Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan
Federal RegisterMay 23, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289; FRL-9946-68-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Ozone Maintenance Plan
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire that contains an ozone maintenance plan for New Hampshire's former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act requires that areas that are designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and also had been previously designated either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a plan showing how the state will maintain the ozone standard for the area. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of New Hampshire's maintenance plan. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES:
Written comments must be received on or before June 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0289 at
http://www.regulations.gov,
or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov.
For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov.
For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-02, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1047, fax number (617) 918-0047, email
arnold.anne@epa.gov
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal
Register
, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Federal Register
.
Dated: May 4, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-11966 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.