[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66184-66196]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27773]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0637; FRL-9987-95-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Maine; Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Maine that addresses the infrastructure and interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0637 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region
1, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109--3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?
III. State Submission and EPA's Analysis
    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
    1. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    2. Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major Sources and Major
Modifications
    3. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources
and Minor Modifications
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    1. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(A)(2)(D)(I)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
    a. State's Analysis
    b. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation
    c. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation
    2. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (prong 3)
    3. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility
Protection (Prong 4)
    4. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution
Abatement
    5. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International
Pollution Abatement
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    1. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal
Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    2. Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of
the CAA
    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Visibility Protection
    1. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    2. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    3. Sub-Element 3: PSD
    4. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 19, 2017, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(ME DEP) submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required
to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these
sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.'' This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the
specific elements that ``each such plan'' must address.
    EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas
separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's
approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May
13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the

scope of this rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45.

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This memorandum and other referenced guidance documents and
memoranda are included in the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), sometimes referred to as
the Good Neighbor provision, EPA notes that although SO2 is
emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone in that SO2
is not a regional pollutant and does not commonly contribute to
widespread nonattainment over a large (and often multi-state) area. The
transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of lead
(Pb) because its physical properties result in localized pollutant
impacts very near the emissions source. However, ambient concentrations
of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with distance from the
source as Pb, because of the physical properties and typical release
heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel farther
and have wider ranging impacts than emissions of Pb, but do not travel
far enough to be treated in a manner similar to ozone or
PM2.5. The approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone or
PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and the approach
for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a
different approach. Given the physical properties of SO2,
EPA selected the ``urban scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from
4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources--to evaluate these SIP
submissions for SO2 transport.\2\ As such, EPA utilized an
assessment up to 50 km from point sources when considering possible
transport of SO2 from Maine to downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III.D of this document, EPA first reviewed
ME DEP's analysis to assess how Maine evaluated the transport of
SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the
analysis and the conclusions drawn by the ME DEP. EPA then conducted a
weight of evidence analysis, including ME DEP's submission and other
available information, including air quality, emission sources, and
emission trends within the state and in neighboring states to which
SO2 emission sources in Maine could potentially contribute
or interfere.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed approval action 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 any of the subject states' 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 has become available at those times.
Future available information may include, and is not limited to,
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's
SO2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submission and EPA's Analysis

    EPA is soliciting comment on our evaluation of ME DEP's
infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). In ME DEP's submission, a detailed list of Maine Laws and
previously SIP-approved Air Quality Regulations show precisely how the
various components of its EPA-approved SIP meet each of the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. The following review evaluates the state's
submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and relevant EPA
guidance.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section (also referred to in this action as an element, e.g.,
Element A) of the Act requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.\4\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (November 12,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ME DEP statutory authority with respect to air quality is set out
in 38 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (``MRSA'') Chapter 4,
``Protection and Improvement of Air.'' \5\ Statutory authority to
establish emission standards and regulations implementing ambient air
quality standards is contained in 38 MRSA Chapter 4, sections 585 and
585-A. Maine's infrastructure submittal for this element cites Maine
laws and regulations that include enforceable emissions limitations and
other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance to meet the applicable requirements of the
CAA. For instance, ME DEP cites 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, a state law that
establishes a statewide sulfur limit of 15 parts per million (ppm) for
distillate oil and 0.5% by weight for residual oil. On April 24, 2012,
EPA incorporated these statutory limits into Maine's SIP. See 77 FR
24385. In addition, ME DEP cited its SIP approved new source review
permitting regulation 06-096 CMR Chapter 115, ``Emission License
Regulations'' last amended on August 1, 2016. See 81 FR 50353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ME DEP consists of the Board of Environmental Protection
(``Board'') and a Commissioner. 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A(2). In general,
the Board is authorized to promulgate ``major substantive rules''
and the Commissioner has rulemaking authority with respect to rules
that are ``not designated as major substantive rules.'' Id. Sec.
341-H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to provide for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze ambient air quality data,
and make such data available to EPA upon request. Each year, states
submit annual air monitoring network plans to EPA for review and
approval. EPA's review of these annual monitoring plans includes our
evaluation of whether the state: (i) Monitors air quality at
appropriate locations throughout the state using

EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method
monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a
timely manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior
notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network
plan.
    Pursuant to authority granted to it by 38 MRSA Sec. Sec.  341-A(1)
and 584-A, ME DEP operates an air quality monitoring network, and EPA
approved the state's most recent Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
SO2 on October 25, 2018.\6\ Furthermore, ME DEP populates
AQS with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides
EPA with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring
network or plan. EPA proposes that ME DEP meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See EPA approval letter located in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and (iii) a permit program for minor
sources and minor modifications.
1. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    ME DEP identifies the sources of its authority to enforce the
measures it cites to satisfy Element A as 38 MRSA Section 347-A,
``Violations,'' 38 MRSA Section 347-C, ``Right of inspection and
entry,'' 38 MRSA Section 348, ``Judicial Enforcement,'' and 38 MRSA
Section 349, ``Penalties,'' which include processes for both civil and
criminal enforcement actions. Construction of new or modified
stationary sources in Maine is regulated by 06-096 CMR Chapter 115
``Major and Minor Source Air Emission License Regulations,'' which
requires best available control technology (BACT) controls for PSD
sources, including for SO2. EPA proposes to find that Maine
meets the enforcement requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect
to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
2. Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major Sources and Major Modifications
    PSD applies to new major sources or modifications made to major
sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is
in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to the relevant NAAQS.
ME DEP's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at 06-906 CMR Chapter 100
``Definitions Regulations'' and 06-096 CMR Chapter 115 ``Major and
Minor Source Air Emission License Regulations,'' contain provisions
that address applicable requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.
    In our proposal on March 26, 2018 regarding the submittal of
infrastructure SIPS for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS by the ME DEP, we explained how Maine's SIP meets
this sub-element for PSD. See 83 FR 12905. On June 18, 2018, we took
final action approving those multi-pollutant infrastructure SIP
submissions, including finding that Maine's SIP satisfies this sub-
element. See 83 FR 28157. Maine's PSD SIP has not changed since our
June 18, 2018 approval, and no new PSD requirements have arisen;
therefore, based on our rationale contained in the March 26, 2018
document, EPA proposes to find that Maine has met the PSD requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
For the purposes of today's rulemaking on Maine's infrastructure SIP,
EPA reiterates that NSR Reform is not in the scope of this action.
3. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and
Minor Modifications
    To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources (minor NSR), an infrastructure SIP submission
should identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include
new provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program
that regulate emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. Maine's minor
NSR program is contained within 06-096 CMR Chapter 115, ``Major and
Minor Source Air Emission License Regulations.'' EPA last approved
revisions to Chapter 115 on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50353). ME DEP and
EPA rely on Chapter 115 to ensure that new and modified sources not
captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    We are proposing to find that Maine has met the requirement to have
a SIP-approved minor new source review permit program as required under
Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA contains a comprehensive set of air
quality management elements pertaining to the transport of air
pollution with which states must comply. It covers the following five
topics, categorized as sub-elements: Sub-element 1, Significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of a
NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-
element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-element 5,
International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these items are
further categorized into the four prongs discussed in the following
sections, two of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-elements 4
and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and include
provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
1. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
    In this section, we provide an overview of Maine's 2010
SO2 transport analysis, as well as EPA's evaluation of
prongs 1 and 2. Table 1 shows emission trends for Maine and its
neighboring state New Hampshire.\7\ The table will be referenced as
part of EPA's analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA also analyzed potential impacts from Maine sources on
Massachusetts, which is on the other side of NH and is approximately
24 km from Maine. There are no sources in Massachusetts within 50 km
of Maine that emitted over 100 tons per year of SO2. The
closest source in Maine that is over 100 tons per year of
SO2 is approximately 95 km away from Massachusetts. Maine
sources are not expected to contribute to a nonattainment area
within Massachusetts, and we do not foresee any interference with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    \8\ This emissions trends information was derived from EPA's web
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data, accessed on November 1, 2018.

                             Table 1--Statewide SO2 Data for Maine and New Hampshire
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SO2 reduction,
              State                    2000            2005            2010            2017        2000-2017 (%)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine...........................          57,906          32,397          17,020          10,447            82.0
New Hampshire...................          68,768          63,634          35,716           6,401            90.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. State's Analysis
    In Maine's April 19, 2017 infrastructure SIP submission addressing
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the state explicitly refers to the
interstate transport provision of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In its
April 19, 2017 SIP submittal, the ME DEP stated that sources within
Maine do not significantly contribute to any monitored SO2
violations in another state. Maine based its assertion on EPA's air
quality designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and included a
reference to EPA's Round 1 designations. See ``https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-05/pdf/2013-18835.pdf'' 78 FR 47191, August 5,
2013. Maine also referenced its PSD permit program, which assists the
State in controlling future emissions from new or modified major
sources.
    The SIP submission addresses prong 1 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) by
stating that ``Maine sources do not significantly contribute to any
monitored sulfur dioxide violations in other states. . . .'' However,
the SIP submission does not appear to specifically address whether
Maine interferes with maintenance of the NAAQS in a nearby state (prong
2). On October 29, 2018, Maine submitted a letter to EPA clarifying the
State intended to demonstrate in its April 19, 2017 SIP submittal that
it does not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states
(prong 2). Therefore, EPA concludes that Maine's submission was
intended to address both prongs of the interstate transport provision
given that the submission refers to the entirety of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
b. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation
    EPA proposes to find that Maine's SIP submittal meets the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. As
described below, we have analyzed the air quality, emission sources and
emission trends in Maine and New Hampshire. Based on that analysis, we
propose to find that Maine will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
    We reviewed 2015-2017 SO2 concentrations design values
at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values for Maine and neighboring states.\9\ In Table 2 below, we
have included monitoring data satisfying any of the following selection
criteria: (1) All of the monitor data from Maine; (2) the monitor with
the highest SO2 level in New Hampshire; (3) the monitor in
New Hampshire closest to the Maine border; and (4) all monitors in New
Hampshire within approximately 50 km of the border. EPA reviewed these
ambient air quality data in Maine and New Hampshire to see whether
there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Maine border,
with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further
investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2
from emission sources near any given monitor. As shown, there are no
violating design values in Maine or New Hampshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Data retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report, accessed on November 1, 2018.

                                                 Table 2--SO2 Monitor Values for Maine and New Hampshire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Approximate
                                                                                distance to      2013-2015       2014-2016       2015-2017
                       State/area                            Scenario         Site ID        Maine/New     Design value    Design value    Design value
                                                                                Hampshire         (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
                                                                                border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine/Portland..........................................               1       230050029              57              12              11               9
Maine/Hancock County....................................               1       230090103             219               2               1               1
Maine/Eliot \a\.........................................               1       230310009  ..............          \b\ NA          \b\ NA          \b\ NA
New Hampshire/Merrimack County..........................               4       330131006              46              20              20              15
New Hampshire/Rockingham County-Pierce Island...........            2, 3       330150014              <1              29              22              16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. The Sawgrass Lane monitor collected SO2 concentration data from October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration observed from
  this monitor was 37.7 parts per billion (ppb) on January 8, 2015, when winds came from the direction of Schiller Station in New Hampshire.
b. The DV for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for this period and is not for use in comparison to the NAAQS.

    The data presented in Table 2 show that Maine's network of
SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour
SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour
SO2 levels in Maine are between 1% and 12% of the 75 parts
per billion (ppb) level of the NAAQS. As shown, there are no Maine
monitors located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border. The
nearest monitor is approximately 57 km from New Hampshire. Two monitors
in New Hampshire are located within 50 km of the Maine border, and
these monitors recorded SO2 design values ranging between
20% and 21% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality
data do not, by themselves, indicate any

particular location that would warrant further investigation with
respect to SO2 emission sources in Maine that might
significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states.
However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to
find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this
observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these
locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of
impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore
also conducted a source-oriented analysis. As noted, EPA finds that it
is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary
sources in Maine in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the
facility, based on the ``urban scale'' definition contained in appendix
D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. The list of Maine sources of 100 tons
per year (tpy) or greater of SO2 within 50 km from state
borders is shown in Table 3 below.

                               Table 3--Maine SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Nearest
                                       2016 SO2       distance to    Distance to nearest    Nearest neighboring
           Maine source                emissions       Maine/New      neighboring state      state major source
                                      (tons) \a\       Hampshire     major SO2 source \b\    SO2 emissions \c\
                                                        border               (km)                  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Paper Operations, Inc. in             846              38  168 (Dartmouth         246 (Dartmouth
 Rumford.                                                            College in Hanover,    College).
                                                                     NH).
S.D. Warren Company in Westbrook..             198              50  74 (Newington Station  304 total (Newington
                                                                     and Schiller Station   Station (41) and
                                                                     in Newington and       Schiller Station
                                                                     Portsmouth, NH,        (263)).
                                                                     respectively).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. See https://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/AIR/DATA/CAP_SUMMARIES/, accessed on November 1, 2018.
b. A source emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or greater of SO2 emissions.
c. Emission data from Dartmouth College are for the year 2014. Emission data for Schiller and Newington Station
  are for the year 2017.

    Table 3 identifies the nearest out-of-state source emitting above
100 tpy of SO2, because elevated levels of SO2,
to which SO2 emitted in Maine may have a downwind impact,
are most likely to be found near such sources. The distances to these
sources are listed because the impact of the sources in Maine decreases
with distance. In the case of Catalyst Paper, the distance between this
source and the Maine/New Hampshire state border is 38 km and the
nearest major SO2 source in neighboring state New Hampshire
is 168 km. With regards to S.D. Warren, the distance between this
source and the Maine/New Hampshire state border is 50 km and the
nearest major SO2 sources in neighboring state New Hampshire
is 74 km. This information indicates that emissions from Maine are very
unlikely to contribute significantly to problems with attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire.
    EPA also reviewed the location of sources in New Hampshire emitting
more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km of the
Maine border and found that the only sources that meet these criteria
are Schiller and Newington Stations. The interaction between these
sources and sources in Maine has been addressed in the discussion of
Table 3.
    In addition to analyzing the distances between sources emitting 100
tons per year of SO2, EPA acknowledges that New Hampshire,
as required by the 40 CFR part 51, subpart BB (SO2 Data
Requirements Rule), provided air quality modeling information. The New
Hampshire modeling indicated that emissions allowed under new,
federally-enforceable emissions limits included in state air permits
for Newington and Schiller Stations and emissions from some other
sources that were explicitly represented in the modeling, combined with
a representative background concentration that reflects the impact of
sources that were not explicitly represented in the modeling, would not
result in a violation of the NAAQS in the portions of New Hampshire,
Maine, and Massachusetts that were included in the modeling domain.\10\
Given that there are no NAAQS violations within the modeling domain, we
conclude that sources in Maine are not significantly contributing to
NAAQS violations in the New Hampshire or Massachusetts portion of the
domain. In addition, the modeling provided no suggestion that
violations are occurring beyond the edge of the modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A detailed description of EPA's assessment of the modeling,
and associated visualizations, are available in Chapter 27 of the
Technical Support Document for EPA's Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for New Hampshire, included in this
docket, number EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0637. See 82 FR 41903 (September 5,
2017). In referencing EPA's Intended Round 3 Area Designations, EPA
is not reopening the SO2 area designations action. A
notice of the final rule for these designations was published on
January 9, 2018. See 83 FR 1098.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed whether any sources within Maine are
significantly contributing to violations in the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area. The Central New Hampshire nonattainment area is
approximately 20 km from the Maine state border. The nearest Maine
source with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy is in
Westbrook Maine, approximately 82 km away. In its attainment plan for
the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area, New Hampshire included
air dispersion modeling to establish federally enforceable
SO2 emission limits for Merrimack Station in Bow, New
Hampshire, the main contributor to the nonattainment area. New
Hampshire demonstrated that with these emission limits in place there
will be no NAAQS violations within the nonattainment area. See 82 FR
45242 (September 28, 2017).\11\ As already noted, recent monitoring
data from 2013-2017 indicates no NAAQS violations within the
nonattainment area. Thus, we propose to conclude that sources in Maine
are not significantly contributing to NAAQS violations in the
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In referencing EPA's approval of New Hampshire's plan and
attainment demonstration for the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment
Area, EPA is not reopening the nonattainment area plan approval
action. A notice of the final rule for the plan approval was
published on June 5, 2018. See 83 FR 25922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2
impacts and the analysis of sources emitting at least 100 tpy of
SO2, along with modeling analysis provided to EPA for other
CAA purposes, EPA proposes to conclude that SO2 emissions
from Maine will not will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
c. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation
    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 trend of decreased emissions from sources
within Maine to date, as shown in Table 1, and our conclusion that
there are no current violations of the SO2 NAAQS in the
portions of the neighboring states that are near Maine, EPA believes
that a reasonable analysis of whether sources or other emissions
activity originating within Maine 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 4, the combined SO2 emissions from the
two largest categories, Fuel Combustion: Other category (home heating
oil) and Fuel Combustion: Industrial, was 79% of total SO2
state-wide emissions.

Table 4--Summary of 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) SO2 Data for
                                  Maine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                        Category                             (tons per
                                                               year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities.....................             928
Fuel Combustion: Industrial.............................           4,042
Fuel Combustion: Other..................................           4,842
Waste Disposal and Recycling............................             627
Other Industrial Process................................             433
Highway Vehicles........................................             152
Off-Highway.............................................             197
Miscellaneous...........................................              40
Petroleum & Related Industries..........................              19
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          11,280
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When compared to the year 2014, the SO2 emissions from
both households and industrial sources are expected to be significantly
reduced \12\ due to 38 MRSA Chapter 603-A, which established, effective
as of January 1, 2018, statewide sulfur limits of 15 parts per million
(ppm) for distillate oil and 0.5% by weight for residual oil. As stated
earlier, EPA incorporated this statute into Maine's SIP on April 24,
2012. See 77 FR 24385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The State statute required that most industrial sources
that combust fuel oil to lower the sulfur content from 2% to 0.5%, a
75% reduction. The statute requires distillate oil, mainly used in
homes, to be reduced from home heating oil went from 5,000 ppm to 15
ppm by weight, a 99% reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, statewide SO2 emissions in Maine
have decreased over time. A number of factors are involved that caused
this decrease in emissions, including the State's adoption of 38 MRSA
Chapter 603-A and the change in capacity factors at EGUs in Maine over
time due to increased usage of natural gas to generate electricity in
the region. Actual SO2 emissions from the facilities
currently operating in Maine have decreased between 2000 and 2017, and
EPA concludes based on this trend that emissions originating in Maine
are not expected to interfere with the neighboring states' ability to
maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Lastly, any new or modified major sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Maine's SIP-approved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, last amended on August 1,
2016. See 81 FR 50353. Future minor sources of SO2 emissions
will be addressed by the State's minor new source review permit
program, last amended on March 23, 1993. See 58 FR 15430. 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 neighboring states will not
exceed the NAAQS as a result of new facility construction or
modification occurring in Maine.
    It is also worth noting air quality trends for concentrations of
SO2 in the Northeastern United States.\13\ This region has
experienced an 84% decrease in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between 2000 and 2017 based on 40 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available data for 2017 indicates that the
mean value at these sites was 12.9 ppb, which is less than 18% of the
NAAQS. When this trend is evaluated alongside the monitored
SO2 concentrations within Maine as well as the
SO2 concentrations recorded at monitors in New Hampshire,
EPA does not believe that sources or emissions activity from within
Maine 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 Maine will interfere with other states' ability to maintain the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends,
accessed on November 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance
analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within Maine will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
2. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
    To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-
element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with
measures that are required in any other state's SIP under Part C of the
CAA. One way for a state to meet this requirement, specifically with
respect to in-state sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD
permitting, is through a comprehensive PSD permitting program that
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the
requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. For in-state sources
not subject to PSD, this requirement can be satisfied through a fully-
approved NNSR program with respect to any previous NAAQS. EPA last
approved revisions to Maine's NNSR regulations on February 14, 1996 (61
FR 5690).
    To meet the requirements of Prong 3, ME DEP cites to its PSD
permitting programs under 06-096 CMR Chapter 115, ``Major and Minor
Source Air Emission License Regulations,'' to ensure that new and
modified major sources of emissions do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of any NAAQS. As noted
above in our discussion of Element C, Maine's PSD program fully
satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules.
Consequently, we propose to approve Maine's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 3 for the reasons cited under Element C.
3. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
    Prong 4 requires a state's SIP to have adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions in amounts that will interfere with measures in
other states' SIPs to protect visibility. The prong 4 requirement is
closely connected to the regional haze program under part C of the CAA,
in which states work together in a regional planning process to
determine each state's contribution to the visibility impairment in
that region and agree to emission reduction measures to improve
visibility. Maine is a member of the Mid-Atlantic/North East Visibility
Union. EPA regulations require that a state participating in a regional
planning process include in its regional haze SIP all measures needed
to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). Thus, a
fully approved regional haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies'

plans to protect visibility and will, therefore, satisfy Prong 4. EPA
approved Maine's Regional Haze SIP on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24385).
Accordingly, EPA proposes that Maine meets the visibility protection
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
4. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution
Abatement
    This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with requirements of section 126 relating to interstate
pollution abatement. Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The
statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide
the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources.
    EPA-approved regulations require the ME DEP to provide pre-
construction notice of new or modified sources to, among others, ``any
State . . . whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or
modification.'' See 06-096 CMR Chapter 115, Sec.  IX(E)(3), approved
March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15422). These provisions are consistent with
EPA's PSD regulations and require notice to affected states of a
determination to issue a draft PSD permit. Regarding section 126(b), no
source or sources within the state are the subject of an active finding
with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Consequently, EPA
proposes to approve Maine's infrastructure SIP submittals for this sub-
element with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
5. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
    This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA section 115 relating
to international pollution abatement. There are no final findings under
section 115 against Maine with respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Maine meets the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
section 115 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for personnel, funding,
and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP and related
issues. In addition, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to
comply with the requirements with respect to state boards under section
128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state
relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for the
implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility
for ensuring implementation of SIP obligations with respect to relevant
NAAQS. This last sub-element, however, is inapplicable to this action,
because Maine does not rely upon local or regional governments or
agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions.
1. Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority
Under State Law to Carry out its Sip, And Related Issues
    Maine, through its infrastructure SIP submittal, has documented
that its air agency has authority and resources to carry out its SIP
obligations. Maine cites to 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A, ``Department of
Environmental Protection,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  341-D, ``Board
responsibilities and duties,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  341-H, ``Departmental
rulemaking,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  342, ``Commissioner, duties,'' and 38 MRSA
Sec.  581, ``Declaration of findings and intent.'' These statutes
provide the ME DEP with the legal authority to enforce air pollution
control requirements and carry out SIP obligations with respect to the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, state law provides ME DEP with
the authority to assess preconstruction permit fees and annual
operating permit fees from air emissions sources and establishes a
general revenue reserve account within the general fund to finance the
state clean air programs. Maine also receives CAA sections 103 and 105
grant funds through Performance Partnership Grants along with required
state-matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out SIP
requirements. The ME DEP states that these funding sources provide it
with adequate resources to carry out the SIP. Therefore, EPA proposes
to find that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
2. Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. Section 128(a) contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    As mentioned earlier, the ME DEP consists of a Commissioner and a
Board of Environmental Protection (``BEP'' or ``Board''), which is an
independent authority under state law that reviews certain permit
applications in the first instance and also renders final decisions on
appeals of permitting actions taken by the Commissioner as well as some
enforcement decisions by the Commissioner. Because the Board has
authority under state law to hear appeals of some CAA permits and
enforcement orders, EPA considers that the Board has authority to
``approve'' those permits or enforcement orders, as recommended in the
2013 Guidance. For this reason, and because the Board also issues some
permits directly, the requirement of CAA section 128(a)(1) applies to
Maine--that is, that ``any board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders members who represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permits and enforcement orders under this chapter.''
    Pursuant to state law, the BEP consists of seven members appointed
by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the State Legislature. See
38 MRSA Sec.  341-C(1). The purpose of the Board ``is to provide
informed, independent and timely decisions on the interpretation,
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to environmental
protection and to provide for credible, fair and responsible public
participation in department decisions.'' Id. Sec.  341-B. State law
further provides that Board members ``must be chosen to represent the
broadest possible interest and experience that can be brought to bear
on the administration and implementation of'' Maine's environmental
laws and that ``[a]t least 3 members must have technical or scientific
backgrounds in environmental issues and no more than 4 members may be
residents of the same congressional district.'' Id. Sec.  341-C(2). EPA
proposes to find that these provisions fulfill the requirement that at
least a majority of Board members represent the public interest, but do
not address the requirement that at least a majority ``not derive any
significant portion of their

income from persons subject to'' air permits and enforcement orders.
Furthermore, section 341-C is not currently in Maine's SIP. In a letter
dated March 1, 2018 (extended to pertain to the 2012 SO2
NAAQS in a letter dated October 29, 2018), the ME DEP committed to
revise section 341-C to address the CAA section 128(a)(1) requirement
that at least a majority of Board members ``not derive a significant
portion of their income from persons subject to'' air permits or
enforcement orders and to submit, for inclusion in the SIP, the
necessary provisions to EPA within one year of EPA final action on its
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 ozone, and 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. Final action on these SIPs was
published on June 18, 2018 (83 FR 28157). Consequently, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve Maine's infrastructure SIP submittal for this
requirement of CAA section 128(a)(1) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    As noted above, section 128(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``any
potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the
head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.'' As EPA has explained in other infrastructure SIP actions,
the purpose of section 128(a)(2) is to assure that conflicts of
interest are disclosed by the ultimate decision maker in permit or
enforcement order decisions. See, e.g., 80 FR 42446, 42454 (July 17,
2015). Although the Board is the ultimate decision maker on air
permitting decisions in Maine, certain air enforcement orders of the
DEP Commissioner are not reviewable by the Board, but rather may be
appealed directly to Maine Superior Court. For this reason, EPA
interprets the conflict of interest requirement of CAA section
128(a)(2) to be applicable in Maine to both Board members and the DEP
Commissioner.
    In a recent infrastructure SIP action for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that Maine's conflict of
interest statute, 5 MRSA Sec.  18, and a provision explicitly making it
applicable to Board members, 38 MRSA Sec.  341-C(7), together satisfy
the CAA section 128(a)(2) requirement for Maine with respect to Board
members, and EPA approved both statutes into the Maine SIP. See 83 FR
28157 (June 18, 2018). For more information, see 83 FR 12905, 12912
(March 26, 2018). EPA proposes to find that Maine's SIP also satisfies
CAA section 128(a)(2) with respect to Board members for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS for the same reasons.
    Regarding the DEP Commissioner, state law at 38 MRSA Sec.  341-
A(3)(D) also explicitly makes that official subject to 5 MRSA Sec.  18,
the same conflict-of-interest statute to which the Board is subject. In
the above-referenced multi pollutant infrastructure SIP action, EPA
determined that 5 MRSA Sec.  18, which is in the Maine SIP, and 38 MRSA
Sec.  341-A(3)(D), which is not currently in the SIP, together satisfy
the conflict of interest requirement with respect to the DEP
Commissioner. See 83 FR 28157 (June 18, 2018); 83 FR 12905, 12912
(March 26, 2018). While 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A(3)(D) is not currently in
the SIP, ME DEP has already committed to submitting it to EPA for
inclusion within one year of EPA's final action on Maine's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 28157 (June 18, 2018). Consequently,
EPA proposes to conditionally approve Maine's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the conflict of interest requirement of CAA section
128(a)(2) with respect to the DEP Commissioner for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times
for public inspection.
    Maine's infrastructure submittal references existing state
regulations previously approved by EPA that require sources to monitor
emissions and submit reports. First, Maine references 06-096 CMR
Chapter 115, ``Major and Minor Source Air Emission License
Regulations.'' This regulation contains compliance assurance
requirements regarding emissions monitoring and reporting for licensed
sources.
    Maine also references 06-096 CMR Chapter 117, ``Source
Surveillance,'' which specifies air emission sources required to
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) and to submit periodic reports to EPA.
Chapter 137 was approved into the SIP by EPA on March 21, 1989 (54 FR
11524).
    In addition, Maine's emission statement rule, at 06-096 CMR Chapter
137, requires certain facilities to report emissions of air pollutants
on an annual basis. EPA most recently approved revisions to Chapter 137
into the SIP on November 21, 2007. See 73 FR 65462. We further note
that 38 MRSA Sec.  347-C, ``Right of inspection and entry,''
(referenced in ME DEP's submission with respect to enforcement under
element C) authorizes ME DEP to inspect facilities, take samples,
inspect records, and conduct tests as appropriate to determine
compliance with permits, orders, regulations, and laws. Finally, by
letter dated March 1, 2018 (extended to pertain to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in a letter dated October 29, 2018), ME DEP also
certified that there are no provisions in Maine law that would prevent
the use of any credible evidence of noncompliance, as required by 40
CFR 51.212.
    Regarding the section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii) requirements that the SIP
provide for the correlation and public availability of emission
reports, the ME DEP uses a web-based electronic reporting system, the
Maine Air Emissions Inventory Reporting System (``MAIRIS''), for this
purpose that allows it to package and electronically submit reported
emissions data to EPA under the national emission inventory (NEI)
program. NEI data are available to the public.\14\ The MAIRIS system is
structured to electronically correlate reported emissions with permit
conditions and other applicable standards and identify all
inconsistencies and potential compliance concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to ME DEP's EPA-approved regulations, ``Except as
expressly made confidential by law; the commissioner shall make all
documents available to the public for inspection and copying including
the following: 1. All applications or other forms and documents
submitted in support of any license application: 2. All correspondence,
into or out of the Department, and any attachments thereto. . . .'' See
06-096 CMR Chapter 1, Sec.  6(A). Furthermore, ``The Commissioner shall
keep confidential only those documents which may remain confidential
pursuant to 1 MRSA Section 402.'' Id. Sec.  6(B). We also note that the
Maine Freedom of Access Law does not expressly make emissions
statements confidential, 1 MRSA Sec.  402, and that, pursuant to ME
DEP's EPA-approved regulations, ``[i]nformation concerning the nature
and extent of the

emissions of any air contaminant by a source''--which includes emission
reports--``shall not be confidential.'' See 06-096 CMR Chapter 115,
Sec.  IX(B)(1). By letter dated March 1, 2018, extended to pertain to
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in a letter dated October 29, 2018, Maine
further certified that Maine's Freedom of Access law does not include
any exceptions that apply to stationary source emissions.
    For the above reasons, EPA proposes to approve Maine's submittals
for the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for state authority
comparable to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event
that ``it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.''
    We propose to find that a combination of state statutes and
regulations discussed in ME DEP's April 19, 2017 submittal and a March
1, 2018 letter (extended to apply to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in a
letter dated October 29, 2018) provides for authority comparable to
that in CAA section 303. The statutes and regulations are: 38 MRSA
Sec.  347-A, ``Emergency Orders,'' 38 MRSA Sec.  348, ``Judicial
Enforcement,'' 37-B MRSA Sec.  742, ``Emergency Proclamation,'' 38 MRSA
Sec.  591, ``Prohibitions,'' and 06-096 CMR Chapter 109, ``Emergency
Episode Regulations.'' In our proposal to approve this requirement for
Maine's 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission, we
explained how this combination of authorities provides ME DEP with
authority comparable to that in CAA section 303. See 83 FR 39957,
39966-39967 (August 13, 2018). These statutes and the regulation apply
in the same manner to SO2 emissions as they do to
particulate matter emissions. Accordingly, for the reasons contained in
our proposal to approve this element for the 2012 PM2.5
infrastructure SIP, we propose to find that this combination of state
statutes and regulations provide for authority comparable to that in
CAA section 303 for the 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP.
    Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, states have
an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. See 40
CFR 51.152(c). As relevant to this proposed rulemaking action, three of
the five AQCRs in Maine are classified as IA or II for sulfur oxides
(SOX). See 40 CFR 52.1021. Consequently, Maine's SIP must
contain an emergency contingency plan meeting the specific requirements
of 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152 with respect to SOX.
    Maine's submittal cites to 06-096 CMR Chapter 109, ``Emergency
Episode Regulations,'' which specifies episode criteria for, and
emission control measures to be implemented during, air pollution
alerts, warnings, and emergencies to prevent ambient pollution
concentrations from reaching significant harm levels (see 40 CFR
51.152(a)(1), (3)), and is very closely modeled on EPA's example
regulations for contingency plans at 40 CFR part 51, appendix L. EPA
last approved C06-096 CMR Chapter 109 into Maine's SIP in 1995. See 60
FR 2885 (January 12, 1995). As stated in Maine's infrastructure SIP
submittal under the discussion of public notification (Element J),
Maine also, as a matter of practice, posts on the internet daily air
quality forecasts to the public levels through the EPA AirNow and EPA
EnviroFlash systems. Information regarding these two systems is
available on EPA's website at www.airnow.gov. Maine's participation in
the AirNow and EnviroFlash programs addresses several of the public
announcement and communications procedures and coordination with the
National Weather Service included in the discussion of contingency
plans in subpart H. See 40 CFR 51.152(a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(3).
    In addition, 38 MRSA Sec.  347-C, ``Right of inspection and
entry,'' which ME DEP cites under Element C of its infrastructure SIP
submittal, provides employees and agents of the ME DEP the authority to
inspect sources of air pollution to determine compliance with laws
administered by ME DEP. Thus, this authority allows the ME DEP to
conduct the inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with any
required emission control actions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.152(b)(2).
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Maine, through the combination of
statutes and regulations discussed above and participation in EPA's
AirNow program, meets the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from
time to time as may be necessary to take into account changes in the
NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and
whenever EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
    To address this requirement, Maine's infrastructure submittal
references 38 MRSA Sec.  581, ``Declaration of findings and intent,''
which characterizes the state's laws regarding the Protection and
Improvement of Air as an exercise of ``the police power of the State in
a coordinated state-wide program to control present and future sources
of emission of air contaminants to the end that air polluting
activities of every type shall be regulated in a manner that reasonably
insures the continued health, safety and general welfare of all of the
citizens of the State; protects property values and protects plant and
animal life.'' In addition, we note that ME DEP is required by statute
to ``prevent, abate and control the pollution of the air [, to]
preserve, improve and prevent diminution of the natural environment of
the State [, and to] protect and enhance the public's right to use and
enjoy the State's natural resources.'' See 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A(1).
Furthermore, ME DEP is authorized to ``adopt, amend or repeal rules and
emergency rules necessary for the interpretation, implementation and
enforcement of any provision of law that the department is charged with
administering.'' Id. Sec.  341-H(2); see also id. Sec.  585-A
(recognizing DEP's rulemaking authority to propose SIP revisions).
These general authorizing statutes give ME DEP the power to revise the
Maine SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
changes in the NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining
the NAAQS and whenever EPA finds that the SIP is substantially
inadequate.
    Consequently, EPA proposes to find that Maine meets the
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA

takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Visibility
Protection

    The evaluation of the submission from Maine with respect to the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) is described in the following
sections.
1. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) in carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements.
    In a March 26, 2018, NPRM regarding infrastructure SIPs for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, we explained how
Maine satisfies this requirement. See 83 FR 12905. On June 18, 2018, we
took final action approving those multi-pollutant infrastructure SIP
submissions, including finding that Maine's SIP satisfies this sub-
element. See 83 FR 28157. Based on the rationale contained in the March
26, 2018 document, EPA proposes that Maine meets this infrastructure
SIP requirement with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
2. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area, advise the public of health hazards
associated with exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air
quality.
    As mentioned elsewhere in this document, state law directs ME DEP
to, among other things, ``prevent, abate and control the pollution of
the air . . . improve and prevent diminution of the natural environment
of the State[, and] protect and enhance the public's right to use and
enjoy the State's natural resources.'' See 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A(1).
State law also authorizes ME DEP to ``educate the public on natural
resource use, requirements and issues.'' Id. To that end, ME DEP makes
real-time and historical air quality information available on its
website.
    Maine also provides extended-range air-quality forecasts, which
give the public advanced notice of air quality events. This advance
NPRM allows the public to limit their exposure to unhealthy air and
enact a plan to reduce pollution at home and at work. The ME DEP
forecasts daily ozone and particle levels and issues these forecasts to
the media and to the public via its website, telephone hotline, and
email. Alerts include information about the health implications of
elevated pollutant levels and list actions to reduce emissions and to
reduce the public's exposure. In addition, Air Quality Data Summaries
of the year's air-quality monitoring results are issued annually and
posted on the ME DEP Bureau of Air Quality website. Maine is also an
active partner in EPA's AirNow and EnviroFlash air quality alert
programs.
    EPA proposes that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP requirements
of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
3. Sub-Element 3: PSD
    State plans must meet the applicable requirements of part C of the
CAA related to PSD. Maine's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and, as we have noted, fully satisfies the
requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. Consequently, we
propose to approve the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, consistent with the actions we are proposing
for sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
4. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA, which includes sections 169A and
169B. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, as noted in EPA's 2013 Guidance, we find that there is no
new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when
a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIP submissions.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act requires that a SIP provide for the
performance of such air quality modeling as the EPA Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which EPA has
established a NAAQS, and the submission, upon request, of data related
to such air quality modeling. EPA has published modeling guidelines at
40 CFR part 51, appendix W, for predicting the effects of emissions of
criteria pollutants on ambient air quality. EPA has interpreted section
110(a)(2)(K) to require a state to submit or reference the statutory or
regulatory provisions that provide the air agency with the authority to
conduct such air quality modeling and to provide such modeling data to
EPA upon request. See 2013 Guidance at 55.
    Maine state law implicitly authorizes ME DEP to perform air quality
modeling and provide such modeling data to EPA upon request. See 38
MRSA Sec. Sec.  341-A(1), 581, 591-B. In addition, Maine cites 06-096
CMR Chapters 115 and 140, which provide that any modeling required for
pre-construction permits and operating permits for minor and major
sources be performed consistent with EPA-prescribed modeling guidelines
at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. Chapter 115 also requires that
applicants submit data related to modeling to ME DEP. See 06-096 CMR
chapter 115, section VII.E. Consequently, the SIP provides for such air
quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed and for the
submission, upon request, of data related to such modeling.
    EPA proposes to find that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees sufficient to cover the reasonable cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    Maine implements and operates a Title V permit program (see 38 MRSA
Sec.  353-A; 06-096 CMR Chapter 140) which was approved by EPA on
October 18, 2001. See 66 FR 52874. To gain this approval, Maine
demonstrated the ability to collect sufficient fees to run the program.
See 61 FR 49289, 49291 (September 19, 1996). Maine state law provides
for the assessment of application fees from air emissions sources for
permits for the construction or modification of air contaminant sources
and sets permit fees. See 38 MRSA Sec. Sec.  353-A (establishing annual
air emissions license fees) and 352(2)(E) (providing that such fees
``must be assessed to support activities for air quality control
including licensing, compliance, enforcement, monitoring, data
acquisition and administration'').
    EPA proposes to find that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    To satisfy Element M, states must provide for consultation with,
and participation by, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Maine's infrastructure submittal references the Maine Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 MRSA Chapter 375, and explains that it requires public
notice of all SIP revisions prior to their adoption, which allows for
comment by the public, including local political subdivisions. In
addition, Maine cites 38 MRSA Sec.  597, ``Municipal air pollution
control,'' which provides that municipalities are not preempted from
studying air pollution and adopting and enforcing ``air pollution
control and abatement ordinances'' that are more stringent than those
adopted by DEP or that ``touch on matters not dealt with'' by state
law. Finally, Maine cites Chapter 9 of Maine's initial SIP, which was
approved on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), and contains intergovernmental
cooperation provisions.
    EPA proposes to find that Maine meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve Maine's April 19, 2017 infrastructure SIP
submission certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding State Boards and Conflicts of Interest,
which we propose to conditionally approve, as described in more detail
above. EPA's proposed actions regarding these infrastructure SIP
requirements are contained in Table 5.

    Table 5--Proposed Action on Maine's Infrastructure SIP Submittals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Element                              2010 SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control     A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and    A
 data system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures........  A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and    A
 major modifications.
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and    A
 minor modifications.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/         A
 interfere with maintenance of NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD................................  A
(D)3: Visibility Protection..............  A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement.....  A
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement..  A
(E)1: Adequate resources.................  A
(E)2: State boards.......................  CA
(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect    NA
 to local agencies.
(F): Stationary source monitoring system.  A
(G): Emergency power.....................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions................  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan       NG
 revisions under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with government         A
 officials.
(J)2: Public notification................  A
(J)3: PSD................................  A
(J)4: Visibility protection..............  NG
(K): Air quality modeling and data.......  A
(L): Permitting fees.....................  A
(M): Consultation and participation by     A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................  Approve
CA................................  Approve but conditionally approve
NG................................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs
NA................................  Not applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting comments
to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register. As noted in Table 5 of this
document, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve one portion of
Maine's April 19, 2017 infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. The outstanding issue with this SIP revision pertains to element
(E)(2) regarding State Boards and Conflicts of Interest.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of
approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final
rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to submit an
update to its State Board rules that fully remedies the deficiency
mentioned above under Element E. If the State fails to do so, this
action will become a disapproval on (list the date if under a statutory
requirement) or one year from the date of final approval. EPA will
notify the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time,
this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved Maine SIP. EPA
subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register notifying
the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its commitment, within the applicable
time frame, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the
submission. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally
approved infrastructure SIP element will also be disapproved at that
time. If EPA approves the submittal, the infrastructure SIP element
will be fully approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally
approved program in the SIP.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the
final disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: December 17, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-27773 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES ( OPPTS) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20460 OMB REVIEW UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866 DOCUMENTATION OF CHANGES MADE DURING OMB REVIEW Title of Action: Inventory Update Rule Amendments; Final Rule Docket #: OPPT 2002 0054 FRL#: 6767 4 RIN #: 2070 AC61 This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, which is entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). According to section 6( a)( 3)( E) of the Executive Order, whenever the Agency makes publicly available a regulatory action that was reviewed under Executive Order 12866, the Agency is also required to make certain information available to the public. [ Please check the appropriate box below:]

G For this regulatory action, no substantive changes were made to the document. Accordingly, this rulemaking docket contians a copy of the information that was provided to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ( OIRA) for review under to the Executive Order, i. e., the text of the draft regulatory action and an assessment of the potential costs and benefits; as well as additional information required for those actions that are determined to be significant under section 3( f) of the Executive Order.

For this regulatory action, substantive changes were made to the document. Accordingly, this rulemaking docket:

1) contains a copy of the information that was provided to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ( OIRA) for review under to the Executive Order, i. e., the text of the draft regulatory action and an assessment of the potential costs and benefits; as well as additional information required for those actions that are determined to be significant under section 3( f) of the Executive Order; and 2) the attached information identifies any substantive changes that were made to the draft regulatory text that was submitted to OIRA, and which subsequently published.

Additional Comments:

If you have any questions about this action, please call the contact: Name: Susan Sharkey E Mail: sharkey. susan@ epa. gov Phone: 202 564 8987 RCS  OMB 7f ( 04/ 15/ 97) Substantive Changes Made to the IURA Final Rule Submission Draft Provided to OMB for E. O 12866 Review On April 17,2002, EPA submitted the draft final rule to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review under E. O. 12866. The Inter agency review included representation from the Small Business Administration ( SBA). OMB concluded its review on July 12, 2002.

Significant comments, raised by OMB during its review in 2002, focused on three areas: EPA's ability to use the IURA information, potential duplication with other data sources, and the burden associated with the collection. The Agency addressed these comments by:

1. Developing a data use plan which contained examples illustrating specific, detailed uses of the IURA data.

2. Conferring with the U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) to determine if their collection instrument could be altered to fulfill the needs of the IURA for certain chemicals. The resulting decision made between USGS and EPA staff was that the USGS surveys could not be modified to fulfill EPA needs. EPA also investigated a large number of other publicly available sources of information on chemicals, and determined that none of those sources, or a combination of sources, satisfied the needs IURA was designed to meet.

3. Adding a partial exemption for specifically listed chemical substances that are of low current interest, and developing a petition process to allow changes to this list.

4. Agreeing to reduce the reporting burden of the IURA by a. not finalizing the reassertion requirement for CBI claims and b. changing the reporting cycle from every 4 years to every 5 years, after the first reporting period under the IURA. This change will be made in a future Federal Register notice and is not included in the enclosed document.

In addition to OMB's comments, the Agency also received comments from SBA, which were submitted as a part of the Interagency review process under E. O. 12866. SBA agreed with the OMB issues and also raised a concern about the clarity of the " for use by children" definition. The Agency revised the definition to provide further explanation and clarity.

EPA made a substantive change to the codification approach of the final rule. EPA's submission to the interagency review created a new part 711 for the IURA, leaving part 710 intact. This approach was different from the proposal, which revised part 710. Creating a new part 711 would preserve part 710 for the 2002 reporting cycle, which needed to proceed on schedule and with minimal confusion. However, the Agency realized that the part 711 approach would likely result in several significant complications for both EPA and the regulated community. EPA therefore returned to amending part 710, which required a modification to the interagency review submissions of the amendatory language in the regulatory text and the related discussions throughout the preamble. The end result is an amended part 710 that contains the existing provisions of IUR and the new provisions of IURA in newly created subparts.