[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41197-41205]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18419]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0151; FRL-9967-06-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure Requirement for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve an October 15, 2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Rhode Island. 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 primary
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This
action proposes to approve Rhode Island's demonstration that the state
is meeting its obligations regarding the transport of SO2
and NO2 emissions into other states. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 29,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0151 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
    A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
    B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
of the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Rhode Island
    C. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
of the 2010 Primary NO2 NAAQS in Rhode Island
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions
    A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2
Nonattainment
    1. SO2 Emissions Trends
    2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    3. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2
and Permitting Requirements
    4. Conclusion
    B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference with Maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS
VI. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference with
Maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA promulgated a revised primary
NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year
average of the annual 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a
revised primary NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on
a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\ These
SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure
SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale of
these SIPs and their requirements can be found in, among other
documents, EPA's May 13, 2014 proposed rule titled, ``Infrastructure
SIP requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,'' in the section ``What is
the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245). As
noted above, section 110(a) of the CAA imposes an

obligation upon states to submit to EPA a SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS. The content of individual state submissions may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances, and may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This requirement applies to both primary and secondary
NAAQS, but EPA's approval in this notice applies only to the 2010
primary NAAQS for SO2 and NO2 because EPA did
not establish in 2010 a new secondary NAAQS for SO2 and
NO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 2, 2013 and on June 27, 2014, the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted proposed
revisions to its SIP, certifying that its SIP meets most of the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2010
primary NO2 and 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS,
respectively. However, these two submittals did not address the
transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On April 20, 2016
(81 FR 23175), EPA approved RI DEM's certification that its SIP was
adequate to meet most of the program elements required by section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. However, EPA conditionally approved the State's
submission in relation to subsections (C), (D), and (J) of CAA section
110(a)(2) in relation to the prevention of significant deterioration
permit program, and disapproved the State's submission in relation to
subsection (H) of CAA section 110(a)(2) in relation to the requirement
to revise its SIP when appropriate. On October 15, 2015, RI DEM
submitted the transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2010 primary NO2 and 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.

II. State Submittal

    Rhode Island presented several facts in its SIP submission on the
effect of SO2 and NOX emissions from sources
within Rhode Island on downwind and adjacent states' SO2 and
NO2 nonattainment areas and those states' ability to
maintain the 2010 SO2 and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. With
regards to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, Rhode Island noted that EPA
had designated the entire country as unclassifiable/attainment for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. Rhode Island also stated that recent data
from all ambient monitors within New England continue to show levels
less than 50% of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    Similarly, the SIP submission notes SO2 ambient
monitoring data in Rhode Island and in downwind and adjacent states
were substantially below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For the only
SO2 nonattainment area within New England, Rhode Island
noted the monitor design value in the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area has declined over time, with the 2012-2014 design
value being 31% of the NAAQS. Rhode Island concludes in its submittal
that, ``since there are no large sources of SO2 emissions in
Rhode Island and monitored SO2 levels in adjacent and
downwind states are substantially below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
Rhode Island clearly is not contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of attainment in downwind and adjacent
states.''

III. Summary of the Proposed Action

    This proposed approval of Rhode Island's October 15, 2015 SIP
submission addressing interstate transport of SO2 and
NO2 is intended to show that the State is meeting its
obligations regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the
2010 primary SO2 and 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS.\2\
Interstate transport requirements for all NAAQS pollutants prohibit any
source, or other type of emissions activity, in one state from emitting
any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. As part of this analysis, and as explained in detail below, EPA
has taken several approaches to addressing interstate transport in
other actions based on the characteristics of the pollutant, the
interstate problem presented by emissions of that pollutant, the
sources that emit the pollutant, and the information available to
assess transport of that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed approval of Rhode Island's SIP submission
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action, and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding Rhode Island's air quality status. Any such
future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be
based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of
information that becomes available at those times. Future available
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's Data Requirements Rule
(80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to EPA by
states, air agencies, and third party stakeholders such as citizen
groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone that EPA has
addressed in other actions, in that SO2 is not a regional
mixing pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large, multi-state area. While in
certain respects transport of SO2 is more analogous to the
transport of lead (Pb) because SO2's and Pb's physical
properties result in localized impacts very near the emissions source,
in another respect the physical properties and release height of
SO2 are such that impacts of SO2 do not
experience the same sharp decrease in ambient concentrations as rapidly
and as nearby as they do for Pb. While emissions of SO2
travel farther and have sufficiently wider ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb such that it is reasonable to require a different
approach for assessing SO2 transport than assessing Pb
transport, the differences are not significant enough to treat
SO2 in a manner similar to the way in which EPA treats and
analyzes regional transport pollutants such as ozone or
PM2.5.
    Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport
of SO2 than the approach used for the other pollutants
identified above: The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport are
too tightly circumscribed to the source, and the approaches for ozone
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's
evaluation of whether Rhode Island has met its transport obligations in
relation to SO2 was accomplished in several discrete steps.
    First, EPA evaluated the universe of sources in Rhode Island likely
to be responsible for SO2 emissions that could contribute to
interstate transport. An assessment of the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for Rhode Island made it clear that the vast majority
of SO2 emissions in Rhode Island are from fuel combustion at
point and nonpoint sources,\3\ and therefore it would be reasonable to
evaluate the downwind impacts of emissions from these two fuel
combustion source categories, combined, in order to help determine
whether the State has met its transport obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA's Web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei for a description of
what types of sources of air emissions are considered point and
nonpoint sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA selected a spatial scale--essentially, the geographic
area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably
expect SO2 impacts to occur--that would be appropriate for
its analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an ``urban scale'' with
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers from point and nonpoint sources,
given the usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-
wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies. As such, EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 kilometers
from fuel-combustion sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air
quality that might have an impact on the transport of SO2
from Rhode Island to downwind states.

    Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in Rhode Island and their
possible impacts in downwind states, including: (1) SO2
ambient air quality; (2) SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; (3) SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; and (4) other SIP-approved or federally-
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2 at
Rhode Island's fuel-combustion point and nonpoint sources.
    Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3
(i.e., emissions sources, spatial scale and available data, and
enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an analysis under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether or not fuel-combustion
sources in Rhode Island would significantly contribute to
SO2 nonattainment in other states, and then whether
emissions from those sources would interfere with maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS in other states.
    EPA took a different approach that is more appropriate for
NO2. EPA analyzed the effects of transport by taking into
account: (1) Rhode Island's and the surrounding states' designations
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; (2) ambient monitoring of
NO2 concentrations in Rhode Island and surrounding states;
(3) the fact that total NOX\4\ emissions in Rhode Island and
surrounding states are trending downward; and (4) the fact that there
are SIP-approved state regulations in place to control NOX
emissions in Rhode Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NO2 NAAQS is designed to protect against
exposure to the entire group of nitrogen oxides (NOX).
NO2 is the component of greatest concern and is used as
the indicator for the larger group of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its October 15, 2015
SIP submission and EPA's assessment of the information discussed at
length below, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within Rhode Island will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of, the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS and the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS
in any other state.

IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport

A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
    EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\5\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, EPA has addressed interstate transport in
eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking actions that
quantify state emission reduction obligations.\6\ In other actions,
such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, EPA has considered a variety of factors on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In
such actions, EPA has considered available information such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 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; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be
met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that
impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example,
EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,'' \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 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
in, among other instances, the proposed approval and a subsequent final
approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
    \9\ Id. at pp 7-8.
    \10\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Rhode Island

    This notice describes EPA's evaluation of Rhode Island's conclusion
contained in the State's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission
that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 Rhode Island, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.

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

    As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state and how emissions from these sources or activities may impact air
quality in other states. As the analysis contained in Rhode Island's
submittal demonstrates, a state's obligation to demonstrate that it is
meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot be based solely on the fact
that there are no DRR sources within the state. Therefore, EPA believes
that a reasonable starting point for determining which sources and
emissions activities in Rhode Island are likely to impact downwind air
quality with respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by using
information in the NEI.\12\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors,
and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources, and is updated
every three years using information provided by the states. At the time
of this rulemaking, the most recently available dataset is the 2014
NEI, and the state summary for Rhode Island is included in the table
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.

         Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Rhode Island
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                        Category                             (tons per
                                                               year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities.....................              33
Fuel Combustion: Industrial.............................             599
Fuel Combustion: Other..................................           2,757
Petroleum and related Industries........................               6
Waste Disposal and Recycling............................             140
Highway Vehicles........................................              75
Off-Highway.............................................             178
Miscellaneous...........................................               2
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................           3,790
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority
of SO2 emissions in Rhode Island originate from fuel
combustion at point and nonpoint sources. Therefore, an assessment of
Rhode Island's satisfaction of all applicable requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
may reasonably be based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of
emissions from the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric
utilities, industrial processes, and other sources \13\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The ``other'' category of fuel combustion in Rhode Island
is comprised almost entirely of residential heating through fuel oil
combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definitions contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are
helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for
SO2 originating from stationary sources in its
stoichiometric gaseous form in the context of the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS. Notably, section 4.4 of this appendix titled,
``Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria'' provides
definitions for SO2 Monitoring Spatial Scales for
microscale, middle scale, neighborhood, and urban scale monitors. The
microscale includes areas in close proximity to SO2 point
and area sources, and those areas extend approximately 100 meters from
a facility. The middle scale generally represents air quality levels in
areas 100 meters to 500 meters from a facility, and may include
locations of maximum expected short-term concentrations due to the
proximity of major SO2 point, area, and non-road sources.
The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality conditions between 0.5
kilometers and 4 kilometers from a facility, and emissions from
stationary and point sources may under certain plume conditions, result
in high SO2 concentrations at this scale. Lastly, the urban
scale is used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an
urban area with dimensions of 4 to 50 kilometers from a facility, and
such measurements would be useful for assessing trends and
concentrations in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness
of large-scale pollution control strategies. Based on these definitions
contained in EPA's own regulations, we believe that it is appropriate
to examine the impacts of emissions from electric utilities and
industrial processes in Rhode Island in distances ranging from 0 km to
50 km from the facility. In other words, SO2 emissions from
stationary sources in the context of the 2010 primary NAAQS do not
exhibit the same long-distance travel, regional transport or formation
phenomena as either ozone or PM2.5, but rather, these
emissions behave more like Pb with localized dispersion. Therefore, an
assessment up to 50 kilometers from potential sources would be useful
for assessing trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA recognizes in Appendix A.1 titled, ``AERMOD (AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model) -'' of Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 that the model
is appropriate for predicting SO2 up to 50 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The largest category of SO2 emissions in Table 1 is for
``other'' fuel combustion sources. The majority of emissions in this
category is from residential fuel combustion (2,561 tons per year), or
68% of the total statewide SO2 emissions for 2014.
Residential homes combusting fuel are considered nonpoint sources. For
any state where the SO2 contribution from nonpoint sources
make up a majority of all statewide SO2 emissions, EPA
believes it is reasonable to evaluate any regulations intended to
address fuel oil, specifically with respect to the sulfur content in
order to determine interstate transport impacts from the category of
``other'' sources of fuel combustion.
    Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary sources via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration,
or air dispersion modeling.\15\ Our assessment of SO2
emissions from fuel combustion categories in the state and their
potential on neighboring states are informed by all available data at
the time of this rulemaking, and include: SO2 ambient air
quality; SO2 emissions and SO2 emissions trends;
SIP-approved SO2 regulations and permitting requirements;
and, other SIP-approved or federally promulgated regulations which may
yield reductions of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/2010-1-hour-sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary NO2 NAAQS in Rhode Island

    This notice also describes EPA's evaluation of Rhode Island's
conclusion contained in the State's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP
submission that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 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 Rhode Island, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and the State's approach to assessing impacts from the
transportation of NO2 emissions is similar, but different,
from the approach discussed above for SO2 emissions. As
previously noted, the approach used to analyze the effects of transport
for NO2 emissions in Rhode Island consists of four elements:
(1) The area designation for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, (2) ambient
monitoring of NO2 concentrations; (3) the fact that total
NOX emissions in the State and surrounding states are

trending downward; and (4) the fact that there are SIP-approved state
regulations in place to control NOX emissions in the State.

V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions

A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2
Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Rhode Island's
satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submission in
relation to the following four factors: (1) SO2 emission
trends for Rhode Island and neighboring states; (2) SO2
ambient air quality; (3) SIP-approved regulations specific to
SO2 emissions and permit requirements; and (4) other SIP-
approved or federally-enforceable regulations that, while not directly
intended to address or reduce SO2 emissions, may yield
reductions of the pollutant. A detailed discussion of each of these
factors is below.
1. SO2 Emissions Trends
    As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate
transport of SO2 in Rhode Island is based upon emissions
from fuel combustion at electric utilities, industrial sources, and
residential heating. As part of the SIP submittal, Rhode Island
observed that, in accordance with the most recently available
designations guidance at the time,\17\ there were no facilities in
Rhode Island with reported actual emissions greater than or equal to
100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ March 24, 2011 guidance document titled, ``Area
Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' See, e.g. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/documents/SO2DesignationsGuidance2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the 2014 NEI data, the highest SO2
emissions from a single point source was 60 tons from Rhode Island
Hospital. Also during 2014, the largest industrial or electric
generating facility was Rhode Island LFG Genco, LLC which emitted 33
tons of SO2.
    As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, statewide SO2
emissions in Rhode Island and in its three neighboring states,
Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, have significantly decreased
over the last several years. This decreasing trend should continue into
the near future as all four states have adopted strategies to lower
fuel oil's sulfur content by weight.\18\ By July 1, 2018, the home
heating oil in all four states will be limited to 15 parts per million
(ppm) of sulfur by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On October 7, 2015, EPA approved Rhode Island's low sulfur
fuel regulation. See 80 FR 60541. On May 25, 2016 and June 3, 2016,
EPA approved Connecticut's low sulfur fuel regulations. See 81 FR
33134 and 81 FR 35636, respectively. On September 19, 2013, EPA
approved Massachusetts' low sulfur fuel regulation. See 78 FR 57487.
On August 8, 2012, EPA approved New York's low sulfur fuel statute.
See 77 FR 51915.

        Table 2--Statewide SO2 Data (tons per year) for Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                            2000            2005            2010            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island....................................           8,976           7,356           4,416           3,639
Connecticut.....................................          60,309          34,638          16,319          10,953
Massachusetts...................................         208,146         139,937          57,892          13,518
New York........................................         543,868         386,568         170,247          59,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    Data collected at ambient air quality monitors indicate the
monitored values of SO2 in the State have remained below the
NAAQS. Relevant data from Air Quality Standards (AQS) Design Value (DV)
\20\ reports for recent and complete 3-year periods are summarized in
the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
    \20\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
(set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance
with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.

                      Table 3--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors in Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012-2014 DV    2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV
           AQS Monitor Site                 Monitor location           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44-007-0012...........................  Brown University,                     11               8               7
                                         Providence.
44-007-1010...........................  Francis School, East                  14              10               7
                                         Providence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs for the two monitoring sites for
all years between 2012 and 2016 have decreased between each of the 3-
year blocks shown in the table. The highest valid DV in Rhode Island
for 2014-2016 is 7 ppb, which is 83% below the NAAQS.
    While the monitor (AQS Site ID 44-007-0012) closest to Rhode Island
Hospital (the largest SO2 emitter in 2014) may not be sited
in the area to capture points of maximum concentration from the
facility, the monitor is located in the neighborhood spatial scale in
relation to the facility, i.e., emissions from stationary and point
sources may under certain plume conditions, result in high
SO2 concentrations at this scale. Forty CFR part 58,
Appendix D, section 4.4.4(3) defines neighborhood scale as ``[t]he
neighborhood scale would characterize air quality conditions throughout
some relatively uniform land use areas with dimensions in the 0.5 to
4.0 kilometer range.''
    However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that Rhode Island has
met its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs and
their associated spatial scales may help to assist in characterizing
air quality within Rhode Island, prong 1 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
specifically addresses the effects that sources within Rhode Island
have on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, an evaluation and
analysis of SO2 emissions data from facilities within the
State, together with the potential effects of such emissions on ambient
data in neighboring states, is appropriate.

    As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for
SO2 monitoring networks indicate that the maximum impacts
from stationary sources can be expected within 4 kilometers of such
sources, and that distances up to 50 kilometers would be useful for
assessing trends and concentrations in area-wide air quality. The only
nearby states within 50 km of a source in Rhode Island are
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. As a result, no further
analysis of other Northeast states was conducted for assessing the
impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 pollution from
facilities located in Rhode Island.
    There are no ambient SO2 monitors operating in
Connecticut or New York within 50 km of Rhode Island's border \21\.
There are four such monitors in Massachusetts, which are identified in
Table 4, below, along with those monitors' DVs for SO2 for
the last three year periods. As shown in Table 4, SO2 DVs
for these monitors are decreasing, with the highest DV for 2014-2016
being 13% of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The closest ambient SO2 monitors in Connecticut
and New York with recent valid design values are in New Haven and
Suffolk Counties, respectively. The 2014-2016 design value at each
of these monitors (i.e., 09-009-0027 and 36-103-0009) is below 10
ppb. See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

       Table 4--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors in Massachusetts Within 50 km of Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012-2014 DV    2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV
           AQS Monitor Site                 Monitor Location           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-025-0042...........................  Dudley Square, Roxbury..              12              11               9
25-025-0002...........................  Kenmore Square, Boston..              12               9               6
25-027-0023...........................  Worcester...............               9               7               6
25-005-1004...........................  Fall River..............              47              28              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2 and
Permitting Requirements
    The State has various regulations to ensure that SO2
emissions are not expected to substantially increase in the future. One
notable example consists of the federally-enforceable conditions
contained in Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR) No.
8, ``Sulfur Content of Fuels.'' This regulation, last approved by EPA
into the SIP on October 7, 2015 (80 FR 60541) limits the amount of
sulfur by weight in fuel oil. As discussed earlier in this notice, the
2014 NEI indicates that the single largest, albeit diffuse, source
category of SO2 emissions in Rhode Island is from fuel
combustion for residential heating (2,561 tpy). Starting on July 1,
2014 the sulfur content for home heating oil in Rhode Island was
lowered to 500 parts per million (ppm), or 0.05% by weight. An
additional reduction in the amount of SO2 emissions from the
use of home heating oil will occur after July 1, 2018 when the sulfur
content will be reduced from 500 ppm to 15 ppm or 0.0015% by weight,
representing a 97% decrease in SO2 emissions from this
source category.
    In addition, for the purposes of ensuring that SO2
emissions at new or modified stationary sources in Rhode Island do not
adversely impact air quality, the State's SIP-approved nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs are contained in APCR, No. 9, ``Air Pollution Control
Permits.'' This regulation ensures that SO2 emissions due to
new facility construction or to modifications at existing facilities
will not adversely impact air quality in Rhode Island and will likely
not adversely impact air quality in neighboring states.
    Finally, in addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA
observes that facilities in Rhode Island are also subject to the
federal requirements contained in regulations such as the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources:
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.
This regulation reduces acid gases, which includes reductions in
SO2 emissions.
4. 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
neighboring states (i.e., Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York)
relative to the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS;
    (2) Past and projected future SO2 emission trends
demonstrate that SO2 air quality problems in other
neighboring states are unlikely to occur due to sources in Rhode
Island; and
    (3) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further
reduce SO2 emissions from sources within Rhode Island.
    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its October 15, 2015
SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA
proposes to find that any sources or other emissions activity within
the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased emissions from
sources within Rhode Island, EPA believes that reasonable criteria to
ensure that sources or other emissions activity originating within
Rhode Island do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to
maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether these decreases in
emissions can be maintained over time.
    As shown in Table 2, above, state-wide SO2 emissions in
Rhode Island, and the three neighboring states, Massachusetts,
Connecticut and New York, have significantly decreased since 2000. All
four of these states have adopted low sulfur fuel oil requirements,
requiring the sulfur content in home heating oil and other sources
using distillate oil to be lowered by 97% by July 1, 2018.\22\
According to the 2014 NEI data, home heating oil is the largest
category of SO2 emissions in three of the states, Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Home heating oil in 2014 was
not the largest category of SO2 emissions in New York
because the sulfur content in home

heating oil was reduced to 15 ppm as of July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 80 FR 60541 (October 15, 2015) for Rhode Island, 78 FR
57487 (September 19, 2013) for Massachusetts, and 81 FR 35636 (June
3, 2016) for Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utilizing United States census data and EPA emission factors,
future SO2 emissions from home heating oil can be forecasted
in each of the three states where the reduction in sulfur content to 15
ppm does not take effect until 2018. According to EPA's guidance titled
``Air Emission Factors and Quantification AP 42, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors'' Chapter 1.3 titled, ``Fuel Oil
Combustion,'' \23\ more than 95% of the sulfur in fuel is converted to
SO2. The Census Bureau provides state specific data for the
year 2000 regarding the number of homes using oil for heating
purposes.\24\ Finally, it is not uncommon for typical households in the
southern New England states to use 800 gallons of fuel oil per
season.\25\ Table 5 provides both the census data and current and
future SO2 emission estimates for each of the three relevant
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf.
    \24\ https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/fuels.html.
    \25\ See 82 FR 21351 (May 8, 2017).

                          Table 5--Estimated Future SO2 Emissions From Home Heating Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Estimate of  SO2      Estimate of  SO2
                                                      Number of         emissions  (tons)     emissions  (tons)
                     State                        households  using     from  households      from  households
                                                    oil  for heat       using oil  (2016)     using oil  (2019)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island..................................               168,400                 478.2                    14
Connecticut...................................               681,200                 1,935                    58
Massachusetts.................................               945,600                 2,686                    81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA does not currently have a way to quantify the impacts of
multiple small sources of SO2 (the current estimate is
approximately 6 pounds of SO2 per year per household that
uses 800 gallons of fuel oil) in neighboring states, the drastic
decrease in the allowable sulfur content in fuel oil and the associated
reductions in SO2 emissions, combined with the diffuse
nature of these emissions, make it unlikely that the current and future
emissions from residential combustion of fuel oil are likely to lead to
an exceedance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. Specifically, by
2018, the yearly SO2 emissions per household using fuel oil
will drop to under 0.20 pounds per year.
    As shown in Table 2, above, statewide SO2 emissions in
Rhode Island have decreased over time. A number of factors are involved
that caused this decrease in emissions, including the effective date of
APCR No. 8, ``Sulfur Content of Fuels,'' and the change in capacity
factors at EGUs over time due to increased usage of natural gas to
generate electricity. The EPA believes that since actual SO2
emissions from the facilities currently operating in Rhode Island have
decreased between 2000 and 2015, this trend shows that emissions
originating in Rhode Island are not expected to interfere with the
neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA expects SO2 from point sources combusting fuel oil
in Rhode Island will be lower in the future. In 2014, the state adopted
lower sulfur-in-fuel limits for all stationary sources (APCR No. 8).
These new limits were approved by EPA into the SIP in 2015. The sulfur-
in-fuel limits contained in APCR No. 8 will limit stationary sources
combusting residual fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.5% or less by
weight and distillate fuel oil of 0.0015% or less by weight as of July
1, 2018.
    Lastly, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will
be addressed by Rhode Island's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. Future minor sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by the State's minor new source review
permit program. The permitting regulations contained within these
programs, along with the other factors already discussed, are expected
to help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts or Connecticut are not exceeded as a result of new
facility construction or modification occurring in Rhode Island.
    It is also worth noting air quality trends for concentrations of
SO2 in the Northeastern United States.\26\ This region has
experienced a 77% decrease in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between 2000 and 2015 based on 46 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available data for 2015 indicates that the
mean value at these sites was 17.4 ppb, or less than 25% of the NAAQS.
When this trend is evaluated alongside the monitored SO2
concentrations within the State of Rhode Island as well as the
SO2 concentrations recorded at monitors in Massachusetts and
Connecticut, EPA does not believe that sources or emissions activity
from within Rhode Island are significantly different than the overall
decreasing monitored SO2 concentration trend in the
Northeast region. As a result, EPA finds it unlikely that sources or
emissions activity from within Rhode Island will interfere with other
states' ability to maintain the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance
analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within the State will not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

VI. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS

    Rhode Island's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission
addressing the good neighbor requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) notes that on January 20, 2012, EPA designated all
areas of the country as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2010
primary NO2 NAAQS. EPA did this because DVs for the 2008-
2010 period at all monitored sites met the NAAQS. Measurements from
2013-2015 indicate continued attainment of the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS throughout the country.\27\ Rhode Island currently
operates four NO2 monitors, two in Providence, one in East
Providence, and one in West Greenwich. The DV is based on the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour
daily maximum concentrations. Table 6 contains the design values for
the two monitors with complete, valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values for NO2 design values.

                                   Table 6--NO2 Design Values in Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV
               AQS Monitor site                         Monitor location               (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44-007-0012...................................  Brown University, Providence....              46              45
44-007-1010...................................  Francis School, East Providence.              39              38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 6, the DVs are significantly less than the
national ambient air quality standard for NO2, which is 100
ppb. However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the State is insufficient by itself to demonstrate that Rhode
Island has met its interstate transport obligation. While the DV may
help to assist in characterizing air quality within Rhode Island,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that
sources within Rhode Island have on air quality in neighboring states.
Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of DV's in neighboring states is
appropriate.
    Table 7 contains the highest NO2 DVs for the three
states neighboring Rhode Island, i.e., Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
New York.

           Table 7--Highest NO2 Design Values in ppb for AQS Monitors in Massachusetts and Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               AQS monitor                                         Design value
                   State                          site                 Monitor location             (2014-2016)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut................................     09-009-0027  Criscuolo Park-New Haven...........              53
Massachusetts..............................     25-025-0002  Kenmore Square, Boston.............              51
                                                25-025-0042  Dudley Square, Roxbury.............              51
                                                25-027-0023  Worcester..........................              51
New York...................................     36-005-0110  Bronx..............................              64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown by the chart above, the highest NO2 DV in each
neighboring state is significantly less than the NO2 NAAQS.
    Lastly, APCR No. 27 ``Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,'' among
other regulations, contains NOX emissions limits for
existing sources. For ensuring that new or modified sources of
NO2 emissions in Rhode Island do not adversely impact air
quality, the State's SIP-approved nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) programs are
contained in APCR, No. 9, ``Air Pollution Control Permits.'' This
regulation ensures that NO2 emissions due to new facility
construction or modifications at existing facilities will not adversely
impact air quality in Rhode Island or in neighboring states.
    EPA also notes that NOX emissions have been declining,
with total statewide NOX emissions from Rhode Island sources
dropping from 38,308 tons in 2000 to 19,680 tons in 2016. In light of
the above analysis, EPA is approving Rhode Island's October 15, 2015
infrastructure submittal for the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS as
it pertains to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based on the
analysis provided by the State in its October 15, 2015 SIP submission
and based on each of the factors listed above, for the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS EPA proposes to find that any sources or other
emissions activity within the State will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state.

VII. Proposed Action

    In light of the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve Rhode
Island's October 15, 2015 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 primary
SO2 and 2010 primary NO2 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. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 15, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-18419 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 7 2 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Asbestos Abatement Worker Protection 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1246.09 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Asbestos 10. Abstract This rule covers state and local employees who perform asbestos abatement activities. It requires employers to report hazards of asbestos abatement projects, to train employees about the hazards of asbestos, to monitor employees' exposure, and to provide medical surveillance. It also requires employees to maintain records of these activities.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 25,312 b. Total annual responses 1,264,123 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 412,243 d. Current OMB inventory 436,289 e. Difference  24,046 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  24,046 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. O Recordkeeping b. O Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7971-7973]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3361; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northeast United
States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies jet routes J-6, J-97, and J-222, and VOR
Federal airways V-196, and V-489, in the northeastern United States due
to the planned decommissioning of the Plattsburgh, NY, VORTAC facility.
These route changes enhance the safety and management of airspace
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order JO 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the
northeast United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

History

    On September 14, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend jet routes J-6, J-97 and
J-222; and VOR Federal airways V-196 and V-489 in the northeastern
United States (80 FR 55049, FR. Doc. 2015-22876). Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal. Two comments were received.

Discussion of Comments

    Both commenters agreed with the proposal; however, one individual
wrote that the V-196 and V-489 modifications should be delayed for one
year after the relocation of the jet routes to provide pilots with
backup. The FAA finds it is not possible to delay the modifications to
V-196 and V-489 because the cancelled segments of those airways are
based on the Plattsburgh VORTAC, which is being commissioned.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 and VOR Federal airways
are published in paragraph 6010(a) respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z
dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes and VOR
Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published
in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying the descriptions of jet routes J-6, J-97 and J-
222; and VOR Federal airways V-196 and V-489, due to the planned
decommissioning of the Plattsburgh VORTAC in New York. The jet routes
and VOR Federal airways are being modified as follows:

    J-6 Jet route J-6 is terminated on the east end at Albany, NY.
The segment between Albany and Plattsburgh, NY is removed.
    J-97 Jet route J-97 is terminated at Boston, MA, removing the
segment between Boston and Plattsburgh.
    J-222 Jet route J-222 is terminated at Cambridge, NY, removing
the segment between Cambridge and Plattsburgh.
    V-196 Federal airway V-196 is terminated at the intersection of
the Saranac Lake, NY, 058[deg](T) and the Burlington, VT 296[deg](T)
radials, removing the segment between that intersection and
Plattsburgh.
    V-489 Federal airway V-489 is terminated at Glens Falls, NY,
removing the segment between Glens Falls and Plattsburgh.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015 and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-6 [Amended]

    From Salinas, CA, via INT Salinas 145[deg] and Avenal, CA,
292[deg] radials; Avenal; INT Avenal 119[deg] and Palmdale, CA,
310[deg] radials; Palmdale; Hector, CA; Needles, CA; Drake, AZ;
Zuni, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Panhandle, TX; Will
Rogers, OK; Little Rock, AR; Bowling Green, KY; Charleston, WV; INT
Charleston 076[deg] and Martinsburg,

WV, 243[deg] radials; Martinsburg; Lancaster, PA; Broadway, NJ;
Sparta, NJ; to Albany, NY.
* * * * *

J-97 [Amended]

    From lat. 39[deg]07'00'' N., long. 67[deg]00'00'' W. via
Nantucket, MA; to Boston, MA.
* * * * *

J-222 [Amended]

    From Robbinsville, NJ; INT Robbinsville 039[deg] and Kennedy,
NY, 253[deg] radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 022[deg] and Cambridge,
NY, 179[deg] radials; to Cambridge.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

V-196 [Amended]

    From Utica, NY, Saranac Lake, NY; to INT Saranac Lake 058[deg]
and Burlington, VT 296[deg] radials.
* * * * *

V-489 [Amended]

    From INT Sparta, NJ, 300[deg] and Huguenot, NY, 196[deg]
radials; Huguenot; INT Huguenot 008[deg] and Albany, NY, 209[deg]
radials; Albany; to Glens Falls, NY.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2016.
Leslie M. Swann,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-03060 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P