[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8691-8693]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02559]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0355; FRL-10016-55-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan,
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the ``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in
the Johnstown, Pennsylvania area (Johnstown Area).

EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0355. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keila M. Pag[aacute]n-Incle, Planning
& Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2926. Ms. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 16, 2020 (85 FR 57810), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Johnstown Area through August 1, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted
by PADEP on February 27, 2020.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41903), EPA approved a redesignation
request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for the Johnstown Area. In
accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after
the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a
second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard
for an additional 10 years, and in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA \1\ the D.C. Circuit held that this requirement cannot
be waived for areas, like Johnstown, that had been redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation and that
were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A
sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition,
EPA has published longstanding guidance that provides further insight
on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a
maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment
for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of
continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.\2\ PADEP's February
27, 2020 submittal fulfills Pennsylvania's obligation to submit a
second maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
    \2\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the September 16, 2020 NPRM, EPA allows the
submittal of a less rigorous, limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet
the CAA section 175A requirements by demonstrating that the area's
design value \3\ is well below the NAAQS and that the historical
stability of the area's air quality levels shows that the area is
unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated PADEP's
February 27, 2020 submittal for consistency with all applicable EPA
guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the submittal met CAA
section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP
for the Johnstown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. The
effect of this action makes certain commitments related to the
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS Federally enforceable as part of
the Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific requirements of PADEP's February
27, 2020 submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received one comment in support of this action.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS limited maintenance
plan for the Johnstown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's limited maintenance
plan for the Johnstown Area may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for ``1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Area'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone National         Johnstown Area......    2/27/2020  2/9/2021, [insert
 Ambient Air Quality Standard                                          Federal Register
 Second Maintenance Plan for the                                       citation].
 Johnstown Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-02559 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10649-10650]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0226; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-187-AD;
Amendment 39-15393; AD 2008-04-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of the body buttock line (BBL) 0.07
floor beam between body station (BS) 651 and BS 676 and between BS 698
and BS 717, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. This AD results from reports of cracking in the
BBL 0.07 floor beam. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
main deck floor beams at certain body stations due to fatigue cracking,
which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 3,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6440; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2007 (72 FR
65901). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for
cracking of the body buttock line 0.07 floor beam between body station
(BS) 651 and BS 676 and between BS 698 and BS 717, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are 1,961 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. This AD affects 599 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required
inspections take about 4 work hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the required AD for U.S. operators is $191,680, or $320 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-04-21 Boeing: Amendment 39-15393. Docket No. FAA-2007-0226;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-187-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 3,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1210, Revision 2, dated June 13,
2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracking in the body buttock
line (BBL) 0.07 floor beam. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the main deck floor beams at certain body stations due to
fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspections and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

    (f) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight hours, or
within 7,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do the detailed inspections for cracking of
the BBL 0.07 floor beam between body station (BS) 651 and BS 676 and
between BS 698 and BS 717, and do all the applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight, by
accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
B.2. and B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1210, excluding Appendix A, Revision 2, dated June
13, 2007, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight
cycles. Installing a repair in accordance with paragraphs B.2. and
B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, or
doing the modification in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD,
terminates the repetitive inspections for the applicable area only.

Exception to Corrective Action

    (g) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1210, excluding Appendix
A, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (h) If no cracking is found during the detailed inspection and
related investigative action required by paragraph (f) of this AD:
Accomplishing the modification of the BBL 0.07 floor beam between BS
651 and BS 676 and between BS 698 and BS 717, as applicable, in
accordance with paragraphs B.2. and B.4., as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1210,
excluding Appendix A, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2007, terminates
the repetitive inspections for the applicable area only.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1210, Revision
2, dated June 13, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 15, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-3461 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53279-53280]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Notice of Adjustment of Countywide per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the countywide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2018, will be increased.

DATES: This adjustment applies to major disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hoyes, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In assessing damages for area designations
under 44 CFR 206.40(b), FEMA uses a countywide per capita indicator to
evaluate the impact of the disaster at the county level. FEMA will
adjust the countywide per capita impact indicator under the Public
Assistance program to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the countywide per capita
impact indicator to $3.78 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2018.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.7 percent for the 12-month period
that ended in August 2018. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 13, 2018.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters)

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-22886 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6736-6739]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03564]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0806; FRL-9990-17-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Infrastructure SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Hawaii regarding certain Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements
related to the interstate transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The interstate transport requirements
consist of several elements; this proposal pertains only to 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 and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0806 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3856<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Interstate Transport
    B. State Submittal
II. Interstate Transport Analysis and Evaluation
    A. The EPA's Evaluation Approach
    B. The HDOH Transport Analysis
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
    D. The EPA's Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states 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 the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring,
basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
The EPA refers to the SIP submissions required by these provisions as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule
pertains to the infrastructure SIP requirements for interstate
transport of air pollution.

A. Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 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, or interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in any other state. This proposed rule addresses the two
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which we refer to as
prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in
any other state).\1\ The EPA refers to SIP revisions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as ``good neighbor SIPs'' or
``interstate transport SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state or elements associated with section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding interstate pollution abatement and
international air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS, setting them at 0.075 parts per million.
In 2015, the EPA issued an informational memo regarding interstate
transport SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (``Ozone Transport
Memo'').\2\ The Ozone Transport Memo, following the approach used in
the original Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),\3\ provided data
identifying ozone monitoring sites in the continental United States
(U.S.) that were projected to be in nonattainment or have maintenance
problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2018. In 2016, the EPA updated our
ozone transport modeling through the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update (``CSAPR Update'').\4\ As part of this action, we changed the
modeled year to 2017, aligning it with the relevant attainment dates
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as required by the D.C. Circuit's decision in
North Carolina v. EPA.\5\ This CSAPR modeling did not include the
island state of Hawaii and thus a different approach is used in this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum dated January 22, 2015, from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, ``Information on
Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Clean Air Act
(CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).''
    \3\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \4\ 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The modeling results are
found in the ``Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule TSD,''
EPA, August 2016, and an update to the affiliated final CSAPR Update
ozone design value and contributions spreadsheet, entitled Copy of
final_csapr_update_ozone_design_values_contributions.xlsx.
    \5\ 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA must
coordinate interstate transport compliance deadlines with downwind
attainment deadlines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. State Submittal

    The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) submitted its proposed good

neighbor SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a letter dated June 8,
2015,\6\ as a parallel processing request.\7\ The EPA notified HDOH
that the submittal was complete on June 12, 2015.\8\ HDOH submitted a
final good neighbor SIP (``HDOH Submittal'') on August 6, 2015,\9\
including documentation of public participation meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. The content of
the HDOH Submittal is discussed in section II.B (``The HDOH Transport
Analysis'') of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter dated June 8, 2015, from Virginia Pressler, M.D.,
Director of Health, HDOH, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX.
    \7\ Under the EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, the EPA
may propose a rulemaking action concurrently with the state's
proposed rulemaking. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V for more
information.
    \8\ Letter dated June 12, 2015, from Colleen McKaughan, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Nolan Hirai, HDOH.
    \9\ Letter dated August 6, 2015, from Virginia Pressler, M.D.,
Director of Health, HDOH, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Interstate Transport Analysis and Evaluation

A. The EPA's Evaluation Approach

    To assess interstate transport for regional pollutants such as fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone, we typically first
identify the areas that may have problems attaining or maintaining
attainment of the NAAQS. We refer to regulatory monitors that are
expected to exceed the NAAQS under average conditions as
``nonattainment receptors'' and those that may have difficulty
maintaining the NAAQS as ``maintenance receptors.'' Such receptors may
include regulatory monitors operated by states, tribes, or local air
agencies.
    In some cases, we have identified these receptors by modeling air
quality in a future year that is relevant to CAA attainment deadlines
for a given NAAQS. This type of modeling has been based on air quality
data, emissions inventories, existing and planned air pollution control
measures, and other information. As previously mentioned in Section
I.A., the EPA modeled air quality in the 48 contiguous states of the
continental U.S. in the CSAPR Update.\10\ This information is used in
this analysis to identify states with nonattainment and maintenance
receptors for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\11\ To evaluate interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for states in the continental U.S.,
the EPA estimated interstate contributions from and to all other
continental states. The EPA then determined which upwind states
contribute to these identified air quality problems in amounts
sufficient to warrant further evaluation to determine if the state can
make emission reductions to reduce its contribution. The CSAPR Update
used a screening threshold (1% of the NAAQS or 0.75 parts per billion)
to identify contributing upwind states warranting further review and
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The methodology for the EPA's transport modeling for the
2008 ozone is described in the CSAPR Update Rule (81 FR 74504,
October 26, 2016).
    \11\ Nonattainment receptors were projected to have 2017 average
design values higher than the 2008 ozone NAAQS and maintenance
receptors were projected to have 2017 maximum design values higher
than the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily required,
particularly for isolated states like Hawaii. A proper and well-
supported weight of evidence approach can provide sufficient
information for purposes of addressing transport with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. In a weight of evidence analysis, no single piece of
information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total
weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state.

B. The HDOH Transport Analysis

    HDOH concluded that Hawaii does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
another state, citing several factors: The distance from Hawaii to the
continental U.S; the relatively small quantity of ozone precursor
emissions in Hawaii; and an evaluation of ozone transport.
    In the HDOH Submittal, the State notes that Hawaii is approximately
2,390 miles from the nearest state, California. It also compares
Hawaii's ozone precursor emissions to those of California. Emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
from Hawaii were 5.0% and 5.9% respectively of California's emissions
in 2008 and 6.8% and 1.3% in 2011.
    Appendix 1 to the HDOH Submittal shows trajectories for emissions
from Hawaii's Campbell Industrial Park, which includes a refinery and
power generation facility, based on 2010 meteorological data. The
trajectories initially travel eastward, before turning westward. A very
small fraction of emissions arrives in the continental U.S. more than
two days after release and a slightly larger fraction arrives five days
after release.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    In the modeling performed for the CSAPR Update, the westernmost
projected nonattainment receptors in the U.S. were in California and
Texas.\12\ The nearest California projected nonattainment receptor is
located in Turlock, Stanislaus County, which is 2,389 miles from the
easternmost edge of Hawaii.\13\ The nearest Texas nonattainment
receptor is located in Manvel, Brazoria County, which is 3,765 miles
from Hawaii.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Copy of
Final_csapr_update_ozone_design_values_contributions.xlsx.
    \13\ Monitor ID 060990006.
    \14\ Monitor ID 480391004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have supplemented Hawaii's emission comparison with California
to include Arizona, Colorado, and Texas because Arizona's contribution
to ozone levels in California, Texas, and Colorado was considered in
the EPA's modeling for the CSAPR Update, as explained further
below.\15\ Hawaii's emissions are substantially lower than emissions
from California, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, as shown in Table 1.\16\
We further note that emissions of ozone precursors in Hawaii decreased
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Copy of
final_csapr_updates_ozone_design_values_contributions.xlsx.
    \16\ The data were downloaded from the EPA's National Emissions
Inventory Gateway and included in the docket for this action, in a
spreadsheet entitled HI-AZ-CA-CO-TX NOX&VOC 2008-11-
14.xlsx.

                                                         Table 1--Emissions of Ozone Precursors
                                                                   [Tons per year] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant                                                                       NOX
                                                                                VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year....................................................            2008        \b\ 2011        \b\ 2014            2008        \b\ 2011        \b\ 2014
HI......................................................          55,447          54,803          43,421          41,724          38,781          34,545
AZ......................................................         311,197         256,227         229,555       2,118,307       2,270,916       2,016,827
CA......................................................       1,086,293         770,902         580,053       4,037,072       2,996,891       3,331,126
CO......................................................         301,556         332,361         282,078       1,084,404       1,331,019         960,549
TX......................................................       1,729,465       1,384,989       1,326,015       5,853,227       7,597,708       6,634,878
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Data from EPA's National Emissions Inventory: 2014 Version 2, 2011 Version 2, and 2008 Version 3 (some values for 2011 and 2008 emissions differ
  slightly from those provided by HDOH).
\b\ Non-anthropogenic event emissions (e.g., wildfires) were not included in these data.

    In the CSAPR Update, the EPA modeled Arizona's 2017 contributions
to nonattainment receptors in El Centro and Los Angeles, California to
be 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively. Although Arizona's contribution to
these receptors in California exceeded the 1% screening threshold, we
concluded that Arizona's contribution was not significant due to the
low total contribution of all upwind states (4.4% at the El Centro
receptor and 2.5% at Los Angeles receptor).\17\ The proposed rule
explained, the ``EPA believes that a 4.4% and 2.5% cumulative ozone
contribution from all upwind states is negligible.'' \18\ Our modeling
estimated Arizona's contribution to all other ozone nonattainment
receptors at less than the 1% threshold for potential significance.\19\
The EPA's conclusions about Arizona's contribution to nonattainment
receptors in California, Texas, and other states further suggests
Hawaii's emissions are unlikely to significantly contribute to those
nonattainment receptors because NOX and VOC emissions from
Arizona are more than five times larger than from Hawaii and more than
2,000 miles closer to the nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 81 FR 31513 (May 19, 2016).
    \18\ 81 FR 15200 (March 22, 2016).
    \19\ Copy of
final_csapr_updates_ozone_design_values_contributions.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trajectory analysis in Appendix 1 of the HDOH Submittal shows
the predominant transport patterns in January and July of 2010 and
supports the conclusion that Hawaii does not contribute to
nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state. Although the
trajectory analysis was originally prepared in support of Hawaii's
analysis for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, it still provides relevant technical
information on transport patterns for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Although the analysis only looked at trajectories for the months of
January and July of 2010, the National Weather Service lists persistent
trade winds from the northeast as a feature of Hawaii's climate from
May to October.\20\ This suggests that the July 2010 metrological data,
which form the basis of the trajectory analysis, would be similar to
the meteorological data for other months from May to October. As the
trajectory analysis shows, Hawaii's summertime emissions can be
expected to travel eastward for at least one day, and often many days,
before turning westward. Additionally, few of the trajectories reach
the continental U.S. Our analysis is focused on summertime transport
because summertime is typically the period of highest ozone
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association (NOAA). ``Honolulu, HI.'' Pacific Region Headquarters,
NOAA's National Weather Service, www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/pages/climate_summary.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on emissions data and the large distance that separates
Hawaii from the continental U.S., it appears highly unlikely that
emissions from Hawaii impact the ozone nonattainment receptors of
California, Texas, or more distant states. In addition, the comparison
of trajectory modeling results with ozone monitoring data provides
further support for this conclusion. Additionally, emissions of ozone
precursors in Hawaii are trending downward and should be less likely to
impact other states' nonattainment areas in the future.

D. The EPA's Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    In addition to projected maintenance receptors in California and
Texas, the EPA modeling in the CSAPR Update also projected maintenance
receptors in Colorado.\21\ These maintenance receptors in California,
Colorado, and Texas are located 2,401, 3,245, and 3,649 miles,
respectively, from Hawaii.\22\ The EPA's projected 2017 modeling
estimated Arizona's contribution to be less than 1% of the NAAQS for
all California, Colorado, and Texas maintenance receptors.
Consequently, we determined the emissions from Arizona do not interfere
with maintenance in California, Colorado, or Texas. Because
NOX and VOC emissions from Arizona are five times larger and
more than 2000 miles closer than emissions from Hawaii, we expect that
Hawaii's contribution to these receptors would also be less than 1%.
Therefore, we conclude that emissions of ozone precursors in Hawaii are
unlikely to interfere with maintenance receptors in California,
Colorado, Texas, or any other state. This conclusion is also supported
by the prevailing wind directions as documented by Hawaii's trajectory
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Copy of
final_csapr_updates_ozone_design_values_contributions.xlsx.
    \22\ Monitor ID 060610006, in Roseville, Placer County,
California; Monitor ID 080590011 in Applewood, Jefferson County
Colorado; and Monitor ID 481210034, in Denton, Denton County, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    Based on our review of the HDOH Submittal and the additional
analysis discussed in this notice, we propose to find that emissions
from Hawaii do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the HDOH Submittal as satisfying the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 the 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, Infrastructure SIP, Interstate transport, Nitrogen oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-03564 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P