Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island; Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 Ozone Standard, 16358-16365 [2011-6870]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16358
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
additional period(s) of no more than 30
days in accordance with this section.
VA will not provide per diem if VA
determines that a veteran was provided
adult day health care in a facility that
does not meet the standards set forth in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and VA
may recover all per diem payments
made for the care of the veteran in that
facility.
(e) Approval of response. Per diem
payments will not be made under this
section unless and until the director of
the VAMC determines, or the director of
the VISN in which the State home is
located (if the VAMC director is not
capable of doing so) determines, that an
emergency exists and that the
evacuation facility meets VA standards
set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(Authority 38 U.S.C. 501, 1720, 1742)
[FR Doc. 2011–6737 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0639; EPA–R01–
OAR–2008–0641; EPA–R01–OAR–2008–
00642; EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0643; A–1–
FRL–9285–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island; Infrastructure SIPs
for the 1997 Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
submittals from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island. These submittals
outline how each state’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the
requirements of section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is
commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP. These actions are
being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2008–
00639 for comments pertaining to our
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA–
R01–OAR–2008–0641 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2008–06432 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for New Hampshire, or EPA–
R01–OAR–2008–0643 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Rhode Island, by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0639,
EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0641, EPA–RO1–
OAR–2008–642, or EPA–R01–OAR–
2008–0643’’ Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code:
OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA
02109–3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR–
2008–0639 for comments pertaining to
our proposed action for Connecticut,
EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0641 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Maine, EPA–RO1–OAR–
2008–0642 for comments pertaining to
our proposed action for New Hampshire
or EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0643 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Rhode Island. EPA’s policy is
that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
through https://www.regulations.gov, or
e-mail, information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected. The
https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912,
telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax
number (617) 918–0664, e-mail
Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.
In addition, copies of the state
submittal and EPA’s technical support
documents are also available for public
inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the respective
State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air
Management, Department of
Environmental Protection, State Office
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT
06106–1630; the Bureau of Air Quality
Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, First Floor of the Tyson
Building, Augusta Mental Health
Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333–
0017; Air Resources Division,
Department of Environmental Services,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord,
NH 03302–0095; and the Office of Air
Resources, Department of
Environmental Management, 235
Promenade Street, Providence, RI
02908–5767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the States’
submittals?
A. Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
C. Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures
D. Interstate Transport
E. Adequate Resources
F. Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Emergency Power
H. Future SIP Revisions
I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D
J. Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notification; PSD; and Visibility
Protection
K. Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Permitting Fees
M. Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve
submittals from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island as meeting the Section
110(a) infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act for the 1997 ozone
standard.
II. What is the background for this
action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on
8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The 8-hour averaging period replaced
the previous 1-hour averaging period,
and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million
(ppm) to 0.08 ppm (see 62 FR 38856).
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states
within 3 years after promulgation of a
new or revised standard. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(1) and (2). Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) require states to address basic
SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirements. States were required to
submit such SIPs for the 1997 standards
to EPA no later than June 2000.
However, intervening litigation over the
1997 8-hour ozone standards created
uncertainty about how to proceed, and
certain States did not provide the
required infrastructure SIP submission
for this newly promulgated standard.
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
upon States to make a SIP submission
to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but
the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data
and analytical tools available at the time
the State develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
State’s existing SIP already contains. In
the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, States typically have met the
basic program elements required in
section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with
previous ozone standards.
On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a
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.’’ This
guidance noted that to the extent an
existing SIP already meets the section
110(a)(2) requirements, states need only
to certify that fact via a letter to EPA.
The States of Connecticut, Maine,
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island each
submitted such certification letters to
EPA on December 28, 2007, January 3,
2008, December 14, 2007 and December
14, 2007, respectively. All four
submittals were deemed complete,
effective April 28, 2008. (See 73 FR
16205; March 27, 2008.)
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the
States’ submittals?
EPA has reviewed the December 2007
submittal from Connecticut, the January
2008 submittal from Maine, the
December 2007 submittal from New
Hampshire, and the December 2007
submittal from Rhode Island. The
Agency has determined that each state’s
SIP meets the section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
and is consistent with the relevant EPA
guidance. Each state’s submittal and
EPA’s evaluation of that submittal are
detailed in the following technical
support documents (TSDs) which are
available in the docket for these actions
and at the EPA New England Regional
Office referenced in the ADDRESSES
section: (1) ‘‘Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the Connecticut
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16359
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements
for 1997 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated
March 9, 2011; (2)‘‘Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the Maine
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements
for 1997 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated
March 10, 2011; (3) ‘‘Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the New Hampshire
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements
for 1997 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated
March 10, 2011; and (4) ‘‘Technical
Support Document (TSD) for the Rhode
Island Submittal to Fulfill the
Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated
March 9, 2011.
In their submittals each state
references items in their state specific
laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that
address the elements detailed in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. These elements
and the corresponding subsection of the
CAA are as follows:
Emission limits and other control
measures (110(a)(2)(A));
Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system (110(a)(2)(B));
Program for enforcement of control
measures (110(a)(2)(C));
Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
Stationary source monitoring system
(110(a)(2)(F));
Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
Consultation with government
officials (110(a)(2)(J));
Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
Prevention of significant deterioration
(110(a)(2)(J));
Air quality modeling data
(110(a)(2)(K));
Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
Consultation/participation by affected
local entities (110(a)(2)(M)).
In its submittal, Connecticut
references the Connecticut Air Quality
SIP, the Connecticut General Statues
(CGS) and the Regulations of the
Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA).
In its submittal, Maine references the
Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of
Maine Regulations (CMR) and the Maine
Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA). In
its submittal, New Hampshire references
the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated (RSA) as well as the New
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
16360
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Hampshire Rules Governing the Control
of Air Pollution, and NH Admin. Rules
Env-A 100 et seq. In its submittal,
Rhode Island references the Rhode
Island Air Quality SIP, the Rhode Island
Air Pollution Control Regulations
(RIAPCR) and the Rhode Island General
Laws (RIGL).
The discussion below summarizes
how each state meets each relevant CAA
infrastructure requirement outlined
above.
A. Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits and
other control measures, means or
techniques, schedules for compliance
and other related matters. Each state’s
infrastructure submittal includes a list
of regulations that have been previously
adopted by the state and approved by
EPA which include specific emission
limits and the framework for
implementation of these limits. The
specific details of each state’s submittal
and EPA analysis of the submittal for
this element is stated in the TSD for
each state. Also, a table containing each
regulation and the citation of EPA’s
approval of this regulation is included
in the Appendix of each state’s TSD.
EPA does not consider SIP
requirements triggered by the
nonattainment area mandates in part D
of Title I of the CAA to be governed by
the submission deadline of section
110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Connecticut,
Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island have included some SIP
provisions originally submitted in
response to part D in its submission
documenting its compliance with the
infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2). These states have over time
continually updated the elements of
their SIPs addressing the ozone NAAQS,
and the provisions reviewed here are a
weave of SIP revisions submitted in
response to the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) and
the nonattainment requirements of part
D.
For the purposes of this action, EPA
is reviewing any rules originally
submitted in response to part D solely
for the purposes of determining whether
they support a finding that the state has
met the basic infrastructure
requirements under section 110(a)(2).
For example, in response to the
requirement to have enforceable
emission limits under section
110(a)(2)(A), Connecticut, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island cited to
several rules that were submitted to
meet the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirement of part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
D. EPA is here approving those rules as
meeting the requirement to have
enforceable emission limits on ozone
precursors; any judgment about whether
those emission limits discharge the
state’s obligation to impose RACT under
part D was or will be made separately,
in an action reviewing those rules
pursuant to the requirements of part D.
Also, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to
excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of
operations at a facility. EPA believes
that a number of states may have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA
and existing EPA guidance,1 and the
Agency plans to address such state
regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state
having a deficient SSM provision to take
steps to correct it as soon as possible.
In addition, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state rules with regard to
director’s discretion or variance
provisions. EPA believes that a number
of states may have such provisions that
are contrary to the CAA and existing
EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, November
24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state
regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director’s
discretion or variance provision that is
contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance
to take steps to correct the deficiency as
soon as possible.
The Connecticut submittal cites 16
specific rules the state adopted to
control the emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX). In addition the State of
Connecticut has also adopted the
California-Low Emission Vehicle
standard for automobiles.
The Maine submittal cites over 20
specific rules the state adopted to
control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
The New Hampshire submittal cites a
general overview of the RSA, Chapters:
Env-A 300, 600, 700, 1200, and 3200 of
their air quality regulations, and five
specific rules for the control the
emissions of VOCs and NOX. In
addition, they also cite several rules for
the control of control the emissions of
VOCs and NOX from automobiles.
1 Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs):
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ (August 11,
1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Rhode Island submittal cites 15
specific rules the state adopted to
control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(A) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to
include provisions to provide for
establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and
making these data available to EPA
upon request. Connecticut, Maine, New
Hampshire and Rhode Island all operate
ambient air quality monitors and submit
the data collected to EPA. All four states
have submitted annual air monitoring
network plans which have been
approved by EPA as follows:
Connecticut (submitted on August 16,
2010, approved by EPA on August 31,
2010); Maine (submitted on June 30,
2010, approved by EPA on July 7, 2010);
New Hampshire (submitted on
September 7, 2010, approved by EPA on
October 13, 2010); and Rhode Island
(submitted on July 12, 2010, approved
by EPA on July 13, 2010).
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(B) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
C. Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to
include a program providing for
enforcement of all SIP measures and the
regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources, including a
program to meet Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) requirements.
In this action, EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment-related provisions, such
as the NSR program required by part D
in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for
attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure
SIPs because these submittals are
required beyond the date (3 years from
NAAQS promulgation) that section 110
infrastructure submittals are required.
Also, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
state rules with regard to the NSR
Reform requirements. EPA will act on
SIP submittals that are made for
purposes of addressing NSR Reform
through a separate rulemaking process.
EPA has determined that
Connecticut’s, Maine’s, New
Hampshire’s, and Rhode Island’s minor
NSR programs adopted pursuant to
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulate
ozone precursor emissions. EPA is
concerned that certain provisions of
some states’ minor NSR programs
adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C)
of the Act might not meet all the
requirements found in EPA’s regulations
implementing that provision. See 40
CFR 51.160–51.164. EPA previously
approved all four states minor NSR
programs into the SIP, and there was at
the time no objection to the provisions
of these programs. For Connecticut, 58
FR 10987 (Feb. 23, 1993); for Maine, 45
FR 6786 (Jan. 30, 1980); for New
Hampshire, 51 FR 10863 (March 15,
1983); and for Rhode Island, 48 FR
29690, (June 28, 1983). Since then, the
states and EPA have relied on the
existing state minor NSR programs to
assure that new and modified sources
not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Therefore, in this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Connecticut’s,
Maine’s, New Hampshire’s, and Rhode
Island’s infrastructure SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved. EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove the state’s
existing minor NSR program itself to the
extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s
regulations governing this program. EPA
believes that a number of states may
have minor NSR provisions that are
contrary to the existing EPA regulations
for this program. EPA intends to work
with states to reconcile state minor NSR
programs with EPA’s regulatory
provisions for the program. The
statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR
programs, and EPA believes it may be
time to revisit the regulatory
requirements for this program to give
the states an appropriate level of
flexibility to design a program that
meets their particular air quality
concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in
protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
As further discussed in the TSDs, and
each states’s respective submittal, each
state cites specific sections of their rules
and regulations that show how the state
meets the requirements for this element.
The Connecticut submittal cites
several sections of the CGS (see CGS
Sections 22a–171, 22a–174, 22a–175,
22a–176 and 22a–178)) and several
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
regulations of the RCSA (see RSCA 22a–
174–3a and RSCA 22a–174–12),
including a program to meet minor
source NSR and PSD requirements.
Connecticut’s 110 submittal meets the
requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(C), with the following
exception which is currently being
addressed. EPA previously noted that
Connecticut’s PSD program had a
deficiency because the state did not
have the authority to implement the
PSD permitting program with respect to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (See
75 FR 77698; December 13, 2010.)
Connecticut proposed rule revisions to
address this deficiency and EPA
proposed approval of those revisions
through parallel processing procedures
on January 6, 2011 (76 FR 752). On
February 9, 2011, Connecticut
submitted a final SIP revision
addressing this deficiency. Final
approval of Connecticut’s GHG SIP
revision is expected prior to final
approval of Connecticut’s section 110
infrastructure submittal. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to fully approve this
element for Connecticut.
The Maine submittal cites 38 MRSA
§ 347–A and C, § 348, and § 349 which
provides the Maine DEP with civil and
criminal enforcement authorities,
including the authority to assess
penalties. In addition Maine cites, CMR
Chapter 100 Definitions and Regulations
and CMR Chapter 115 Emission License
Regulation, which contains the
regulations for minor source NSR and
PSD programs. Maine’s submittal meets
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that
there was a deficiency in Maine’s PSD
program because the state does not have
adequate resources to implement the
PSD permitting program with respect to
GHG emissions. (See 75 FR 82536,
December 30, 2010). Maine DEP has
adopted revisions to its program to
address this deficiency, but has not yet
submitted these rules to EPA. In that
same December 30, 2010 action, EPA
issued a SIP error correction
withdrawing EPA’s approval of Maine’s
PSD program to the extent it applies to
increases in GHG emissions below the
thresholds in EPA’s tailoring rule
revisions to the federal PSD program in
the so-called ‘‘narrowing rule.’’ Ibid. On
March 10, 2011, Maine submitted a
letter to EPA stating that in evaluating
its section 110 infrastructure submittal,
EPA should consider the state’s PSD
program as currently approved in the
SIP and as corrected by EPA’s December
30, 2010 narrowing rule. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to fully approve this
element for Maine for the purposes of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16361
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address
how the state’s newly adopted PSD
rules implement GHG requirements in a
separate action.
The New Hampshire submittal cites
the RSA and ENV–A (see RSA 125–C:4,
125–C:11, and 125–C:15, and ENV–A
618 and ENVA–619), including a
program for the minor source NSR and
PSD programs. New Hampshire’s
submittal meets the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
previously noted that there was a
deficiency in New Hampshire’s PSD
program because the state does not have
adequate resources to implement the
PSD permitting program with respect to
GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010). New Hampshire submitted a
SIP revision to its program to address
this deficiency on February 7, 2011.
EPA is reviewing this submittal. On
March 8, 2011, New Hampshire
submitted a letter to EPA stating that in
evaluating its section 110 infrastructure
submittal, EPA should consider the
revised rules. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element
for New Hampshire for the purposes of
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address
how the state’s newly adopted PSD
rules implement GHG requirements in a
separate action.
The Rhode Island submittal cites
sections 23–23–10, 23–23–11 and 23–
23–14 of the RIGL, which provide DEM
with civil and criminal enforcement
authorities, including the authority to
assess penalties. In addition, RI APCR
No. 9 Air Pollution Control Permits,
which has been approved into the RI
SIP, includes the requirements to
implement the PSD permitting program
and includes the minor source NSR
provisions. Rhode Island’s submittal
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that
there was a deficiency in Rhode Island’s
PSD program, because the state does not
have adequate resources to implement
the PSD permitting program with
respect to GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536
(Dec. 30, 2010). Rhode Island DEM
submitted a SIP revision to its program
to address this deficiency on January 18,
2011. On March 3, 2011, Rhode Island
submitted a letter to EPA stating that in
evaluating its section 110 infrastructure
submittal, EPA should consider the
revised rules. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element
for Rhode Island for the purposes of
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address
how the state’s newly adopted PSD
rules implement GHG requirements in a
separate action.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
16362
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state, or from interfering with measures
required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. This action
does not address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which have been
addressed by a separate finding issued
by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147).
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA
requires SIPs to include provisions
insuring compliance with the applicable
requirements of sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement). Specifically,
section 126(a) requires new or modified
major sources to notify neighboring
states of potential impacts from the
source
Connecticut’s PSD regulations
provide for notice to most of the parties
consistent with the requirements in the
EPA PSD program, although there is no
specific mandate that affected states
receive notice. Connecticut in fact
issues extensive notice of its draft
permits, and neighboring states
consistently get copied on those drafts.
Connecticut has no pending obligations
under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act.
The CT DEP procedures meet the
requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine is required to give notice of
draft PSD permits that meet the
requirements in our regulations. Maine’s
SIP-approved Chapter 115 requires the
state to provide a ‘‘copy of the public
notification and a copy of the draft order
to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I, the chief executives of
the municipality and county where the
source proposes to locate, any
comprehensive land use planning
agency, and any State, Federal Land
Manager, or Indian Governing Body
whose lands may be affected by
emissions from the source or
modification.’’ Maine also has no
pending obligations under section 115
or 126(b) of the Act. Maine’s SIP meets
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
New Hampshire is required to give
notice of draft PSD permits that meet
the requirements in our regulations.
New Hampshire specifically defers to 40
CFR part 52 for the process by which
PSD permits are issued. Env-A 205.03.
40 CFR part 52 effectively incorporates
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124—
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
which include affected state notice. 40
CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) & (x). New
Hampshire has no pending obligations
under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act.
New Hampshire SIP meets the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Rhode Island’s Air Pollution Control
Regulation No. 9, ‘‘Air Pollution Control
Permits,’’ which has been approved into
the RI SIP provides for notice to nearby
States. (See 9.12.3.) Rhode Island has no
pending obligations under section 115
or 126(b) of the Act. Rhode Island’s SIP
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
E. Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to
provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state
law to carry out its SIP and related
issues.
As further explained in each state’s
TSD and respective submittal, each state
cites specific sections of their rules and
regulations that show how the state
meets the requirements for this element.
Connecticut cites its state law (see
CGS Section 22a–171) and its SIP,
Chapter 11, Parts A–E which describe
the (A) existing organizations, (B)
manpower, (C) funding, (D) physical
resources and (E) local agencies. It
states, in part, ‘‘The Department of
Environmental Protection will secure
appropriations sufficient, in conjunction
with federal assistance, to maintain the
projected state funding levels.’’
Maine cites its state law (see 38
MRSA § 341–A. 38 MRSA § 341–D 38
MRSA § 342 and 38 MRSA § 581) and
its original 1972 SIP Chapter 8,
documenting the existence of adequate
resources. For FY 2007 (the year cited
in its submittal), the Maine Bureau of
Air Quality had a staff of 59, and a
budget of $5.5 million.
New Hampshire cites the RSA 125
C:6, which authorizes the NHDES
Commissioner to enforce the state’s air
laws, establish a permit program, accept
and administer grants, and exercise all
incidental powers necessary to carry out
the law, and RSA 125 C:12, which
authorizes the Commissioner to collect
fees to recover the costs of reviewing
and acting upon permit applications. In
addition New Hampshire cites its
original 1972 SIP which describes the
(A) existing organizations; (B)
manpower; (C) funding; and (D)
physical resources.
Rhode Island cites § 23–23–5 of the
RIGL which provides the Director of
DEM with the legal authority to enforce
air pollution control requirement, and
§ 23–23–5 of the RIGL which provides
for the assessment of operating permit
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
fees from air emissions sources, allows
for DEM to assess preconstruction
permit fees and establishes a general
revenue reserve account within the
general fund to finance the state clean
air programs. In addition, RI DEM
referred to its regulations implementing
its operating permit program pursuant
to 40 CFR part 70. RI APCR No. 28,
‘‘Operating Permit Fees,’’ requires major
sources to pay annual operating permit
fees. Finally, Section III of the 1972 RI
SIP specifies the RI DEM’s legal
authority to implement SIP measures
and Section VII of the 1972 SIP
describes the resources and manpower
estimates for the RI DEM.
As discussed above, EPA has
previously determined that Maine, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island would not
have adequate resources to implement
the PSD permitting program with
respect to GHG emissions without
adopting rules to limit the number of
GHG sources that require PSD permits.
A complete discussion of this issue is
provided above in Section III.C. of this
rule. All three state environmental
agencies adopted programs to address
this deficiency. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(E) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
F. Stationary Source Monitoring System
Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA
requires states to establish a system to
monitor emissions from stationary
sources and to submit periodic emission
reports. Connecticut’s, Maine’s, New
Hampshire’s, and Rhode Island’s
infrastructure submittals reference the
specific regulations that were previously
adopted by the state and approved by
EPA which require sources to monitor
emissions and submit reports. The
specific rules, along with a citation to
EPA’s approval of each rule, is included
in the TSD for each state. For example,
Rhode Island’s submittal references the
following: (1) APCR No. 9, ‘‘Air
Pollution Control Permits,’’ which
requires emissions testing of permitted
processes within 60 days of full
operation and specifies that
preconstruction permits issued contain
an emissions testing section; (2) APCR
No. 14, ‘‘Record Keeping and
Reporting,’’ which requires emission
sources to report annually emissions
and other data to RI DEM; and (3) APCR
No. 27, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions,’’ which requires annual
emissions testing of subject sources and
includes specifications for continuous
emissions monitors. As detailed in the
TSD’s, similar rules and regulations
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
have been adopted by Connecticut,
Maine, and New Hampshire.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire,
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(F) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Emergency Power
Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA
requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent
and substantial endangerment to public
health, including contingency plans to
implement the emergency episode
provisions in their SIPs. Connecticut’s,
Maine’s, New Hampshire’s, and Rhode
Island’s infrastructure submittals
reference the specific state legislation
that gives each state authority to order
a source to cease operations if it is
determined that emissions from the
source pose an immediate danger to
public health or safety. In addition,
Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island
have adopted emergency episode
regulations, consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H, sections 51.150 through 51.153,
which have been previously approved
by EPA. (See TSDs for state regulation
and EPA approval citations.)
New Hampshire has broad statutory
authority (see RSA 125–C:9 Authority of
the Commissioner in Cases of
Emergency) to address activities causing
imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health; however, New
Hampshire does not have regulations
that specifically address all the 40 CFR
part 51 subpart H requirements. But
New Hampshire, as a matter of practice,
does the following in response to
elevated ozone levels. Through the EPA
AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH
systems, the New Hampshire DES posts
on the internet forecasted ozone levels
statewide for each day. Notices are sent
out to ENVIROFLASH participants
when levels are forecast to exceed the
current 8-hour ozone standard. In
addition, when levels are expected to
exceed the ozone standard in New
Hampshire, the media are alerted,
through a press release, and the
National Weather Service is alerted to
issue an Air Quality Advisory through
the normal National Weather Service
weather alert system. This is similar to
the notification and communication
requirements of 40 CFR 151.152.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully
approve this element for New
Hampshire.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
H. Future SIP Revisions
Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA
requires states to have the authority to
revise their SIPs in response to changes
in the NAAQS, availability of improved
methods for attaining NAAQS, or in
response to an EPA finding that the SIP
is substantially inadequate.
Connecticut’s infrastructure submittal
references the SIP and CGS which
requires the SIP to be a dynamic and not
static document that is to be revised as
necessary. Maine’s infrastructure
submittal references the MRSA, which
requires, the adoption, amendment or
repeal of reasonable rules and
emergency rules necessary for the
interpretation, implementation and
enforcement of any provision of law that
the environmental department is
charged with administering. New
Hampshire’s infrastructure submittal
references, RSA 125–C:6 Powers and
Duties of the Commissioner, which
requires the commissioner to develop ‘‘a
comprehensive program and provide
services for the study, prevention and
abatement of air pollution.’’ Rhode
Island’s infrastructure submittal
references, § 23–23–5 of the RIGL,
which allows the Director of RI DEM to
‘‘make, issue, and amend rules and
regulations * * * for the prevention,
control, abatement, and limitation of air
pollution.’’ In addition, it should be
noted that all four states have made
numerous SIP revisions for both the
previous 1-hour ozone standard and the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(H) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part
D
Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA
requires that each such plan shall ‘‘in
the case of a plan or plan revision for
an area designated as a nonattainment
area, meet the applicable requirements
of part D of this subchapter (relating to
nonattainment areas).’’ EPA is not
evaluating nonattainment-related
provisions, such as the NSR program
required by part D in section
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for
attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure
SIPs because these submittals are
required beyond the date (3 years from
NAAQS promulgation) that section 110
infrastructure submittals are required.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16363
J. Consultation With Government
Officials; Public Notification; PSD; and
Visibility Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA
requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments
and Federal Land Managers carrying out
NAAQS implementation requirements
pursuant to Section 121 relating to
consultation.
Connecticut’s infrastructure submittal
references CGS Section 22a–171, Duties
of Commissioner of Environmental
Protection, which requires the
commissioner to ‘‘advise and consult
with agencies of the United States,
agencies of the state, political
subdivisions and industries and any
other affected groups in furtherance of
the purposes of this chapter.’’ In
addition Connecticut has a State
Implementation Plan Revision Advisory
Committee (SIPRAC) which was
established in 1972, and generally meets
each month in Hartford. The meeting
notices are posted on the CT DEP Web
site and the agenda is also available on
the Web site. The SIPRAC committee
discusses relevant air quality issues,
such as air quality permits, state and
national regulation revisions and SIP
changes.
Maine’s infrastructure submittal
references the MRSA and CMR.
Specifically 06–096 CMR Chapter 115
Major and Minor Source Air Emission
License Regulations, Section 4A(d)
establishes consultation requirements
with Federal Land Managers for NSR
and PSD, which requires, ‘‘The
applicant and/or the Department shall
notify and provide a copy of the
application to all Federal Land
Managers listed in Chapter 100 of the
Department’s regulations, and the
Indian governing body of any
reservation located within 50 km of any
Major Modification or new Major source
on or before the date the applicant
provides Notice of Intent to File to the
public, and provide at least a thirty (30)
days public comment period.’’
New Hampshire’s infrastructure
submittal references state laws and
regulations, specifically, RSA 125–C:6
Powers and Duties of the Commissioner,
which requires: Consulting, and
cooperating with the cities and towns
and other agencies of the state, federal
government, interstate agencies, and
other affected agencies or groups in
matters relating to air quality;
encouraging local units to promote
cooperation by the people, political
subdivisions, industries, and others in
preventing and controlling air pollution
and coordinating and regulating the air
pollution control programs of political
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
16364
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
subdivisions of the state and entering
agreements with said subdivisions to
plan or implement programs for the
control and abatement of air pollution.
Rhode Island’s submittal references
§ 23–23–5 of the RIGL which specifies
that the RI DEM Director shall ‘‘advise
and consult with agencies of the United
States, agencies of the state, political
subdivisions and industries and any
other affected groups in furtherance of
the purposes of this chapter.’’
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA further
requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to
enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent
exceedances. Connecticut, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island are all
state partners participating in EPA’s
AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality
Alert programs. See https://
www.airnow.gov. Through this program,
states provide near real-time air quality
data, as well as next day forecasts, to the
public. Individuals and organizations
may also sign up to receive e-mail alerts
when poor air quality is predicted in
their area.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA also
requires states to meet applicable
requirements of Part C related to
prevention of significant deterioration
and visibility protection. With regard to
the applicable requirements for
visibility protection, EPA recognizes
that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C of the Act (which includes
CAA 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, we
find that there are no applicable
visibility requirements under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective. We are, however,
evaluating the infrastructure submittals
with respect to the applicable PSD
program requirements under
110(a)(2)(C). A complete discussion of
this issue is provided above in Section
III.C. of this rule.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(J) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
K. Air Quality Modeling/Data
Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA
requires that SIPs provide for
performing air quality modeling for
predicting effects on air quality of
emissions from any NAAQS pollutant
and submission of such data to EPA
upon request.
As further explained in each state’s
TSD, all four states reference the relative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
portions of their laws, regulations and
SIPs that require modeling from new or
modified sources of air pollution, and
the general authority for the state to
conduct air quality analyses.
Connecticut, New Hampshire and
Rhode Island have submitted 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstrations to
EPA as required under the CAA for
ozone nonattainment areas classified
moderate and above. Maine was not
required to submit an 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration, because the
nonattainment areas in Maine were not
classified as moderate or higher. In
addition, all four states are members of
and participate in the ozone attainment
demonstration modeling efforts
conducted by the Ozone Transport
Commission.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(K) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
L. Permitting Fees
Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA
requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees
to cover the cost of reviewing,
approving, implementing and enforcing
a permit until such fee requirements are
superseded by EPA’s approval of a title
V operating permit program with a fee
program consistent with the Act. None
of these states’ title V operating permit
programs is formally approved into the
state’s SIP. However, the operating
permit program is a legal mechanism
the state can use to ensure that it has
sufficient resources to support the air
program, consistent with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
EPA’s full approval of Connecticut’s
title V program became effective on May
31, 2002. Before EPA can grant full
approval, a state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees.
Connecticut’s title V program included
a demonstration the state will collect a
fee from title V sources above the
presumptive minimum in accordance
with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Connecticut
collects sufficient fees to administer the
title V permit program.
EPA’s full approval of Maine’s title V
program became effective on December
17, 2001. Before EPA can grant full
approval, the state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees. On
October 23, 1995, Maine submitted a
detailed fee demonstration in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9. The
detailed fee demonstration was part of
EPA’s full approval. Maine collects
adequate fees for Title V sources. The
statute also allows the state to collect
fees from new Title V sources, which
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L).
EPA’s full approval of New
Hampshire’s title V program became
effective on November 23, 2001. Before
EPA can grant full approval, a state
must demonstrate the ability to collect
adequate fees. New Hampshire’s title V
program included a demonstration the
state will collect a fee from title V
sources above the presumptive
minimum in accordance with 40 CFR
70.9(b)(2)(i). New Hampshire collects
sufficient fees to administer the title V
permit program.
EPA’s full approval of Rhode Island’s
title V program became effective on
November 30, 2001. Before EPA can
grant full approval, a state must
demonstrate the ability to collect
adequate fees. Rhode Island’s title V
program included a demonstration the
state will collect a fee from title V
sources above the presumptive
minimum in accordance with 40 CFR
70.9(b)(2)(i). Rhode Island collects
sufficient fees to administer the title V
permit program.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(L) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
M. Consultation/Participation by
Affected Local Entities
Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA
requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP
development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP. The
Connecticut infrastructure submittal
references state law (see CGS Section 4–
168) and Chapter 12 of the original 1972
Connecticut SIP, which require
consultation and coordination with
local entities. In addition, the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan
Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC)
established in 1972 generally meets
each month in Hartford. The meeting
notices are posted on the Connecticut
DEP Web site and the agenda is also
available on the Web site. SIPRAC
discusses relevant air pollution issues
and regulations with all interested
parties, including EPA. Maine’s
infrastructure submittal references state
law (see 5 MRSA Chapter 375,
Subchapter 2 and 38 MRSA § 597) and
Chapter 9 of the original 1972 SIP,
which requires consultation and
coordination with local entities. New
Hampshire’s infrastructure submittal
references state regulations (see RSA
125–C:6 Powers and Duties of the
Commissioner), which requires
consultation and coordination with
local entities. Rhode Island’s
infrastructure submittal references
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
section 23–23–5 of the RIGL which
provides for the RI DEM Director ‘‘to
advise, consult, and cooperate with the
cities and towns and other agencies of
the State, Federal government, and other
states and interstate agencies * * *’’
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(M)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to find that the
current SIPs for the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island meet the
infrastructure elements and the
corresponding subsection of the CAA
listed below for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard:
Emission limits and other control
measures (110(a)(2)(A));
Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system (110(a)(2)(B));
Program for enforcement of control
measures (110(a)(2)(C));
Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
Stationary source monitoring system
(110(a)(2)(F));
Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
Consultation with government
officials (110(a)(2)(J));
Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
Prevention of significant deterioration
(110(a)(2)(J));
Air quality modeling data
(110(a)(2)(K));
Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
Consultation/participation by affected
local entities (110(a)(2)(M)).
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
written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this action and
if that provision may be severed from
the remainder of the action, EPA may
adopt as final those provisions that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
In addition, EPA may take final action
on one or more of these state’s
submittals separately, depending on the
circumstances involved with each
state’s submittal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:59 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
16365
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 15, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
[FR Doc. 2011–6870 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0315, FRL–9285–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Washington:
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to correct
errors in the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the State of Washington
regarding the scope of certain
regulations incorporated by reference
into the SIP. This correction would limit
the applicability of certain regulations
to pollutants for which National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) have been established and
precursors to those NAAQS pollutants.
It would thus ensure that these
regulations are reasonably related to
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS in Washington.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2011–0315, by any of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov.
• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16358-16365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6870]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0639; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0641; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-00642;
EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643; A-1-FRL-9285-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island; Infrastructure SIPs
for the 1997 Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve submittals from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. These submittals
outline how each state's State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the
requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section
110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for
the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2008-00639
for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-
R01-OAR-2008-0641 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for
Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2008-06432 for comments pertaining to our proposed
action for New Hampshire, or EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode Island, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0639, EPA-
RO1-OAR-2008-0641, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-642, or EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Numbers: EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0639 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for
Connecticut, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0641 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for Maine, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0642 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for New Hampshire or EPA-RO1-OAR-
2008-0643 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode
Island. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through https://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, e-
mail Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.
In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support documents are also available for public inspection during
normal business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air
Agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630; the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health
Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; Air Resources Division,
Department of Environmental Services,
[[Page 16359]]
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095; and the Office of
Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade
Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
D. Interstate Transport
E. Adequate Resources
F. Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Emergency Power
H. Future SIP Revisions
I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D
J. Consultation With Government Officials; Public Notification;
PSD; and Visibility Protection
K. Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Permitting Fees
M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve submittals from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island as meeting the
Section 110(a) infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the
1997 ozone standard.
II. What is the background for this action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on 8-hour average ozone
concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-
hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (see 62 FR 38856). The Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) requires State Implementation Plans (SIPs) meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1) and (2). Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
standards, so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. States were
required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 standards to EPA no later
than June 2000. However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards created uncertainty about how to proceed, and certain
States did not provide the required infrastructure SIP submission for
this newly promulgated standard.
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the State's existing SIP
already contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, States
typically have met the basic program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous
ozone standards.
On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 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.'' This guidance noted that to the extent an existing SIP
already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states need only to
certify that fact via a letter to EPA.
The States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island
each submitted such certification letters to EPA on December 28, 2007,
January 3, 2008, December 14, 2007 and December 14, 2007, respectively.
All four submittals were deemed complete, effective April 28, 2008.
(See 73 FR 16205; March 27, 2008.)
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
EPA has reviewed the December 2007 submittal from Connecticut, the
January 2008 submittal from Maine, the December 2007 submittal from New
Hampshire, and the December 2007 submittal from Rhode Island. The
Agency has determined that each state's SIP meets the section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements of the CAA and is consistent with the
relevant EPA guidance. Each state's submittal and EPA's evaluation of
that submittal are detailed in the following technical support
documents (TSDs) which are available in the docket for these actions
and at the EPA New England Regional Office referenced in the ADDRESSES
section: (1) ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Connecticut
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 9, 2011; (2)``Technical
Support Document (TSD) for the Maine Submittal to Fulfill the
Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air Act Under Section
110(a)(2),'' dated March 10, 2011; (3) ``Technical Support Document
(TSD) for the New Hampshire Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for
1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure
Portion of the Clean Air Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 10,
2011; and (4) ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Rhode Island
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 9, 2011.
In their submittals each state references items in their state
specific laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that address the elements
detailed in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. These elements and the
corresponding subsection of the CAA are as follows:
Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A));
Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B));
Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C));
Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F));
Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J));
Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
Prevention of significant deterioration (110(a)(2)(J));
Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K));
Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
Consultation/participation by affected local entities
(110(a)(2)(M)).
In its submittal, Connecticut references the Connecticut Air
Quality SIP, the Connecticut General Statues (CGS) and the Regulations
of the Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA). In its submittal, Maine
references the Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of Maine Regulations
(CMR) and the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA). In its
submittal, New Hampshire references the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP,
the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) as well as the New
[[Page 16360]]
Hampshire Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and NH Admin.
Rules Env-A 100 et seq. In its submittal, Rhode Island references the
Rhode Island Air Quality SIP, the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control
Regulations (RIAPCR) and the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL).
The discussion below summarizes how each state meets each relevant
CAA infrastructure requirement outlined above.
A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance and other related matters. Each state's infrastructure
submittal includes a list of regulations that have been previously
adopted by the state and approved by EPA which include specific
emission limits and the framework for implementation of these limits.
The specific details of each state's submittal and EPA analysis of the
submittal for this element is stated in the TSD for each state. Also, a
table containing each regulation and the citation of EPA's approval of
this regulation is included in the Appendix of each state's TSD.
EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the
nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be
governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless,
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have included some
SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its
submission documenting its compliance with the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2). These states have over time
continually updated the elements of their SIPs addressing the ozone
NAAQS, and the provisions reviewed here are a weave of SIP revisions
submitted in response to the infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2) and the nonattainment requirements of part D.
For the purposes of this action, EPA is reviewing any rules
originally submitted in response to part D solely for the purposes of
determining whether they support a finding that the state has met the
basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2). For example,
in response to the requirement to have enforceable emission limits
under section 110(a)(2)(A), Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island cited to several rules that were submitted to meet the
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement of part D.
EPA is here approving those rules as meeting the requirement to have
enforceable emission limits on ozone precursors; any judgment about
whether those emission limits discharge the state's obligation to
impose RACT under part D was or will be made separately, in an action
reviewing those rules pursuant to the requirements of part D.
Also, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility.
EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,\1\ and the Agency plans
to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, from Steven
Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown''
(August 11, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109, November 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take
steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
The Connecticut submittal cites 16 specific rules the state adopted
to control the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). In addition the State of
Connecticut has also adopted the California-Low Emission Vehicle
standard for automobiles.
The Maine submittal cites over 20 specific rules the state adopted
to control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
The New Hampshire submittal cites a general overview of the RSA,
Chapters: Env-A 300, 600, 700, 1200, and 3200 of their air quality
regulations, and five specific rules for the control the emissions of
VOCs and NOX. In addition, they also cite several rules for
the control of control the emissions of VOCs and NOX from
automobiles.
The Rhode Island submittal cites 15 specific rules the state
adopted to control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide
for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors,
collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these
data available to EPA upon request. Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire
and Rhode Island all operate ambient air quality monitors and submit
the data collected to EPA. All four states have submitted annual air
monitoring network plans which have been approved by EPA as follows:
Connecticut (submitted on August 16, 2010, approved by EPA on August
31, 2010); Maine (submitted on June 30, 2010, approved by EPA on July
7, 2010); New Hampshire (submitted on September 7, 2010, approved by
EPA on October 13, 2010); and Rhode Island (submitted on July 12, 2010,
approved by EPA on July 13, 2010).
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
In this action, EPA is not evaluating nonattainment-related
provisions, such as the NSR program required by part D in section
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because these
submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS
promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure submittals are required.
Also, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any state rules with regard to the NSR Reform requirements. EPA will
act on SIP submittals that are made for purposes of addressing NSR
Reform through a separate rulemaking process.
EPA has determined that Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's,
and Rhode Island's minor NSR programs adopted pursuant to
[[Page 16361]]
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulate ozone precursor emissions. EPA
is concerned that certain provisions of some states' minor NSR programs
adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act might not meet all
the requirements found in EPA's regulations implementing that
provision. See 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. EPA previously approved all four
states minor NSR programs into the SIP, and there was at the time no
objection to the provisions of these programs. For Connecticut, 58 FR
10987 (Feb. 23, 1993); for Maine, 45 FR 6786 (Jan. 30, 1980); for New
Hampshire, 51 FR 10863 (March 15, 1983); and for Rhode Island, 48 FR
29690, (June 28, 1983). Since then, the states and EPA have relied on
the existing state minor NSR programs to assure that new and modified
sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Therefore, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's, and Rhode Island's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the general
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's
regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
As further discussed in the TSDs, and each states's respective
submittal, each state cites specific sections of their rules and
regulations that show how the state meets the requirements for this
element.
The Connecticut submittal cites several sections of the CGS (see
CGS Sections 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-175, 22a-176 and 22a-178)) and
several regulations of the RCSA (see RSCA 22a-174-3a and RSCA 22a-174-
12), including a program to meet minor source NSR and PSD requirements.
Connecticut's 110 submittal meets the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(C), with the following exception which is currently being
addressed. EPA previously noted that Connecticut's PSD program had a
deficiency because the state did not have the authority to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. (See 75 FR 77698; December 13, 2010.) Connecticut proposed
rule revisions to address this deficiency and EPA proposed approval of
those revisions through parallel processing procedures on January 6,
2011 (76 FR 752). On February 9, 2011, Connecticut submitted a final
SIP revision addressing this deficiency. Final approval of
Connecticut's GHG SIP revision is expected prior to final approval of
Connecticut's section 110 infrastructure submittal. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element for Connecticut.
The Maine submittal cites 38 MRSA Sec. 347-A and C, Sec. 348, and
Sec. 349 which provides the Maine DEP with civil and criminal
enforcement authorities, including the authority to assess penalties.
In addition Maine cites, CMR Chapter 100 Definitions and Regulations
and CMR Chapter 115 Emission License Regulation, which contains the
regulations for minor source NSR and PSD programs. Maine's submittal
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously
noted that there was a deficiency in Maine's PSD program because the
state does not have adequate resources to implement the PSD permitting
program with respect to GHG emissions. (See 75 FR 82536, December 30,
2010). Maine DEP has adopted revisions to its program to address this
deficiency, but has not yet submitted these rules to EPA. In that same
December 30, 2010 action, EPA issued a SIP error correction withdrawing
EPA's approval of Maine's PSD program to the extent it applies to
increases in GHG emissions below the thresholds in EPA's tailoring rule
revisions to the federal PSD program in the so-called ``narrowing
rule.'' Ibid. On March 10, 2011, Maine submitted a letter to EPA
stating that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure submittal,
EPA should consider the state's PSD program as currently approved in
the SIP and as corrected by EPA's December 30, 2010 narrowing rule.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this element for Maine for
the purposes of meeting the infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address how the state's newly adopted PSD rules
implement GHG requirements in a separate action.
The New Hampshire submittal cites the RSA and ENV-A (see RSA 125-
C:4, 125-C:11, and 125-C:15, and ENV-A 618 and ENVA-619), including a
program for the minor source NSR and PSD programs. New Hampshire's
submittal meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
previously noted that there was a deficiency in New Hampshire's PSD
program because the state does not have adequate resources to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536
(December 30, 2010). New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision to its
program to address this deficiency on February 7, 2011. EPA is
reviewing this submittal. On March 8, 2011, New Hampshire submitted a
letter to EPA stating that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure
submittal, EPA should consider the revised rules. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element for New Hampshire for the
purposes of meeting the infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address how the state's newly adopted PSD rules
implement GHG requirements in a separate action.
The Rhode Island submittal cites sections 23-23-10, 23-23-11 and
23-23-14 of the RIGL, which provide DEM with civil and criminal
enforcement authorities, including the authority to assess penalties.
In addition, RI APCR No. 9 Air Pollution Control Permits, which has
been approved into the RI SIP, includes the requirements to implement
the PSD permitting program and includes the minor source NSR
provisions. Rhode Island's submittal meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that there was a deficiency
in Rhode Island's PSD program, because the state does not have adequate
resources to implement the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG
emissions. 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). Rhode Island DEM submitted a
SIP revision to its program to address this deficiency on January 18,
2011. On March 3, 2011, Rhode Island submitted a letter to EPA stating
that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure submittal, EPA should
consider the revised rules. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully
approve this element for Rhode Island for the purposes of meeting the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address
how the state's newly adopted PSD rules implement GHG requirements in a
separate action.
[[Page 16362]]
D. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, or from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality or to protect visibility in another state. This action
does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which have been
addressed by a separate finding issued by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR
21147).
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of
sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement). Specifically, section 126(a) requires new or
modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential
impacts from the source
Connecticut's PSD regulations provide for notice to most of the
parties consistent with the requirements in the EPA PSD program,
although there is no specific mandate that affected states receive
notice. Connecticut in fact issues extensive notice of its draft
permits, and neighboring states consistently get copied on those
drafts. Connecticut has no pending obligations under section 115 or
126(b) of the Act. The CT DEP procedures meet the requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine is required to give notice of draft PSD permits that meet the
requirements in our regulations. Maine's SIP-approved Chapter 115
requires the state to provide a ``copy of the public notification and a
copy of the draft order to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, the chief executives of the municipality and county where the
source proposes to locate, any comprehensive land use planning agency,
and any State, Federal Land Manager, or Indian Governing Body whose
lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.''
Maine also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of
the Act. Maine's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
New Hampshire is required to give notice of draft PSD permits that
meet the requirements in our regulations. New Hampshire specifically
defers to 40 CFR part 52 for the process by which PSD permits are
issued. Env-A 205.03. 40 CFR part 52 effectively incorporates the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 124--which include affected state notice.
40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) & (x). New Hampshire has no pending
obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. New Hampshire SIP
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 9, ``Air
Pollution Control Permits,'' which has been approved into the RI SIP
provides for notice to nearby States. (See 9.12.3.) Rhode Island has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Rhode
Island's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
E. Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide for adequate
personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out
its SIP and related issues.
As further explained in each state's TSD and respective submittal,
each state cites specific sections of their rules and regulations that
show how the state meets the requirements for this element.
Connecticut cites its state law (see CGS Section 22a-171) and its
SIP, Chapter 11, Parts A-E which describe the (A) existing
organizations, (B) manpower, (C) funding, (D) physical resources and
(E) local agencies. It states, in part, ``The Department of
Environmental Protection will secure appropriations sufficient, in
conjunction with federal assistance, to maintain the projected state
funding levels.''
Maine cites its state law (see 38 MRSA Sec. 341-A. 38 MRSA Sec.
341-D 38 MRSA Sec. 342 and 38 MRSA Sec. 581) and its original 1972
SIP Chapter 8, documenting the existence of adequate resources. For FY
2007 (the year cited in its submittal), the Maine Bureau of Air Quality
had a staff of 59, and a budget of $5.5 million.
New Hampshire cites the RSA 125 C:6, which authorizes the NHDES
Commissioner to enforce the state's air laws, establish a permit
program, accept and administer grants, and exercise all incidental
powers necessary to carry out the law, and RSA 125 C:12, which
authorizes the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of
reviewing and acting upon permit applications. In addition New
Hampshire cites its original 1972 SIP which describes the (A) existing
organizations; (B) manpower; (C) funding; and (D) physical resources.
Rhode Island cites Sec. 23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides the
Director of DEM with the legal authority to enforce air pollution
control requirement, and Sec. 23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides for
the assessment of operating permit fees from air emissions sources,
allows for DEM to assess preconstruction permit fees and establishes a
general revenue reserve account within the general fund to finance the
state clean air programs. In addition, RI DEM referred to its
regulations implementing its operating permit program pursuant to 40
CFR part 70. RI APCR No. 28, ``Operating Permit Fees,'' requires major
sources to pay annual operating permit fees. Finally, Section III of
the 1972 RI SIP specifies the RI DEM's legal authority to implement SIP
measures and Section VII of the 1972 SIP describes the resources and
manpower estimates for the RI DEM.
As discussed above, EPA has previously determined that Maine, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island would not have adequate resources to
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG emissions
without adopting rules to limit the number of GHG sources that require
PSD permits. A complete discussion of this issue is provided above in
Section III.C. of this rule. All three state environmental agencies
adopted programs to address this deficiency. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to fully approve this element.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
F. Stationary Source Monitoring System
Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires states to establish a
system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit
periodic emission reports. Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's, and
Rhode Island's infrastructure submittals reference the specific
regulations that were previously adopted by the state and approved by
EPA which require sources to monitor emissions and submit reports. The
specific rules, along with a citation to EPA's approval of each rule,
is included in the TSD for each state. For example, Rhode Island's
submittal references the following: (1) APCR No. 9, ``Air Pollution
Control Permits,'' which requires emissions testing of permitted
processes within 60 days of full operation and specifies that
preconstruction permits issued contain an emissions testing section;
(2) APCR No. 14, ``Record Keeping and Reporting,'' which requires
emission sources to report annually emissions and other data to RI DEM;
and (3) APCR No. 27, ``Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,'' which
requires annual emissions testing of subject sources and includes
specifications for continuous emissions monitors. As detailed in the
TSD's, similar rules and regulations
[[Page 16363]]
have been adopted by Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
G. Emergency Power
Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires states to provide for
authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement
the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. Connecticut's, Maine's,
New Hampshire's, and Rhode Island's infrastructure submittals reference
the specific state legislation that gives each state authority to order
a source to cease operations if it is determined that emissions from
the source pose an immediate danger to public health or safety. In
addition, Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island have adopted emergency
episode regulations, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part
51, subpart H, sections 51.150 through 51.153, which have been
previously approved by EPA. (See TSDs for state regulation and EPA
approval citations.)
New Hampshire has broad statutory authority (see RSA 125-C:9
Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency) to address
activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health; however, New Hampshire does not have regulations that
specifically address all the 40 CFR part 51 subpart H requirements. But
New Hampshire, as a matter of practice, does the following in response
to elevated ozone levels. Through the EPA AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH
systems, the New Hampshire DES posts on the internet forecasted ozone
levels statewide for each day. Notices are sent out to ENVIROFLASH
participants when levels are forecast to exceed the current 8-hour
ozone standard. In addition, when levels are expected to exceed the
ozone standard in New Hampshire, the media are alerted, through a press
release, and the National Weather Service is alerted to issue an Air
Quality Advisory through the normal National Weather Service weather
alert system. This is similar to the notification and communication
requirements of 40 CFR 151.152. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully
approve this element for New Hampshire.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
H. Future SIP Revisions
Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA requires states to have the
authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS,
availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, or in response to
an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. Connecticut's
infrastructure submittal references the SIP and CGS which requires the
SIP to be a dynamic and not static document that is to be revised as
necessary. Maine's infrastructure submittal references the MRSA, which
requires, the adoption, amendment or repeal of reasonable rules and
emergency rules necessary for the interpretation, implementation and
enforcement of any provision of law that the environmental department
is charged with administering. New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal
references, RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, which
requires the commissioner to develop ``a comprehensive program and
provide services for the study, prevention and abatement of air
pollution.'' Rhode Island's infrastructure submittal references, Sec.
23-23-5 of the RIGL, which allows the Director of RI DEM to ``make,
issue, and amend rules and regulations * * * for the prevention,
control, abatement, and limitation of air pollution.'' In addition, it
should be noted that all four states have made numerous SIP revisions
for both the previous 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D
Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA requires that each such plan shall
``in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a
nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D of this
subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).'' EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment-related provisions, such as the NSR program required by
part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by
section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because these
submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS
promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure submittals are required.
J. Consultation With Government Officials; Public Notification; PSD;
and Visibility Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a
process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land
Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to
Section 121 relating to consultation.
Connecticut's infrastructure submittal references CGS Section 22a-
171, Duties of Commissioner of Environmental Protection, which requires
the commissioner to ``advise and consult with agencies of the United
States, agencies of the state, political subdivisions and industries
and any other affected groups in furtherance of the purposes of this
chapter.'' In addition Connecticut has a State Implementation Plan
Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) which was established in 1972, and
generally meets each month in Hartford. The meeting notices are posted
on the CT DEP Web site and the agenda is also available on the Web
site. The SIPRAC committee discusses relevant air quality issues, such
as air quality permits, state and national regulation revisions and SIP
changes.
Maine's infrastructure submittal references the MRSA and CMR.
Specifically 06-096 CMR Chapter 115 Major and Minor Source Air Emission
License Regulations, Section 4A(d) establishes consultation
requirements with Federal Land Managers for NSR and PSD, which
requires, ``The applicant and/or the Department shall notify and
provide a copy of the application to all Federal Land Managers listed
in Chapter 100 of the Department's regulations, and the Indian
governing body of any reservation located within 50 km of any Major
Modification or new Major source on or before the date the applicant
provides Notice of Intent to File to the public, and provide at least a
thirty (30) days public comment period.''
New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal references state laws and
regulations, specifically, RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the
Commissioner, which requires: Consulting, and cooperating with the
cities and towns and other agencies of the state, federal government,
interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or groups in matters
relating to air quality; encouraging local units to promote cooperation
by the people, political subdivisions, industries, and others in
preventing and controlling air pollution and coordinating and
regulating the air pollution control programs of political
[[Page 16364]]
subdivisions of the state and entering agreements with said
subdivisions to plan or implement programs for the control and
abatement of air pollution.
Rhode Island's submittal references Sec. 23-23-5 of the RIGL which
specifies that the RI DEM Director shall ``advise and consult with
agencies of the United States, agencies of the state, political
subdivisions and industries and any other affected groups in
furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.''
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA further requires states to notify
the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are all state
partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality
Alert programs. See https://www.airnow.gov. Through this program, states
provide near real-time air quality data, as well as next day forecasts,
to the public. Individuals and organizations may also sign up to
receive e-mail alerts when poor air quality is predicted in their area.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA also requires states to meet
applicable requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant
deterioration and visibility protection. With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are
subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part
C of the Act (which includes CAA 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, we
find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. We are, however,
evaluating the infrastructure submittals with respect to the applicable
PSD program requirements under 110(a)(2)(C). A complete discussion of
this issue is provided above in Section III.C. of this rule.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
K. Air Quality Modeling/Data
Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality
of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to
EPA upon request.
As further explained in each state's TSD, all four states reference
the relative portions of their laws, regulations and SIPs that require
modeling from new or modified sources of air pollution, and the general
authority for the state to conduct air quality analyses. Connecticut,
New Hampshire and Rhode Island have submitted 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstrations to EPA as required under the CAA for ozone nonattainment
areas classified moderate and above. Maine was not required to submit
an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration, because the nonattainment
areas in Maine were not classified as moderate or higher. In addition,
all four states are members of and participate in the ozone attainment
demonstration modeling efforts conducted by the Ozone Transport
Commission.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
L. Permitting Fees
Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit until such
fee requirements are superseded by EPA's approval of a title V
operating permit program with a fee program consistent with the Act.
None of these states' title V operating permit programs is formally
approved into the state's SIP. However, the operating permit program is
a legal mechanism the state can use to ensure that it has sufficient
resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(L).
EPA's full approval of Connecticut's title V program became
effective on May 31, 2002. Before EPA can grant full approval, a state
must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Connecticut's
title V program included a demonstration the state will collect a fee
from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with
40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Connecticut collects sufficient fees to
administer the title V permit program.
EPA's full approval of Maine's title V program became effective on
December 17, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, the state must
demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. On October 23, 1995,
Maine submitted a detailed fee demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR
70.9. The detailed fee demonstration was part of EPA's full approval.
Maine collects adequate fees for Title V sources. The statute also
allows the state to collect fees from new Title V sources, which meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
EPA's full approval of New Hampshire's title V program became
effective on November 23, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, a
state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. New
Hampshire's title V program included a demonstration the state will
collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). New Hampshire collects sufficient
fees to administer the title V permit program.
EPA's full approval of Rhode Island's title V program became
effective on November 30, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, a
state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Rhode
Island's title V program included a demonstration the state will
collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Rhode Island collects sufficient
fees to administer the title V permit program.
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities
Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP. The Connecticut infrastructure
submittal references state law (see CGS Section 4-168) and Chapter 12
of the original 1972 Connecticut SIP, which require consultation and
coordination with local entities. In addition, the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) established in
1972 generally meets each month in Hartford. The meeting notices are
posted on the Connecticut DEP Web site and the agenda is also available
on the Web site. SIPRAC discusses relevant air pollution issues and
regulations with all interested parties, including EPA. Maine's
infrastructure submittal references state law (see 5 MRSA Chapter 375,
Subchapter 2 and 38 MRSA Sec. 597) and Chapter 9 of the original 1972
SIP, which requires consultation and coordination with local entities.
New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal references state regulations
(see RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner), which requires
consultation and coordination with local entities. Rhode Island's
infrastructure submittal references
[[Page 16365]]
section 23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides for the RI DEM Director ``to
advise, consult, and cooperate with the cities and towns and other
agencies of the State, Federal government, and other states and
interstate agencies * * *''
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to find that the current SIPs for the States of
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island meet the
infrastructure elements and the corresponding subsection of the CAA
listed below for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A));
Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B));
Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C));
Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F));
Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J));
Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
Prevention of significant deterioration (110(a)(2)(J));
Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K));
Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
Consultation/participation by affected local entities
(110(a)(2)(M)).
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 written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this action and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the action, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions that are not the subject of an adverse comment. In addition,
EPA may take final action on one or more of these state's submittals
separately, depending on the circumstances involved with each state's
submittal.
IV. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 15, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2011-6870 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
