons) from (tons) from
State usage 2012- households households
2016 (1,000 using oil using oil
gal) (2016) (2019)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont......................................................... 70,701 254 8
Massachusetts................................................... 545,075 1,643 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EPA does not currently have a way to quantify the impacts of
multiple small, diffuse sources of SO2 on air quality in
neighboring states, the drastic decrease in the allowable sulfur
content in fuel oil in Vermont and the associated reductions in
SO2 emissions, combined with the diffuse nature of these
emissions, makes it unlikely that the current and future emissions from
residential combustion of fuel oil are likely to lead to interference
of maintenance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. Specifically, by
2018, in both Massachusetts and Vermont, the yearly SO2
emissions from a household using 1,000 gallons of fuel oil will drop to
under 0.21 pounds per year.
As shown in Table 2, statewide SO2 emissions in Vermont
have decreased over time. Several factors have caused this decrease in
emissions, including the effective date of APCR Subchapter II, Section
5-221 and industrial boilers switching to lower sulfur emitting fuels
due to economics. According to emission trends data,\24\ SO2
emissions from industrial sources decreased in Vermont by almost 90%
from 2000 to 2016. The EPA believes that since actual SO2
emissions from the facilities currently operating in Vermont have
decreased between 2000 and 2016, this trend shows that emissions
originating in Vermont are not expected to interfere with the
neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, EPA expects SO2 from point sources
combusting fuel oil in Vermont will be lower in the future due to the
lowering of the sulfur content in fuels as required by APCR Subchapter
II, Section 5-221.
Lastly, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will
be addressed by Vermont's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. Future minor sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by the State's minor new source review
permit program. The permitting regulations contained within these
programs, along with the other factors already discussed, are expected
to help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire or New York are not exceeded as a result
of new facility construction or modification occurring in Vermont.
It is also worth noting the air quality trends for ambient
SO2 in the Northeastern United States.\25\ This region has
experienced a 77% decrease in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between 2000 and 2015 based on 46 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available data for 2015 indicates that the
mean value at these sites was 17.4 ppb, a value less than 25% of the
NAAQS. When this trend is evaluated alongside the monitored
SO2 concentrations within the State of Vermont as well as
the SO2 concentrations recorded at monitors in
Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire within 50 km of Vermont's
border, EPA does not believe that sources or emissions activity from
within Vermont are significantly different than the overall decreasing
monitored SO2 concentration trend in the Northeast region.
As a result, EPA finds it unlikely that sources or emissions activity
from within Vermont will interfere with other states' ability to
maintain the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance
analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within the State will not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
VI. Proposed Action
Considering the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Vermont's November 2, 2015 infrastructure submittal for the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS as it pertains to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking 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.
VII. 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 Orders12866 (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
[[Page 15343]]
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-07231 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
