[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48765-48777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21006]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0595; A-1-FRL-9984-00--Region 1]


Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Transport Element 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 a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of New Hampshire. This revision addresses the interstate 
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the 
good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010 sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This 
action proposes to approve New Hampshire's demonstration that the State 
is meeting its obligations regarding the transport of SO2 
emissions into other states.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0595 at https://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, 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. 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional 
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor 
Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person 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: Leiran Biton, Air Permits, Toxics and 
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 
1, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 
02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1267, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Basis for 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 
for the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire
    C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    1. Emissions Trends
    2. Ambient Air Quality
    3. Assessment of Potential Ambient Impacts of SO2 
Emissions From Certain Sources Based on Air Dispersion Modeling and 
Other Information
    4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to SO2
    5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally-Enforceable Regulations
    6. Conclusion
    D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary 
NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), 
based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 
maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, 
states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements 
of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years after promulgation of a new 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 responsibility 
under the CAA. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale of 
these SIPs and their requirements can be found, among other citations, 
in EPA's May 13, 2014 (79 FR 27241) proposed rule titled, ``Approval 
and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP requirements for the 
2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this 
rulemaking?'' Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon 
states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but 
the contents 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 notice applies only to the 2010 
primary NAAQS for SO2 because EPA did not establish in 
2010 a new secondary NAAQS for SO2.

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

[[Page 48766]]

    EPA has implemented the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in multiple 
stages or ``rounds.'' In our first round of implementation, EPA 
identified a monitored violation based on 2009-2011 monitoring data for 
an area around Merrimack Station, a coal-fired power plant in Bow, New 
Hampshire. Subsequently on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), in concurrence 
with New Hampshire's recommendation for the area, EPA established the 
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS. On January 31, 2017, EPA received a SIP submittal from the New 
Hampshire Department of Environmental Service (NHDES) for the Central 
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area. The central component of the plan is 
a set of new permit limitations on SO2 emissions from 
Merrimack Station. On September 28, 2017 (82 FR 45242), EPA proposed to 
approve the State's January 31, 2017 SIP submittal as meeting all 
applicable requirements for a nonattainment area SIP submittal. EPA 
issued a final rule approving New Hampshire's SIP submittal for the 
Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922). 
No other areas in New Hampshire or any neighboring state were 
designated for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the first or second 
rounds of designations. All other areas in New Hampshire and 
neighboring states have since been designated as Attainment/
Unclassifiable as part of EPA's third round of designations on January 
9, 2018 (83 FR 1098).
    On September 13, 2013, NHDES submitted a revision to its SIP, 
certifying its SIP meets most of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 
of the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, this 
submittal did not address the transport elements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44542) and May 25, 2017 (82 
FR 24085), EPA approved NHDES'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 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA did 
not take action related to the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because New Hampshire's September 13, 
2013 infrastructure SIP submittal did not include provisions for this 
element.
    On June 16, 2017, NHDES submitted a SIP revision for the transport 
elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS. The title of the State's SIP submittal is 
``Amendment to New Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure 
SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).'' In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the 
State's June 16, 2017 submission to address the section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered 
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the 
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this 
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register.

II. State Submittal

    New Hampshire presented several facts in its SIP submittal on the 
effect of SO2 emissions from sources within New Hampshire on 
both adjacent states' air quality and their ability to attain and 
remain in attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP 
submittal notes that SO2 ambient monitoring data within New 
Hampshire and in adjacent states were substantially below the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, the SIP submittal provided the 
SO2 ``design value'' (DV),\2\ i.e., the ambient 
concentration statistic appropriate for comparison with the NAAQS, for 
each monitoring site in New Hampshire, based on the 2013-2015 period. 
These 2013-2015 DVs were considerably below the NAAQS at all sites, 
including the two monitors within the Central New Hampshire 
Nonattainment Area during that period. The highest DV reported by NHDES 
for that period was 29 ppb, which is about 39% of the NAAQS, at the 
Peirce Island monitor in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. In addition, the 
submittal provided source-specific and county-level emissions trends 
information for 2013-2015 and longer-term statewide trends. Finally, 
the SIP submittal described air quality modeling information for 
Schiller Station, a coal- and biomass-fired power plant in Portsmouth, 
New Hampshire, and nearby Newington Station, an oil-fired power plant 
in Newington, New Hampshire, which indicated that emissions allowed 
under new, federally-enforceable emissions limits included in state air 
permits for those facilities would not result in a violation of the 
NAAQS in New Hampshire, Maine, or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A DV is a statistic that describes the air quality status of 
a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. The 
interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Basis for the Proposed Action

    This proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP addressing interstate 
transport of SO2 is based on our assessment that the State 
is meeting its obligations regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP 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 
New Hampshire'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 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 in that 
SO2 is not a regionally-mixing pollutant for which emissions 
from multiple sources commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment 
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area. 
While transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of 
lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in localized pollutant 
impacts very near the emissions source, 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 for Pb. Emissions of 
SO2 travel further and have sufficiently wider-ranging 
impacts than emissions of Pb to require a different approach than for 
handling Pb transport, but not far enough to be treated in a manner 
similar to regional transport pollutants such as PM2.5 or 
ozone.
    Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport 
of SO2:

[[Page 48767]]

The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport (described for 
background in section IV) are too tightly circumscribed to the source, 
and the approaches for PM2.5 or ozone transport (also 
described for background in section IV) are too regionally focused. 
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's 
evaluation of whether New Hampshire has met its transport obligations 
was accomplished in several discrete steps. First, EPA evaluated what 
universe of sources are likely to be responsible for SO2 
emissions that could contribute to interstate transport. An assessment 
of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for New Hampshire made 
it clear that the vast majority of SO2 emissions in New 
Hampshire are from fuel combustion at point and nonpoint sources and 
that emissions from other sources are small in the absolute sense as 
well, and therefore it would be reasonable to evaluate the downwind 
impacts of emissions from the combined fuel combustion source 
categories to help determine whether the State has met its 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 appropriate for 
our analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an ``urban scale'' with 
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources given the 
usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-wide air 
quality and the effectiveness of pollution control strategies at those 
point sources. As such, EPA utilized an assessment approach that 
extended to 50 km from fuel-combustion point sources when considering 
possible transport of SO2 from New Hampshire to downwind 
states.
    Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this 
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in New Hampshire and 
their possible impacts in downwind states, including: SO2 
ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and SO2 
emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations and 
permitting requirements; available air dispersion modeling; and other 
SIP-approved or federally promulgated regulations that may yield 
reductions of SO2 at New Hampshire'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 
modeling results and enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an 
analysis under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether fuel-
combustion sources in New Hampshire would significantly contribute to 
nonattainment in other states, and then whether they would interfere 
with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states.
    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submittal 
and EPA's assessment of the information in that submittal, and EPA's 
assessment of other relevant information available at the time of this 
rulemaking, for each of the factors discussed at length below in this 
action, EPA proposes to find that sources or emissions activity within 
New Hampshire 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 a 
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 a NAAQS).
    EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 
2013 memorandum, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' \4\ did not explicitly include criteria for 
how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submittals intended to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\5\ With respect to certain 
pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, EPA has addressed 
interstate transport in eastern states in the context of regional 
rulemaking actions that quantify state emission reduction 
obligations.\6\ In other actions, such as the EPA action on western 
state SIPs addressing particulate matter and ozone, EPA has considered 
a variety of factors on a case-by-case basis to determine whether 
emissions from one state significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with 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, distance between 
states, and topography.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf.
    \5\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA 
was litigating challenges raised with respect to our 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.
    \6\ 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).
    \7\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; State of California; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport; 
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference with 
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule (76 FR 14616, 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 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 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, entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' \8\ 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

[[Page 48768]]

large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries.\9\ 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, among other instances, in the May 13, 
2014 proposed approval (79 FR 27241 and 27249) and a subsequent July 
16, 2014 final approval (79 FR 41439) of interstate transport SIPs 
submitted by Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
    \9\ Id. at pp 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire

    As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an 
evaluation of how emissions from any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state may impact air quality in other states. One 
reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions 
activities in New Hampshire are likely to impact downwind air quality 
with respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the 
NEI.\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air 
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and 
hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, and is updated 
every 3 years using information provided by the states. At the time of 
this rulemaking, the most recently available comprehensive dataset is 
the 2014 NEI (version 2), and the state summary for New Hampshire is 
included in Table 1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.

   Table 1--Summary of 2014 National Emissions Inventory Data for SO2
               Emission Source Categories in New Hampshire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                        Category                             (tons per
                                                               year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generation....................           2,642
Fuel Combustion: Industrial.............................             817
Fuel Combustion: Other *................................           4,440
Waste Disposal and Recycling............................             263
Highway Vehicles........................................             134
Off-Highway.............................................             257
Miscellaneous [dagger]..................................               6
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................           8,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Other'' fuel combustion is nonpoint and includes 3,180 tons per year
  from residential fuel oil combustion, 1,077 tons per year from
  commercial/institutional fuel oil combustion, and 182 tons per year
  from combustion of other fuel types from residential and commercial/
  institutional sources.
[dagger] Miscellaneous includes prescribed fires, wildfires, and non-
  combustion industrial emissions.

    EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of 
SO2 emissions (7,900 tons of 8,560 tons overall, or 92.3%) 
in New Hampshire originate from fuel combustion at point and nonpoint 
stationary sources. The emissions from other categories (waste disposal 
and recycling, mobile sources, and miscellaneous) are also small in an 
absolute sense, and widely distributed rather than concentrated at a 
few release points; accordingly, these categories are not further 
addressed in this notice. Therefore, an assessment of New Hampshire's 
satisfaction of all applicable requirements under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may be 
reasonably based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of emissions from 
the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric utilities, 
industrial, and other \11\ combustion sources).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As indicated in the notes for Table 1, the ``other'' 
category of fuel combustion in New Hampshire is comprised mostly of 
residential heating through fuel oil combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fuel-combustion units in residences and commercial/institutional 
facilities are considered nonpoint sources. Although SO2 
emissions from residential and commercial/institutional fuel oil 
combustion accounted for 50% of all 2014 SO2 emissions in 
the NEI for New Hampshire, SO2 emissions from these nonpoint 
sources are now much lower due to a provision of state law, RSA 125 
C:10-d. As of July 2018, fuel oil sold in the State is subject to 
stricter fuel sulfur limits, and New Hampshire plans to incorporate 
these limits into the state regulations Env-1600, entitled ``Fuel 
Specifications.'' The new limit for number 2 home heating oil of 
0.0015% by weight will achieve a 98.5% reduction in residential fuel 
combustion emissions compared to emissions under the limit of 0.4% that 
applied in 2014. Because residential fuel combustion in 2014 was about 
75% of all nonpoint fuel combustion, this means that the reduction in 
all nonpoint fuel combustion will be around 75% even with considering 
an expected decline in commercial/institutional emissions. However, 
commercial/institutional emissions will also decline because of the new 
limits on fuel oil sulfur content of 0.25% by weight for number 4 oil 
(compared to a 2014 limit of 1%), and 0.5% by weight for numbers 5 and 
6 oils (compared to 2014 limits ranging between 2% and 2.2% depending 
on county). Also, the diffuse nature of emissions from these nonpoint 
sources makes it unlikely that the current and future emissions from 
nonpoint combustion of fuel oil in New Hampshire will contribute to an 
exceedance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. Based on this 
reasoning, EPA concludes that these nonpoint sources are not 
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with 
maintenance in another state. Accordingly, we do not further address 
nonpoint fuel combustion sources in this notice.
    Regarding the evaluation of impacts from fuel combustion by point 
sources (electrical generation and industrial sources), the definitions 
contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 entitled ``Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) Design Criteria'' are helpful indicators of the 
transport and fate of SO2 originating from stationary 
sources in the context of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. 
Notably, section 4.4 of this appendix provides definitions for 
SO2 spatial scales for middle scale and neighborhood scale 
monitors. 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 
proximity of major SO2 point, nonpoint, and non-road 
sources. The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality conditions 
between 500 meters and 4 km from a facility; emissions from stationary 
point sources may under certain plume conditions result in high 
SO2 concentrations at this scale. Based on these 
definitions, we conclude that it is appropriate to examine the impacts 
of emissions from electric utilities and industrial processes in New 
Hampshire at locations that are up to 50 km from an emitting facility. 
In other words, SO2 emissions from stationary point sources 
in the context of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS do not exhibit 
the same long-distance travel, regional transport, or formation 
phenomena as either PM2.5 or ozone; rather, these emissions 
behave more like Pb with localized dispersion.

[[Page 48769]]

Therefore, an assessment of point fuel combustion sources within 50 km 
of a border between New Hampshire and an adjacent state would be useful 
for assessing whether sources in New Hampshire significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in the adjacent 
state.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA recognizes in section A.1 of appendix A to EPA's 
Guideline on Air Quality Models (``the Guideline''), i.e., 40 CFR 
51, appendix W, that EPA's regulatory AERMOD model is appropriate 
for predicting pollutant concentrations up to 50 km. Section 4.1 of 
the Guideline on Air Quality Models also suggests that 50 km is the 
maximum distance for which such models should be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air 
quality for stationary point sources via either data collected at 
ambient air quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum 
concentration, or air dispersion modeling.\13\ Our assessment of 
SO2 emissions from fuel combustion point sources in New 
Hampshire and their potential impact on neighboring states is informed 
by all available data at the time of this rulemaking, specifically: 
SO2 ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and 
SO2 emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2 
regulations and permitting requirements; available air dispersion 
modeling; and, other SIP-approved or federally promulgated regulations 
which may limit emissions of SO2. This notice describes 
EPA's evaluation of New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 SIP submittal of the 
transport infrastructure elements of the CAA for the 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the EPA April 23, 2014 memorandum (EPA 2014) entitled 
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions,'' available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf (hereafter, ``EPA's April 
2014 guidance'').
    \14\ 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 New Hampshire, depending on available information and 
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
of a NAAQS in another state. EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire's 
SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO NAAQS, as discussed below. 
In order to evaluate New Hampshire's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA 
evaluated the State's SIP submittal with respect to the following five 
factors: (1) SO2 emissions information and trends for New 
Hampshire and neighboring states, i.e., Maine, Massachusetts, and 
Vermont; (2) SO2 ambient air quality; (3) potential ambient 
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain facilities in New 
Hampshire (identified as being of interest from a transport perspective 
as part of our evaluation of SO2 emissions trends) on 
neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results 
and other information; (4) SIP-approved regulations specific to 
SO2 emissions; and (5) other SIP-approved or federally-
enforceable regulations that, while not directly intended to address or 
reduce SO2 emissions, may limit emissions of the pollutant. 
A discussion of each of these factors is provided below. In this 
evaluation, EPA did not identify any current air quality problems in 
nearby areas in the adjacent states relative to the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS, and we propose to find that New Hampshire will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any 
other state.
1. Emissions Trends
    As part of the SIP submittal, New Hampshire indicated that for the 
2013-2015 period, no sources emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year 
(tpy), which the State noted was the threshold established in the 
August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052) SO2 Data Requirements Rule 
(DRR), above which sources were required to be characterized. Further, 
the State provided an inventory of individual point sources in New 
Hampshire with emissions greater than 10 tpy, and total county point 
source emissions from 2013-2015. These emissions are presented in 
Tables 2 and 3, below.

   Table 2--SO2--Point Source Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) for 2013-2015 for New Hampshire Facilities With
      Emissions in Any Single Year for 2013-2015 Exceeding 10 tpy, as Provided in the State's SIP Submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               County                        Facility name        2013 Emissions  2014 Emissions  2015 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belknap.............................  Tilton School.............             0.0             3.3            11.7
Cheshire............................  Cheshire Medical Center...            13.8             9.3             0.2
Cheshire............................  Keene State College.......            30.9            33.1            34.0
Cheshire............................  Markem Corporation........            17.6             5.8             5.8
Cheshire............................  The Cheshire Medical                  13.8             9.3             0.2
                                       Center.
Coos................................  Burgess Biopower LLC......             1.6            11.5            14.6
Coos................................  Fraser NH LLC.............            28.8            29.4            26.2
Coos................................  Mount Carberry Landfill...            20.1            13.1             6.6
Coos................................  Mount Washington Hotel....            15.5            14.2            14.4
Grafton.............................  Dartmouth College.........           241.7           245.6           241.1
Grafton.............................  Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  124.6            16.7             2.8
                                       Medical Center.
Grafton.............................  Freudenberg-Nok General               34.1            23.3             4.1
                                       Partnership-Bristol.
Grafton.............................  North Country                         42.9            33.1            50.2
                                       Environmental Services
                                       Inc.
Grafton.............................  Plymouth State University.            28.1            15.2             0.6
Grafton.............................  Unifirst Corporation......            12.2            11.1            12.4
Hillsborough........................  Four Hills Landfill.......            14.4            11.1             4.3
Hillsborough........................  Monadnock Paper Mill......           156.1           147.9            80.4
Hillsborough........................  Nylon Corporation.........             2.3            13.7             0.0
Hillsborough........................  Warwick Mills Inc.........            12.6             5.8             1.1
Merrimack...........................  Environmental Soils                    9.8            16.0            10.9
                                       Management Inc.
Merrimack...........................  Public Service of New              1,401.4         1,044.0           636.0
                                       Hampshire (PSNH)--
                                       Merrimack Station.
Merrimack...........................  Wheelabrator Concord                  52.2            56.6            50.9
                                       Company LP.
Rockingham..........................  Granite Ridge Energy LLC..             7.7             7.8            10.1
Rockingham..........................  New NGC d/b/a National                15.3            16.0            17.0
                                       Gypsum Company.

[[Page 48770]]

 
Rockingham..........................  PSNH--Newington Station...           330.6           316.1           294.8
Rockingham..........................  PSNH--Schiller Station....         1,428.1         1,243.2           856.8
Strafford...........................  Turnkey Recycling &                   31.7            56.3            30.4
                                       Environmental Enterprises.
Strafford...........................  University of New                     12.7            18.7            15.7
                                       Hampshire--Durham.
Sullivan............................  APC Paper Company.........            30.3           13.6*             2.1
Sullivan............................  Wheelabrator Claremont                17.0             0.0             0.0
                                       Company LP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2014 NEI reports emissions of 153.1 tpy for APC Paper Company.


 Table 3--SO2 Total Point Source Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) for 2013-2015 for New Hampshire Counties With
      Emissions in any Single Year for 2013-2015 Exceeding 10 tpy, as Provided in the State's SIP Submittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             County                               2013 Emissions  2014 Emissions  2015 Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belknap.........................................................             6.2             3.6            12.0
Carroll.........................................................            14.3            13.8             9.4
Cheshire........................................................            99.1            79.6            64.2
Coos............................................................            75.5            74.1            66.2
Grafton.........................................................           514.2           370.5           331.1
Hillsborough....................................................           220.1           201.7           107.8
Merrimack.......................................................         1,484.8         1,138.2           713.7
Rockingham......................................................         1,797.4         1,597.8         1,191.8
Strafford.......................................................            58.5            91.8            57.5
Sullivan........................................................            49.5            16.2             4.7
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         4,319.5         3,587.3         2,558.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 indicates that total SO2 emissions from point 
sources in the 10 listed counties have decreased by 1,761 tpy, or about 
41%, over the time period from 2013 to 2015. However, as stated above, 
our focus when reviewing New Hampshire's submittal is on sources within 
50 km of the border with another state, not on county-wide or state-
wide emissions.
    Six facilities listed in Table 2 have emissions greater than 100 
tpy and are within 50 km of a border between New Hampshire and another 
state. Three of these are electric generating stations: Schiller 
Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station. In particular, 
Schiller Station and Newington Station are within 1 km of one another 
and within 0.5 km of the New Hampshire-Maine border. These electric 
generating facilities were the three highest point source emitters in 
each of the 3 years in New Hampshire. The combined changes in emissions 
from these three sources account for 78% of the total decrease in point 
source emissions during this period. Specifically, based on the 
information presented in Table 2, combined SO2 emissions 
from Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station were 
3,160 tpy in 2013 compared to 1,788 tpy in 2015, a net decrease of 
1,373 tpy.
    The three other major fuel combustion point sources (i.e., sources 
with emissions higher than 100 tpy) in New Hampshire listed in Table 2 
that are within 50 km of the state border are Monadnock Paper Mills 
Inc. in Bennington in Hillsborough County (147.9 tpy--33 km from 
Massachusetts, 42 km from Vermont), APC Paper Company Inc. in Claremont 
in Sullivan County (153.1 tpy--4 km from Vermont), and Dartmouth 
College in Hanover in Grafton County (245.6 tpy--1 km from Vermont). 
These three sources are discussed in greater detail in section IV.C.3 
of this notice. While Table 2 provides information on SO2 
emissions between 2013 and 2015 for the highest emitting sources based 
on the State's point source inventory, an emissions summary for all 
electric utilities within the State subject to the Federal Acid Rain 
Program provides more current information on statewide SO2 
emissions from all electric utilities. Data for this purpose can be 
found in the most recent EPA Air Markets Program Data (AMPD).\15\ The 
AMPD is an application that provides both current and historical data 
collected as part of EPA's emissions trading programs. A summary of all 
2016 and 2017 SO2 emissions from electric utilities in New 
Hampshire subject to the Acid Rain Program is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Available online at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.

[[Page 48771]]



           Table 4--2016 and 2017 AMPD Data for all New Hampshire Electric Utilities in Tons per Year
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     2016 SO2        2017 SO2
                   County                                Facility name               Emissions       Emissions
                                                                                       (tpy)           (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coos........................................  Burgess BioPower..................            21.5            15.4
Rockingham..................................  Granite Ridge Energy..............             7.3             5.9
Merrimack...................................  Merrimack Station.................           228.2           143.6
Rockingham..................................  Newington Station.................            40.6            41.3
Rockingham..................................  Newington Energy *................             2.9             4.3
Rockingham..................................  Schiller Station..................           272.3           262.6
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..................................           572.7           473.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In 2013 to 2015, Newington Energy had emissions below the State's 10 tpy threshold for the inventory of
  individual point sources shown in Table 2.

    Table 4 provides two key pieces of information. First, 
SO2 emissions have generally continued to decrease in 2016 
and 2017 for Schiller Station, Merrimack Station, and Newington Station 
since the State's SIP submittal which analyzed 2013 through 2015 
emissions. Second, aggregate SO2 emissions for New Hampshire 
facilities reporting to AMPD have continued to decrease.
    In addition to the emissions information for New Hampshire sources 
provided by the State, EPA also compiled 2014 NEI information for major 
sources in the adjacent states within 50 km of the New Hampshire 
border. This information, presented in Table 5 below, indicates that 
major sources in neighboring states near the New Hampshire border are 
distant from most sources in New Hampshire. (Note that there are no 
major SO2 sources in Vermont within 50 km of the New 
Hampshire border based on the 2014 NEI data.) Based on these 2014 data, 
the only source in New Hampshire (Mount Carberry Landfill in Berlin, 
New Hampshire) that is within 50 km of a major source (i.e., a source 
emitting greater than 100 tpy) in a neighboring state (Catalyst Paper 
Operators in Richmond, Maine) emitted around 13 tpy and is at a 
distance of 49 km. Furthermore, there are relatively few major 
SO2 sources in nearby states. This information supports the 
conclusion that New Hampshire sources within 50 km of a border and 
emitting below 100 tpy, and thus not including the six major sources 
already identified, are unlikely to contribute to nonattainment in 
neighboring states, confirming our focus on the six identified major 
sources.

 Table 5--Summary of SO2 Major Point Sources Within 50 km of the New Hampshire Border and Potential Interactive
                                              New Hampshire Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          2014
                State                             Source                Emissions      Sources in New Hampshire
                                                                          (tpy)              within 50 km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts........................  Mystic Station--Boston......             910  None.
Massachusetts........................  Logan Airport--Boston.......             222  None.
Massachusetts........................  Veolia Energy Boston LLC--               115  None.
                                        Boston.
Maine................................  Catalyst Paper Operators--               824  Mount Carberry Landfill--
                                        Richmond.                                     Berlin (13 tpy, 49 km).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.

2. Ambient Air Quality
    Data collected at ambient air quality monitors indicate the 
monitored values of SO2 in the State have remained below the 
NAAQS since at least 2013. New Hampshire included DVs for 2013-2015 in 
its SIP submittal. EPA compiled relevant data from Air Quality System 
(AQS) DV reports for this period and three additional 3-year periods at 
New Hampshire SO2 monitoring stations; this information is 
summarized in Table 6 below.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                      Table 6--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2012-2014 DV    2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV    2015-2017 DV
      AQS monitor site         Monitor location        (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-013-1007.................  Concord--Hazen                   9               8               7            * NA
                               Drive.
33-015-0018.................  Londonderry--150                 5               6               5               4
                               Pillsbury Road.
33-013-1006.................  Pembroke--Pleasant              23              20              20              15
                               Street.
33-011-5001.................  Peterborough--Pack               5               5               3               3
                               Monadnock Summit.
33-015-0014.................  Portsmouth--Peirce              28              29              22              16
                               Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the
  NAAQS.


[[Page 48772]]

    As shown in Table 6 above, the DVs for the periods from 2012-2014 
through 2015-2017 show overall decreases in SO2 
concentrations. The highest DV in New Hampshire for 2015-2017 is 16 
ppb, which is well below the NAAQS, at the Peirce Island monitor in 
Portsmouth very close to the border with Maine. An analysis of DV data 
from these monitors, along with additional data sources (as further 
discussed below), can partially inform the evaluation of SO2 
transport from New Hampshire.

                          Table 7--Distances Between the Largest SO2 Emission Sources in New Hampshire and Regulatory Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Distance to
                                      Closest AQS monitor in     closest AQS                               2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV    2015-2017 DV
             Facility                     New Hampshire        monitor in New        Spatial scale             (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
                                                               Hampshire (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiller Station..................  Portsmouth--Peirce Island             3.9  Neighborhood.............              29              22              16
Newington Station.................  Portsmouth--Peirce Island             4.4  Neighborhood.............              29              22              16
Merrimack Station.................  Pembroke--Pleasant Street             1.3  Neighborhood.............              20              20              15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitors closest to Merrimack Station (i.e., the Pembroke 
monitor, AQS no. 33-013-1006) and both Schiller Station and Newington 
Station (i.e., the Peirce Island monitor, AQS no. 33-015-0014) may not 
be sited in the area to adequately capture points of maximum 
concentration from the facilities. However, Table 7 indicates that 
these monitors are located in the neighborhood spatial scale in 
relation to the facilities, i.e., emissions from stationary and point 
sources may under certain plume conditions result in high 
SO2 concentrations at this scale. EPA's monitoring 
regulations at 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4.4(3) define 
neighborhood scale as ``characterize[ing] air quality conditions 
throughout some relatively uniform land use areas with dimensions in 
the 0.5 to 4.0 km range.'' The Pembroke monitor has, in prior years, 
recorded SO2 levels in excess of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS resulting from emissions from Merrimack Station. For example, the 
DV at the Pembroke monitor was 221 ppb for the 2009-2011 monitoring 
period. Similarly, the Peirce Island monitor has recorded 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations higher than the level of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in prior years, with peak 1-hour impacts in 2006 
of 93 ppb and a DV of 60 ppb during the 2005-2007 period, reflecting 
previous impacts from emissions from Schiller Station and Newington 
Station. These historic values illustrate the extent to which the 
Pembroke and Peirce Island monitors were capable of recording high 
pollutant levels resulting from emissions from Merrimack Station and 
Schiller and Newington Stations, respectively. However, these three 
facilities are no longer expected to emit at high levels because each 
is subject to federally-enforceable requirements that limit allowable 
SO2 emissions. Therefore, EPA no longer expects high 
SO2 readings at the Pembroke and Peirce Island monitors. As 
presented in Table 7, the most recently available DVs at both monitors 
are now well below the NAAQS based on 2013-2015 data included in the 
State's SIP submittal and on updated DV data reviewed by EPA.
    However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor 
within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that New Hampshire has 
met its interstate transport obligation. While the very low DVs and the 
spatial relationship between the sources of interest and two of the 
monitoring sites support the notion that emissions originating within 
New Hampshire are not contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, prong 1 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that 
sources within New Hampshire have on air quality in neighboring states. 
Therefore, the evaluation and analysis of SO2 emissions data 
from facilities within the State, as previously presented, together 
with ambient data in neighboring states, as will be presented next, is 
appropriate.
    In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire provided 2013-2015 
SO2 DVs for all monitors in neighboring states, noting that 
two such monitors reside in counties adjacent to New Hampshire, and 
also that there are currently no designated nonattainment or 
maintenance areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in states 
surrounding New Hampshire. Table 8 contains the 2013-2015 through 2015-
2017 SO2 DVs for monitors in the three states neighboring 
New Hampshire, i.e., Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, also noting 
whether the county is adjacent to New Hampshire. (The State supplied 
the 2013-2015 DVs in its SIP submittal, and EPA updated the State's 
analysis to include the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 SO2 DVs for 
these monitors.) Several monitors in this dataset have incomplete data 
for at least one of the DV periods; DVs are reported as ``NA'' for 
periods with incomplete data. All of the valid DVs for the monitoring 
sites listed in Table 8 are well below the NAAQS.
    One monitor with a DV listed as ``NA'' for the relevant time 
periods included in the State's SIP submittal is the Sawgrass Lane 
monitor, AQS site 23-031-0009, located in Eliot, Maine. The Sawgrass 
Lane monitor collected SO2 concentration data from October 
24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2 
concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8, 
2015, when winds came from the direction of Schiller Station and the 
power plant was operating at near-maximum capacity.\17\ Though a single 
maximum 1-hour concentration is not directly comparable to the 
SO2 NAAQS,

[[Page 48773]]

which is in the form of the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of 
daily maximum 1-hour values, EPA notes that the highest concentration 
observed at the Sawgrass Lane monitor was approximately 50% of the 
level of the NAAQS,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Town of Eliot had previously submitted a petition to 
EPA in August 2013 pursuant to section 126 of the CAA regarding 
alleged violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS within the 
Town's political boundary due to emissions from Schiller Station. 
The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area expected to 
experience peak SO2 impacts based on modeling information 
submitted by the Town with the section 126 petition. On November 9, 
2017, following the Sawgrass Lane monitoring study, and in light of 
new permit limitations on SO2 emissions at Schiller 
Station (described in section IV.C.3.a) and EPA's August 22, 2017 
letters stating EPA's intention to designate the Maine and New 
Hampshire seacoast areas as not being in violation of the NAAQS, the 
Town of Eliot withdrew its August 2013 section 126 petition. 
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass Lane monitoring 
study are described in the report, ``Review of 2014-2016 Eliot, 
Maine Air Quality Monitoring Study,'' EPA, the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection, and NHDES (September 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the monitoring data in neighboring states, EPA proposes to 
conclude that these monitoring data do not provide evidence of 
violations in the neighboring states.

            Table 8--SO2 DVs for AQS Monitors in Neighboring States and Adjacency to New Hampshire of the County in Which Monitor Is Located
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 AQS monitor                           2013-2015 SO2 DV      2014-2016 SO2 DV     2015-2017 SO2 DV    County adjacent to
            State                   site         Monitor location            (ppb)                (ppb)                (ppb)            New Hampshire?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine........................     23-003-1100  Presque Isle........  3...................  3..................  NA*................  No.
                                  23-005-0029  State Street,         12..................  11.................  9..................  No.
                                                Portland.
                                  23-009-0103  Hancock County......  2...................  1..................  1..................  No.
                                  23-011-2005  Pray Street,          12..................  NA*................  NA*................  No.
                                                Gardiner.
                                  23-031-0009  Sawgrass Lane, Eliot  NA*.................  NA*................  NA*................  Yes.
Massachusetts................     25-005-1004  Globe Street, Fall    28..................  10.................  9..................  No.
                                                River.
                                  25-013-0016  Liberty Street,       8...................  NA*................  NA*................  No.
                                                Springfield.
                                  25-015-4002  Quabbin Summit, Ware  5...................  4..................  3..................  No.
                                  25-025-0002  Kenmore Square,       9...................  6..................  4..................  No.
                                                Boston.
                                  25-025-0042  Dudley Square,        11..................  9..................  6..................  No.
                                                Roxbury.
                                  25-027-0023  Summer Street,        7...................  6..................  5..................  Yes.
                                                Worcester.
Vermont......................     50-007-0007  Harvey Road,          3 [dagger]..........  2..................  2..................  No.
                                                Underhill.
                                  50-021-0002  State Street,         9...................  6..................  2..................  No.
                                                Rutland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.
[dagger] Value as reported by NH DES. EPA's AQS database indicates no valid DV at this monitor for this year range.

3. Assessment of Potential Ambient Impacts of SO2 Emissions 
From Certain Sources Based on Air Dispersion Modeling and Other 
Information
Schiller Station, Newington Station, and Merrimack Station
    In its SIP submittal, New Hampshire referenced air dispersion 
modeling conducted for Schiller Station and Newington Station used to 
support the State's recommendation for designations under the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS and to meet the State's obligation under the 
SO2 DRR. The State used the modeling to establish maximum 
allowable SO2 emission limits for Schiller Station in the 
June 15, 2017 Title V Operating Permit (TV-0053) and for Newington 
Station in the December 22, 2016 temporary permit TP-0197. A detailed 
description of EPA's assessment of the modeling, and associated 
visualizations, are available in Chapter 27 of the Technical Support 
Document for EPA's September 5, 2017 (82 FR 41903) Intended Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard for New Hampshire, and this description is 
hereby incorporated for purposes of this action.\18\ EPA's assessment 
of the State's modeling indicates that it is suitable for use in 
evaluating impacts in Maine and Massachusetts from the allowable 
emissions from Schiller Station and Newington Station under federally-
enforceable emission limits for those facilities. The modeling also 
included representative actual emissions from nearby sources. The 
maximum predicted concentrations, which are at a level of 74.8 ppb, in 
the State's modeling based on full load using maximum allowable 
emissions are located in Eliot, Maine. The modeling also predicted 
SO2 concentrations in areas of northeast Massachusetts, 
where levels were predicted to be around 24 ppb. Based on our 
assessment of this modeling information, EPA proposes to conclude that 
the federally-enforceable emissions limits for Schiller Station and 
Newington Station ensure that emissions activity from these sources 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS in Maine or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In referencing EPA's Intended Round 3 Area Designations, 
EPA is not reopening the SO2 area designations action nor 
incorporating any other materials from those designations into the 
record for this proposal other than those explicitly described as 
incorporated. A notice of the final rule for these designations was 
published on January 9, 2018 (83 FR 1098). Chapter 27 of the 
Technical Support Document can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/27_nh_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also referenced air dispersion modeling conducted to 
establish federally-enforceable SO2 emission limits for 
Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire. The State relied upon these 
limits with supporting modeling analysis in the attainment 
demonstration for the Central New Hampshire SO2 
Nonattainment Area, as described in the Federal Register on September 
28, 2017 (82 FR 45242).\19\ Merrimack Station was explicitly modeled in 
this attainment demonstration, while Schiller Station and Newington 
Station were represented by the selected background concentration. 
EPA's assessment of the State's modeling indicates that it is suitable 
for use in evaluating impacts in Maine and Massachusetts under 
federally-enforceable emission limits from Merrimack Station. The 
modeling predicted maximum impacts from Merrimack Station of around 11 
ppb in Maine and Massachusetts. Based on our assessment of this 
modeling information, EPA proposes to conclude that the federally-
enforceable emissions limits for Merrimack Station ensure emissions 
activity from this source will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Maine or Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In referencing EPA's approval of New Hampshire's plan and 
attainment demonstration for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment 
Area, EPA is not reopening the nonattainment area plan approval 
action. A notice of the final rule for the plan approval was 
published on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling results demonstrate that the points, outside of New 
Hampshire, of maximum potential impact for Merrimack Station, Schiller 
Station, and Newington Station are located in Maine, which neighbors 
New Hampshire to the east, and that these impacts are below the level 
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA expects the actual 
impacts will be no higher

[[Page 48774]]

than the potential impacts shown in the State's analysis.
    To additionally evaluate the expectation that Schiller Station, 
Newington Station, and Merrimack Station will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Maine or 
Massachusetts, EPA assessed the proximity of these facilities to major 
SO2 emission sources in neighboring states that may cause 
areas of higher concentration in those states. To do so, EPA examined 
emissions data for major sources of SO2 emissions in Maine 
and Massachusetts. (There are no major sources in Vermont within 50 km 
of the New Hampshire border, so Vermont was excluded this portion of 
the analysis.\20\) A summary of this information, as it relates to the 
sources in New Hampshire discussed here, is presented in Table 9 below. 
Based on the information in Table 9, the distance between the sources 
modeled by New Hampshire and major sources in nearby states are at 
least 73 km. Therefore, the large distances between Merrimack Station, 
Schiller Station, and Newington Station and the nearest major 
SO2 sources within Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, 
indicate that impacts from New Hampshire are appropriately 
characterized by the State's modeling, and are very unlikely to 
contribute significantly to problems with attainment of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS in these neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA notes that according to the 2014 NEI, Agrimark Inc. in 
Middlebury, Vermont, at about 79 km from the New Hampshire border, 
168 km from Merrimack Station, and 220 km from Shiller Station and 
Newington Station, is the nearest major SO2 source in 
Vermont to the New Hampshire border and the major sources in New 
Hampshire.

Table 9--Summary of Major Emission Sources in States Adjacent to New Hampshire and Their Corresponding Distance to Merrimack Station, Newington Station,
                                                                  and Schiller Station
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Distance to New                                                          Neighboring
                                                  2017 emissions     Hampshire-      Distance to New    Distance to nearest neighboring    state source
              New Hampshire source                    (tpy) *       Massachusetts   Hampshire- Maine      state major SO2 source (km)     2014 emissions
                                                                     border (km)       border (km)                                             (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Station...............................           143.6                44                46  89 (Mystic Station in Boston,                910.4
                                                                                                       Mass.).
Newington Station...............................            41.3                25                <1  73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook,              426.8
                                                                                                       Maine).
Schiller Station................................           262.6                25                <1  73 (S D Warren Co in Westbrook,              426.8
                                                                                                       Maine).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CAMD data for 2017; see Table 4.
[dagger] Data retrieved from 2014 NEI.

    Based on the modeling provided by New Hampshire and the reasoning 
presented above, EPA proposes to conclude that SO2 emissions 
from Merrimack Station, Schiller Station, and Newington Station do not 
have the potential to violate the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on 
currently effective and federally-enforceable permit conditions.
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper Company Inc., and Dartmouth 
College
    Regarding Monadnock Paper Mills, APC Paper Company Inc, and 
Dartmouth College, EPA does not have information at this time 
suggesting that either Massachusetts or Vermont is impacted by 
emissions from these sources or other emissions activity originating in 
New Hampshire in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA reviewed 
available information to assess whether these sources may result in 
such a violation. Specifically, as described below, EPA examined wind 
rose information, distances from state borders and from major sources 
in the adjacent states (if any), and the relative emission levels of 
these three sources.
    EPA examined wind roses for meteorological stations representative 
of the areas around these three other major sources in New Hampshire, 
i.e., Monadnock Paper Mills Inc., APC Paper Company Inc., and Dartmouth 
College.\21\ For the meteorological stations nearest to Monadnock Paper 
Mills Inc. and APC Paper Company Inc., the wind roses indicate the 
predominant winds to be away from the state border, as opposed to 
toward the state border which would be conducive to interstate 
transport. For Dartmouth College, the wind rose for a nearby 
meteorological station indicates a prevailing north-south wind pattern, 
i.e., along the state border with Vermont, as opposed to an east-west 
pattern that would be most conducive to interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The wind rose data are available in a memorandum to the 
docket for this action, which can be found on http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA also notes that there are no major SO2 
sources in the adjacent states within 50 km of these three New 
Hampshire sources, which indicates that there are unlikely to be high 
SO2 concentrations in the adjacent state arising mostly from 
in-state sources to which these three New Hampshire sources are 
contributing. Furthermore, Monadnock Paper Mills Inc. is located 
approximately 30 km from the nearest state border, which indicates that 
the likelihood of high impacts in another state is extremely low. 
Finally, all three of these sources are in the range of 100-250 tpy, 
indicating that these sources have emissions only slightly above the 
threshold of 100 tpy used by EPA to identify sources for additional 
analysis. Based on this information, EPA is proposing to determine that 
emissions from these three sources in New Hampshire will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in Massachusetts or Vermont. These three 
sources are all at least 85 km from any part of Maine, so EPA is also 
proposing to determine that emissions from these three sources in New 
Hampshire will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in Maine.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Specific to SO2
    The State has provisions and regulations to limit SO2 
emissions. Notably, the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 
section 125-O, ``Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program,'' requires the 
reduction of mercury emissions by at least 80% from baseline mercury 
input beginning in July 2013 at Merrimack Station in Bow, New 
Hampshire. This state requirement resulted in the installation and 
operation of a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit at Merrimack 
Station, and the removal of SO2 occurs as a co-benefit of 
mercury removal with an FGD. New Hampshire permit TP-0008 contains 
enforceable conditions for the removal of SO2 by the FDG, 
and this permit was approved into the SIP as part of the State's 
Regional Haze SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50602). Additionally, New 
Hampshire issued permit TP-0189 in 2016 which incorporated a 7-boiler 
operating day average combined emission limit for Merrimack's two 
utility boilers of 0.39

[[Page 48775]]

lb/MMBtu as enforceable conditions of the permit. EPA approved these 
conditions from this permit into the SIP on June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25922) 
as part of New Hampshire's Nonattainment Plan for the Central New 
Hampshire Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area.
    The State has SIP-approved regulations limiting the sulfur content 
in fuel. The current federally-enforceable fuel specifications include 
limits on the sulfur content of liquid fuel (oil), gaseous fuel 
(natural and manufactured gas), and solid fuel (coal) purchased or used 
for heat or power generation. Current federally-enforceable limits on 
liquid fuel (oil) are 0.4% sulfur by weight for number 2 oil, 1.0% 
sulfur by weight for number 4 oil, and 2.0% sulfur by weight for 
numbers 5 and 6 oil and crude oil (except in Coos County where the 
limit is 2.2% sulfur by weight). (As previously mentioned, a recent 
state law lowers these limits effective July 2018.) Limits on coal 
sulfur content include a maximum of 2.8 lb/MMBtu gross heat content for 
devices existing as of April 15, 1970, or 1.5 lb/MMBtu gross heat 
content for sources placed in operation after that date. See 40 CFR 
52.1520(c), ``EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations.''
5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally-Enforceable Regulations
    In addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA observes 
that facilities in New Hampshire 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 limits acid gases, and effectively also reduces 
SO2 emissions.
6. Conclusion
    As discussed in more detail above, 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) EPA has not identified any current air quality problems in 
nearby areas in the adjacent states (Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont) 
relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on emissions trends or 
ambient monitoring data;
    (2) New Hampshire demonstrated using air dispersion modeling that 
permitted emissions from its three largest stationary source 
SO2 emitters, in combination with other nearby sources and 
background SO2 concentrations, are not expected to cause 
SO2 air quality violations in other states relative to the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS;
    (3) consideration of available information on the only other major 
sources within 50 km of another state indicates that these sources are 
unlikely to contribute to NAAQS violations in other nearby states; and
    (4) current SIP provisions and other federal programs will 
effectively limit SO2 emissions from sources within New 
Hampshire.
    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its SIP submission 
and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find 
that sources and other emissions activity within the State will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state 
implementation plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with 
maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
    Given our proposed conclusion that sources within New Hampshire are 
not contributing significantly to NAAQS violations in adjacent states 
because there are no NAAQS violations in the adjacent states, based on 
the consideration of the factors discussed earlier, EPA believes that a 
reasonable investigation as to whether sources or emissions activity 
originating within New Hampshire may interfere with its neighboring 
states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether 
emissions of sources in New Hampshire and the adjacent states are 
effectively prevented from increasing in the future.
    The State's SIP submittal provides statewide SO2 
emissions trends for multiple source categories. EPA reviewed 2005 and 
2014 NEI data to confirm the State's assessment of trends, and these 
values are summarized below in Table 10. EPA also considered emissions 
trend information from the states neighboring New Hampshire, as 
presented in Table 11.

  Table 10--SO2 Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) and Percent Change in Emissions Between 2005 and 2014 for New
                                          Hampshire by Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Percent change
                         Data Category *                               2005            2014        in emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-electric generating unit point sources......................           5,571           2,230             -60
Electric generating unit point sources..........................          51,461           2,642             -95
Nonpoint sources................................................           4,275           3,296             -23
Nonroad mobile sources..........................................             819             257             -69
Onroad mobile sources...........................................             630             134             -79
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          62,757           8,558             -86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes emissions from wild fires.


                         Table 11--SO2 Emissions Trends From 2002 to 2014 for States Neighboring New Hampshire, in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           SO2 emissions
                                                                                                                                           change 2002-
                          State                                2002            2005            2008            2011            2014          2014 (%)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine...................................................          33,585          32,114          23,386          15,555          11,276             -66
Massachusetts...........................................         156,778         144,140          76,263          51,372          18,904             -88

[[Page 48776]]

 
Vermont.................................................           4,988           4,682           4,052           3,449           1,511             -70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data retrieved from the 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI datasets.

    The data show statewide SO2 emissions have decreased 
substantially over time. This trend of decreasing SO2 
emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in New Hampshire 
and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence 
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered 
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such 
maintenance issues are unlikely. Since actual SO2 emissions 
from sources in New Hampshire have decreased overall between 2005 and 
2014, because these decreases are substantial in every source category, 
and because these decreases are largely the result of state regulatory 
actions, EPA does not expect current or future emissions from New 
Hampshire to interfere with neighboring states' ability to maintain the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    SO2 emissions from point and nonpoint sources combusting 
fuel oil in New Hampshire will not increase to historical levels and in 
fact will be lower due to a provision of state law, RSA 125 C:10-d. As 
of July 2018, fuel oil sold in the State is subject to stricter fuel 
sulfur limits, and New Hampshire plans to incorporate these limits into 
the state regulations Env-1600, entitled ``Fuel Specifications.'' The 
state law limits the sulfur content in fuel to 0.0015% by weight for 
number 2 home heating oil, 0.25% by weight for number 4 oil, and 0.5% 
by weight for number 5 and 6 oils as of July 1, 2018. These limits 
decrease current SO2 emissions from point or nonpoint 
sources combusting fuel oil.
    Lastly, any new large sources of SO2 emissions will be 
addressed by New Hampshire's SIP-approved new source review (NSR) and 
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. New 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 are expected to ensure that ambient 
concentrations of SO2 in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont 
do not exceed the NAAQS as a result of new facility construction or 
modification of sources in New Hampshire. The State's SIP-approved NSR 
and PSD programs are contained in Env-A 600, entitled ``Statewide 
Permit System,'' under sections 618 and 619, respectively, as approved 
in the Federal Register on September 25, 2015 (80 FR 57722). These 
regulations ensure that SO2 emissions due to new facility 
construction or modifications at existing facilities will not adversely 
impact air quality in New Hampshire or in neighboring states.
    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has 
incorporated additional information into our evaluation of New 
Hampshire's submission. In doing so, EPA reviewed information about 
emission trends in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, as well as the 
technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We 
find that the combination of the absence of current NAAQS violations in 
the neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state 
SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions 
from New Hampshire and neighboring states, more stringent limits on 
fuel sulfur content, and state measures that prevent new facility 
construction or modification in New Hampshire from causing 
SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no 
interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from New 
Hampshire. Accordingly, we propose to determine that New Hampshire 
SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Proposed Action

    In light of the above analyses, EPA is proposing to approve New 
Hampshire's June 16, 2017 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 
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 notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference New Hampshire's June 16, 2017 SIP submittal, entitled 
``Amendment to New Hampshire 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure 
SIP to Address the Good Neighbor Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' described in section II of this preamble. EPA has 
made, and will continue to make, this document generally available 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 
1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions

[[Page 48777]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 20, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-21006 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


