Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards, 43023-43032 [2012-17902]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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. With regard to South
Carolina, EPA notes that, pursuant to
the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement
Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, the
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation,
which is located within the State of
South Carolina, is subject to all state
and local environmental laws and that
South Carolina regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant
state and local agencies and authorities.
Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to
the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless,
EPA has preliminarily determined that
today’s proposed rule determining that
the South Carolina SIP meets the State’s
obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its
reliance upon CAIR does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249). EPA has
also preliminarily determined that these
revisions will not impose any
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law in
South Carolina.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–17885 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 and EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0321 (CT); EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322
(ME); EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 and EPA–
R01–OAR–2011–0323 (MA); EPA–R01–
OAR–2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 (NH); A–1–FRL–9704–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for
the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate
Matter Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve
most elements of submittals from the
States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We
are also proposing to conditionally
approve certain elements of these
submittals, as well as disapprove a few
elements of Massachusetts’ submittals.
The submittals outline how each state’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
the requirements of section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
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 August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0322 for comments pertaining to
our proposed action for Maine, EPA–
R01–OAR–2009–0459 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0323 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR–
2009–0460 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for New Hampshire by
one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317;
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321; EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0318; EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0322; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459;
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323; EPA–R01–
OAR–2009–0460; or EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0324,’’ 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.
SUMMARY:
1 For each State, the first docket number refers to
the docket for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure
submittal and the second docket number refers to
the docket for the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure
submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43023
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–
2011–0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0321 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA–
R01–OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0322 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 or
EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 for
comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Massachusetts, and EPA–
R01–OAR–2009–0460 or EPA–R01–
OAR–2011–0324 for comments
pertaining to our proposed action for
New Hampshire. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
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
www.regulations.gov, or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email 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
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43024
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 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.
In addition, copies of the state
submittals 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 Energy and
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; Division of Air Quality Control,
Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,
Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources
Division, Department of Environmental
Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95,
Concord, NH 03302–0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–
2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone
number (617) 918–1684, fax number
(617) 918–0684, email
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. 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?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing action on
infrastructure SIPs submitted by the
States of Connecticut, Maine,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA
guidance 2 for addressing the SIP
infrastructure elements required under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2), there are
fourteen section 110(a)(2) components
that must be included in the SIPs that
the States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. These fourteen section
110(a)(2) components are as follows:
(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, Prevention
of significant deterioriation (PSD), and
Visibility protection.
(K) Air quality modeling/Data.
(L) Permitting fees.
(M) Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
EPA is proposing to approve the
submittals from all four states as fully
meeting the infrastructure requirements
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement
program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation), (J) (public notification),
(K), (L), and (M).
EPA also is proposing to approve the
submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two
prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
These two prongs are (1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any
other state with respect to any such
national primary or secondary NAAQS,
and (2) interfere with maintenance by
any other state with respect to the same
NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve the submittals from Maine
for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference
with visibility protection, and the
submittals from New Hampshire for
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
2 See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, dated October 2, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the submittals from all four
states for the following 110(a)(2)
elements and sub-elements: (A) and E(ii)
(state boards and conflict of interest
provisions). We are proposing to
conditionally approve the submittals
from three states (Connecticut, Maine,
and New Hampshire) for section
110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) as they relate to the states’ PSD
programs. We are also proposing to
conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing
to disapprove the state’s submittals for
section110(a)(2) sub-elements (C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the
state’s PSD program, as well as (D)(ii),
which relates to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that the
Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions do
not meet these PSD requirements, the
state is already subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and
so EPA has no additional FIP
obligations under section 110(c).
Furthermore, the state will not be
subject to mandatory sanctions as a
result of this disapproval.
II. What is the background for this
action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA published new
NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) (62
FR 38652). This included a new annual
and a new 24-hour NAAQS for particles
with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(denoted PM2.5). The annual PM2.5
standard was set at 15 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2.5
standard was set at 65 mg/m3 based on
a 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of 24-hour concentrations.
Thus, states were required to submit
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000.
However, intervening litigation over the
1997 PM2.5 (and 1997 8-hour ozone)
NAAQS created uncertainty about how
to proceed, and many states did not
provide the required ‘‘infrastructure’’
SIP submissions for these newly
promulgated NAAQS.
On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice
submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA’s failure to issue findings
of failure to submit related to the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 (and 8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With
regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
entered into a consent decree with
Earthjustice, which required EPA to
complete a Federal Register notice
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
announcing EPA’s determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
Act as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008.
On October 17, 2006, EPA published
revised standards for PM (71 FR 61144).
For PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 mg/
m3 was retained, and the 24-hour
standard was revised to 35 mg/m3. For
PM10, the annual standard was revoked,
and the 24-hour standard (150 mg/m3)
was retained. As required by section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2)
(‘‘infrastructure’’) submittals were due
within three years of promulgation of
the revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard (i.e.,
by September 21, 2009).
For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard,
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire submitted certification
letters to EPA on September 4, 2008;
September 10, 2008; April 4, 2008; and
April 3, 2008, respectively. On October
22, 2008, EPA published findings
concerning whether states had made the
110(a)(2) submissions for the 1997 PM2.5
standards (73 FR 62902). In the October
2008 action, we found that Connecticut,
Maine and New Hampshire had made
complete submissions. Massachusetts
received a ‘‘finding of failure to submit’’
a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C)
and (J) pertaining to the Part C PSD
permit program. However, this
requirement has already been addressed
by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
that remains in place, and therefore, the
finding-of-failure action did not trigger
any additional FIP obligations.
For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard,
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire submitted certification
letters to EPA on September 18, 2009;
July 27, 2009; September 21, 2009; and
September 18, 2009, respectively. On
September 8, 2011, EPA published
findings concerning whether states had
made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the
2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 55577).
None of these four states received a
finding for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to fully approve
most elements of the 110(a) submittals
from Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We
are also proposing to conditionally
approve certain elements of these
submittals, as well as proposing
disapproval of a few elements of
Massachusetts’ submittals. Elements for
which we are proposing approval,
conditional approval, and disapproval
are listed in section I and IV of this
notice.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England
Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the
States’ submittals?
EPA has reviewed the submittals for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
listed above and has determined that
most, but not all, of each state’s SIPs
meet the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements of the CAA and are
consistent with the relevant EPA
guidance. Each state’s submittals and
EPA’s evaluation of those submittals are
detailed in the following technical
support documents (TSDs). These TSDs
(one per state) are available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov: Docket
numbers EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317
and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321
(Connecticut), EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322
(Maine), EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459
and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323
(Massachusetts), and EPA–R01–OAR–
2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 (New Hampshire).
In their submittals, each state
references items in their state laws,
statutes, regulations and SIPs that
address the elements detailed in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically,
Connecticut references the Connecticut
Air Quality SIP, the Connecticut
General Statutes (CGS) and the
Regulations of the Connecticut State Air
Agency (RCSA); Maine references the
Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of
Maine Regulations (CMR) and the Maine
Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA);
Massachusetts references the
Massachusetts Air Quality SIP, the
Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) and
the Code of Massachusetts Regulations
(CMR); and New Hampshire references
the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated (RSA) as well as the New
Hampshire Rules Governing the Control
of Air Pollution, and New Hampshire
Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq.
The discussion below summarizes
how each state meets each relevant CAA
infrastructure requirement. As noted
above, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire
provided infrastructure submittals for
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
However, the demonstrations submitted
by each State for how it is meeting many
of the section 110(a)(2) elements are
substantively identical for both of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless
otherwise noted, the following
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43025
evaluation of each element pertains to
both standards. For more information,
please refer to the TSDs referenced
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. The rules
approved in the EPA-approved SIPs for
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire apply a substantial
level of control on PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors.
In January 2011, Connecticut revised
Section 22a–174–3a. However, to be
sure that references to NAAQS in
Section 22a–174 incorporate by
reference the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, Connecticut submitted a letter
to EPA, dated July 11, 2012, committing
to provide a statement of legal authority
or to take any necessary actions to meet
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by
a date no later than one year from
conditional approval of Connecticut’s
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions.
Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(A).
Maine’s Ambient Air Quality
Standards in Chapter 110 currently do
not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. However, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
(ME DEP) has recently proposed
revisions to Chapter 110 to address the
more recent NAAQS. On June 30, 2012,
Maine submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt and submit the
necessary regulation revisions to EPA by
a date that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore,
we propose to conditionally approve
Maine’s 110(a) submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
Regarding Massachusetts, the current
SIP-approved 310 CMR 6.00 (Ambient
Air Quality Standards) does not reflect
the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Massachusetts has submitted a letter to
EPA on July 12, 2012, committing to
take action to meet requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later
than one year from conditional approval
of Massachusetts’ PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve
Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
For New Hampshire, the current SIPapproved Env-A 300 (Ambient Air
Quality Standards) does not reflect the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However,
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43026
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
in March 2012, New Hampshire
proposed the necessary revisions to
Env-A 300, and has submitted a letter
dated June 29, 2012, committing to
adopt and submit the necessary
regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of New
Hampshire’s PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. We propose to
conditionally approve New Hampshire’s
110(a) submissions for infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(A).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
have all established and currently
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. We
conclude that all four states’
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B).
C. Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to
have a plan that includes a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP
measures and the regulation of
modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that NAAQS are achieved,
including a program to meet PSD and
nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) requirements.
Recent PM2.5 PSD rules that require
updates to state regulations and
subsequent submittal to EPA for
approval include ‘‘Implementation of
the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) and ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864, October 20,
2010). States were also required to
update their regulations to meet PSD
rules related to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. These are the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (75 FR
31514, June 3, 2010), as modified by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans’’
or ‘‘Narrowing Rule’’ (75 FR 82536,
December 30, 2010). The effect of EPA
narrowing its approval in this manner is
that the provisions of previously
approved SIPs that apply PSD to
increases in GHG emissions from
sources that emit GHGs below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds have the
status of having been submitted by the
state, but not yet acted upon by EPA.
In this action, we are not evaluating
nonattainment-related provisions, such
as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D in 110(a)(2)(C) and
measures for attainment required by
section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because these
submittals are required beyond the date
(3 years from NAAQS promulgation)
that section 110 infrastructure
submittals are required.
The Connecticut PSD program is
established in RCSA section 22a–174–3a
(k). This PSD program was approved
into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 FR
26933). Connecticut has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to
Connecticut’s PSD program on May 10,
2011, to reflect changes in the federal
PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (76 FR 26933).
This PSD program takes advantage of
the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD
applicability.
New Hampshire’s PSD provisions for
air-quality permits are established in
Env-A 619. The most recent version of
the state’s Statewide Permit System
(Env-A 600) was approved into the New
Hampshire SIP on February 6, 2012 (77
FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority
to issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New
Hampshire’s PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program
related to the permitting of greenhouse
gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6,
2012). This PSD program takes
advantage of the Tailoring Rule
thresholds for PSD applicability by
relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing
Rule.
For Connecticut and New Hampshire,
EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the state 110(a)
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS do not meet the portions of
section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the
state’s need to have a federally
enforceable PSD program that meets
requirements of the two major source
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5 PSD rules, ‘‘Implementation of the
New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008), and ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)––Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864, October 20,
2010). However, Connecticut and New
Hampshire are making progress. On
June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted a
letter to EPA committing to adopt and
submit the necessary regulation
revisions to EPA by a date no later than
one year from conditional approval of
Connecticut’s PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. On June 28, 2012, New
Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt and submit the
necessary regulation revisions to EPA by
a date no later than one year from
conditional approval of New
Hampshire’s PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. Therefore, we propose to
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
and New Hampshire’s 110(a)
submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C) as it relates to the states’
need to have a PSD program that meets
all federal requirements. As discussed
below, for these states, we are also
proposing to conditionally approve
related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
The Maine PSD program is
established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for
minor sources) and 140 (licensing for
major sources). Maine implements its
PSD program requirements under CMR
Chapter 115. This PSD program was
approved into the SIP on February 14,
1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority
to issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. Maine has
adopted revisions to its PSD permitting
program to address GHG emissions, but
has not yet submitted these rules to
EPA.
For Maine, EPA is proposing to make
a determination that the state 110(a)
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS do not meet the portions of
section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the
state’s need to have a federally
enforceable PSD program that meets
requirements of the two major source
PM2.5 PSD rules listed above (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010). In addition, Maine’s
current PSD regulations do not properly
account for NOX as a precursor to ozone
as required by the Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612,
November 29, 2005). However, ME DEP
is in the process of adopting rules to
meet its obligations for PSD under the
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule,
and, on June 13, 2012, Maine submitted
a letter to EPA committing to adopt and
submit regulation revisions to EPA to
meet requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) by a date that is no later
than one year from conditional approval
of the state’s PM2.5 110(a) submissions.
Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Maine’s 110(a)
submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. As discussed below, we are
also proposing to conditionally approve
related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
Massachusetts does not have an
approved PSD SIP, and has long been
subject to a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP). Between 1982 and 2003,
Massachusetts implemented that FIP
through a delegation agreement.
Massachusetts rescinded the delegation
agreement in 2003. However, effective
April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted
the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
full delegation authority to implement
and enforce the Federal PSD program
(76 FR 31241). Because the state is
subject to a PSD FIP, its infrastructure
submissions are not approvable with
respect to this element. However, the
state is not subject to mandatory
sanctions solely as a result of this type
of infrastructure SIP disapproval, for the
reason that the SIP deficiencies are
neither with respect to a submittal that
is required under part D nor in response
to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of
the CAA. Moreover, the requirements
for which the state is subject to the FIP
are already satisfied by the FIP, and so
EPA has no additional FIP obligations
under section 110(c).
For these reasons, we conclude that
Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIPs for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet
the enforcement and minor NSR
requirements, but not the PSD
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C).
Therefore, we are proposing to
disapprove Massachusetts’ 110(a)
submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Notwithstanding our
conclusion that the Massachusetts’
110(a) submissions do not meet the PSD
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
state is not subject to mandatory
sanctions as a result of this disapproval.
As discussed below, we are also
proposing to disapprove related
elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
D. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into
two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, EPA has
subdivided section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
four ‘‘prongs,’’ two under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any
other state with respect to any such
national primary or secondary NAAQS,
and (prong 2) interfere with
maintenance by any other state with
respect to the same NAAQS. The two
prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are
(prong 3) interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other state under part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality or
(prong 4) to protect visibility.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses
interstate and international pollution
abatement, and requires SIPs to include
provisions insuring compliance with
sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating
to interstate and international pollution
abatement.
Connecticut
In this action for Connecticut, we are
only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with PSD)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
As discussed above under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures), Connecticut’s PSD program
does not yet meet requirements of the
most recent federal PSD rules (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010), but Connecticut has
committed to revising its PSD
regulations to meet current
requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
Connecticut’s 110(a) submittal for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
Connecticut’s PSD regulations provide
for notice to most of the parties
consistent with the requirements in the
EPA PSD program. There is, however, a
flaw in Connecticut’s SIP-approved PSD
program regarding notice to other states.
Compare CAA section 126 (a)(1) and 40
CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv) (requiring notice to,
among others, ‘‘any State * * * or
Indian Governing body whose lands
may be affected by emissions from the
source or modification’’) with RCSA
22a–174–2a(b)(6) (specifically excluding
other states from the list of parties to
receive copies of draft PSD permits).
Although there is no specific mandate
in Connecticut’s regulations that
affected states receive notice,
Connecticut issues extensive notice of
its draft permits, and neighboring states
consistently get copied on those drafts.
On January 12, 2012, Connecticut
proposed revisions to their permit
program notification requirements in
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43027
22a–174–2a(b)(5) and (6). On June 15,
2012, Connecticut sent a letter to EPA
committing to submit the adopted
provision to EPA by a date that is no
later than one year from conditional
approval of Connecticut’s PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Also, the
State also has no pending obligations
under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act.
Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine
In this action for Maine, we are
addressing all four prongs of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). On June 30, 2012, Maine
submitted a letter to EPA certifying that
it is not contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state. EPA agrees
and has conducted modeling for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR
25162, May 12, 2005) and for the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR
48208, August 8, 2011) that shows that
Maine does not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in any other state.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
Maine’s submissions with respect to
prongs 1 and 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding prong 3 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures), Maine’s SIP-approved PSD
program does not yet meet requirements
of the most recent federal PSD rules for
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS or the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule,
but Maine has committed to revising its
PSD regulations to meet current
requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in Maine’s
110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding prong 4 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with
visibility protection), EPA proposes to
approve Maine’s 110(a) submissions.
Specifically, Maine submitted a
Regional Haze SIP to EPA on December
9, 2010, with supplemental submittals
on September 14, 2011 and November 9,
2011. On April 24, 2012, EPA approved
Maine’s Regional Haze SIP for the first
planning period from 2008 through
2018 (77 FR 24385).
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
Maine’s currently approved SIP, which
EPA approved on February 14, 1996 (61
FR 5690), provides for notice to various
parties consistent with the requirements
in the EPA PSD program at 40 CFR
51.166(q)(iv). (Maine has since revised
its notice regulation for PSD permits,
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43028
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and since the approved SIP’s notice
regulation is adequate, we are not
presently reviewing the revised
regulation.) In its 110(a) submissions,
the state certified that it has no pending
obligations under section 115 or 126(b)
of the CAA. As noted in the June 2011
addendum to their 110(a) submittals,
Maine notifies affected states regarding
new source and modifications under its
Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emission
License Regulations. However, this
regulation has not been approved into
the Maine SIP. On June 13, 2012, Maine
submitted a letter to EPA committing to
adopt and submit the necessary
regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore,
we are proposing to conditionally
approve Maine’s submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Massachusetts
In this action for Massachusetts, we
are only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i.e., interference with
PSD). As discussed under (C) (program
for enforcement of control measures),
Massachusetts is currently subject to a
PSD FIP. A state’s infrastructure SIP
submittal cannot be considered for
approvability with respect to prong 3
until EPA has issued final approval of
that state’s PSD SIP or, alternatively, has
issued final approval of a SIP that EPA
has otherwise found adequate to
prohibit interference with other states’
measures to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. Therefore,
we are proposing to disapprove
Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions for
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, this
disapproval will not trigger any
sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
which relates to interstate and
international pollution abatement, as
noted above, Massachusetts is subject to
a PSD FIP. States relying on the federal
PSD program requirements of 40 CFR
52.21(q), which provide for notification
of affected state and local air agencies,
to satisfy this requirement have
programs that are considered
technically deficient and not
approvable. Therefore, we are proposing
to disapprove Massachusetts’
submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, this
disapproval will not trigger any
sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
New Hampshire
In this action for New Hampshire, we
are addressing prongs 1, 2 and 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. On July 3, 2012, New
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA
certifying that it is not contributing
significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. EPA agrees and has conducted
modeling for the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and
for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) that
shows that New Hampshire does not
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in any other state.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
New Hampshire’s submissions with
respect to prongs 1 and 2 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding prong 3 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures), New Hampshire’s SIPapproved PSD program does not yet
meet requirements of the most recent
federal PSD rules for implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS, but New Hampshire has
committed to revising its PSD
regulations to meet current
requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in New
Hampshire’s 110(a) submittals for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
New Hampshire is required to give
notice of draft PSD permits that meet
the requirements in our regulations. In
the currently approved SIP, former EnvA 205.03 provides that New Hampshire
specifically defers to 40 CFR Part 52 for
the process by which PSD permits are
issued. Forty CFR Part 52 effectively
incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 124, which include affected state
notice. (See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii),
(vii) & (x).) (New Hampshire has since
revised its notice regulation for PSD
permits, Env-A 621.03–04, and it does
not reference 40 CR Part 52. However,
since the approved SIP’s notice
regulation is adequate, we are not
presently reviewing the revised
regulation.) The State also has no
pending obligations under section 115
or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve New Hampshire’s
submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
E. Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to
provide (i) necessary assurances that the
state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law
to carry out the SIP (and is not
prohibited by any provision of federal or
state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the
state comply with the requirements
respecting state boards under section
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
128, and (iii) necessary assurances that,
where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or
instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has
responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such SIP provision.
Congress added section 128 in the
1977 amendments as the result of a
conference agreement. Titled ‘‘State
boards,’’ section 128 provides in
relevant part: (a) Not later than the date
one year after August 7, 1977, each
applicable implementation plan shall
contain requirements that:
(1) Any board or body which
approves permits or enforcement orders
under [this Act] shall have at least a
majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any
significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders under [this Act],
and (2) Any potential conflicts of
interest by members of such board or
body or the head of an executive agency
with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have SIP-approved
regulations that provide adequate
authority for each of the states to carry
out their SIP obligations with respect to
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Each
of the four states receives sections 103
and 105 grant funds through their
Performance Partnership Grants along
with required state-matching funds to
provide funding necessary to carry out
their SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have sufficient resources to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii),
Maine and New Hampshire have state
boards, Maine Board of Environmental
Protection and New Hampshire Air
Resources Council, that approve permits
or enforcement orders under the CAA.
Therefore, both states are subject to the
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1), as
well as to the requirements of section
128(a)(2). However, although both states
have conflict-of-interest provisions in
their general statutes, they have not
been approved by EPA into either the
Maine or New Hampshire SIP. These
items were not addressed in Maine and
New Hampshire’s original PM2.5
infrastructure SIP submittals. In a letter
dated June 29, 2012, New Hampshire
submitted its statute addressing conflict
of interest for SIP approval. EPA has not
yet acted on this submittal. Also, in a
letter dated June 13, 2012, Maine
committed to submitting the statutory
provisions pertaining to conflict of
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
interest to EPA within one year of our
final action on its PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the infrastructure
submittals for both Maine and New
Hampshire with respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
Connecticut and Massachusetts do not
have state boards that approve permits
or enforcement orders under the CAA.
Instead, permits and enforcement orders
are approved by each state’s
Commissioner of Environmental
Protection. Thus, Connecticut and
Massachusetts are not subject to the
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1).
However, they are subject to the
requirements of section 128(a)(2), but
neither state demonstrated in their
infrastructure submittals that they have
met these requirements. Subsequently,
on June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted
a letter to EPA committing to address
this issue by a date no later than one
year from conditional approval of
Connecticut’s PM2.5 Infrastructure
submittals. Massachusetts submitted a
similar commitment letter to EPA on
July 12, 2012. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve
Connecticut’s and Massachusetts’
submissions with respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
With respect to section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii), none of the four states
has assigned responsibility for carrying
out portions of the SIP to any local
government, agency, or other
instrumentality. Therefore, the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire 110(a) submittals meet
the requirements for this element.
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. The infrastructure submittals
for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire reference specific
regulations that require sources to
monitor emissions and submit reports to
EPA. The specific rules are referenced
in the TSD for each state.
EPA has reviewed the laws and
regulations that been approved into the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states’
infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(F).
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
health, including contingency plans to
implement the emergency episode
provisions in their SIPs.
For PM2.5, EPA’s guidance dated
September 25, 2009 3 provides
clarification that states that have air
quality control regions identified as
either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority
II by the ‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution
Emergency Episodes’’ rules at 40 CFR
51.150 must develop emergency episode
contingency plans. The guidance
recommends that until EPA establishes
significant harm levels (SHL) for PM2.5,
states should establish their own SHL
levels based on EPA’s February 12, 2007
issue paper on setting priority and
emergency action levels and also
consider the recommended levels set
forth in Attachment B of the September
25, 2009 guidance. States would be
required to develop emergency episode
plans for any area that has monitored
and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels
greater than 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006. A
state that has never exceeded this level
since 2006 is considered to be Priority
III in accordance with the guidance,
may certify that it has appropriate
general emergency powers to address
PM2.5 -related episodes, and is not
required to adopt specific emergency
episode plans at this time, given the
existing monitored levels.
Air-quality monitors in all four states
show that PM2.5 levels for the past three
years are below the 140.5 mg/m3
threshold. Connecticut and
Massachusetts certified in their
infrastructure submittals that they
expect to be classified as Priority III
regions and, therefore, emergency
episode plans for PM2.5 are not required.
Maine and New Hampshire submitted
letters to EPA, dated June 13, 2012, and
July 3, 2012, respectively, certifying that
they expect to be classified as Priority
III regions. Therefore, all four states
have met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards.
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.
Infrastructure submittals for
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
3 See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, dated September
25, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43029
New Hampshire for both the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 standards certify that SIPs
for each state may be revised should
EPA find that a plan is substantially
inadequate to attain a standard or to
comply with any additional
requirements under the CAA. Therefore,
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire have met the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H).
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
Official, Public Notification, PSD, and
Visibility Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) 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.
Section 127 requires that the state notify
the public of any NAAQS exceedences,
advise the public of health hazards
associated with such pollution, and
include measures to enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken
to prevent exceedances.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires
states to meet applicable requirements
of Part C related to prevention of
significant deterioration and visibility
protection. EPA interprets this section
110 provision on visibility as not being
‘‘triggered’’ by a new NAAQS because
the visibility requirements in part C are
not changed by a new NAAQS.
Consultation With Government Officials
EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals
from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for
consultation with government officials.
Public Notification
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire are all state
partners participating in EPA’s
AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43030
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Alert programs. (See www.airnow.gov.)
We are proposing to approve the
infrastructure submittals for
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J) for public notification.
PSD
Regarding the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) that the infrastructure
submittals meet the applicable
requirements of part C of title I of the
CAA, EPA evaluated this requirement in
the context of section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to permitting (see discussion
under (C) (program for enforcement of
control measures)).
The Connecticut PSD program is
established in RCSA section 22a–174–3a
(k). This PSD program was approved
into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 FR
26933). Connecticut has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to
Connecticut’s PSD program on May 10,
2011, to reflect changes in the federal
PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (76 FR 26933,
May 10, 2011). This PSD program takes
advantage of the Tailoring Rule
thresholds for PSD applicability.
However, as discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures), Connecticut’s EPA-approved
PSD program does not yet meet
requirements of the two major source
PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16,
2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20,
2010). The State has, however,
committed to address this issue.
Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the state’s 110(a)
submittals for the portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
The Maine PSD program is
established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for
minor sources) and 140 (licensing for
major sources). Maine implements its
PSD program requirements under CMR
Chapter 115. This PSD program was
approved into the SIP on February 14,
1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority
to issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. However,
as discussed under (C) (program for
enforcement of control measures),
Maine has adopted revisions to its PSD
permitting program to address GHG
emissions, but has not yet submitted
these rules to EPA. In addition, Maine
has not completed rulemaking to meet
requirements of the two PM2.5 PSD rules
(73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR
64864, October 20, 2010) discussed
above, nor of the Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule. However, Maine
is making progress and, on June 13,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt and submit the
necessary regulation revisions to EPA by
a date that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore,
we are proposing to conditionally
approve the state’s 110(a) submittals for
the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) that
relates to PSD.
Massachusetts is currently subject to
a PSD FIP, as discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures). The approvability of a state’s
PSD program in its entirety is essential
to the approvability of the infrastructure
SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J).
Until the state provides such a program,
the Massachusetts infrastructure SIP is
not approvable with respect to section
110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, we propose to
disapprove Massachusetts’
infrastructure SIP with respect to the
PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J).
However, as noted above, this
disapproval does not impose any
sanctions or new FIP obligations.
New Hampshire’s PSD provisions for
air-quality permits are established in
Env-A 619. The most recent version of
the state’s Statewide Permit System
(Env-A 600) was approved into the New
Hampshire SIP on February 6, 2012 (77
FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority
to issue PSD permits and enforce them
under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New
Hampshire’s PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program
related to the permitting of greenhouse
gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6,
2012). This PSD program takes
advantage of the Tailoring Rule
thresholds for PSD applicability by
relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing
Rule. However, as discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control
measures), New Hampshire’s EPAapproved PSD program does not yet
meet requirements of the two major
source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October
20, 2010), or implement the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS itself. The State has, however,
committed to address these issues.
Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the state’s 110(a)
submittals for the portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
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 CAA.
In the event of the establishment of a
new NAAQS, however, the visibility
and regional haze program requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility
obligation triggered under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective.
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. The infrastructure
submittals for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
reference regulations that have
provisions for performing air-quality
modeling, including modeling for
attainment plans, permits, and
redesignation requests. The specific
rules are referenced in the TSD for each
state.
EPA has reviewed the laws and
regulations that been approved into the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states
infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(K).
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 time as the SIP fee
requirement is superseded by EPA’s
approval of the State’s Title V operating
permit program.
EPA’s full approval of Title V
programs for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
became effective on May 31, 2002 (CT),
December 17, 2001 (ME), November 27,
2001 (MA), and November 23, 2001
(NH). Before EPA can grant full
approval, a state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees. Each of
the four states’ title V programs
included a demonstration that the state
will collect a fee from title V sources
above the presumptive minimum in
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i).
The states collect sufficient fees to
administer their title V permit programs.
Therefore, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire all
meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards.
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
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
EPA reviewed the laws and
regulations that been approved into the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire SIPs, and proposes to
find that all four states’ 110(a)
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standards meet the requirements for
section 110(a)(2)(M).
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
submittals from all four states as fully
meeting the infrastructure requirements
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement
program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation), (J) (public notification),
(K), (L), and (M).
EPA also is proposing to approve the
submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two
prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
These two prongs are (1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any
other state with respect to any such
national primary or secondary NAAQS,
and (2) interfere with maintenance by
any other state with respect to the same
NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve the submittals from Maine
for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference
with visibility protection, and the
submittals from New Hampshire for
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the submittals from all four
states for the following 110(a)(2)
elements and sub-elements: (A) and E(ii)
(state boards and conflict of interest
provisions). We are proposing to
conditionally approve the submittals
from three states (Connecticut, Maine,
and New Hampshire) for section
110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) as they relate to the states’ PSD
programs. We are also proposing to
conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing
to disapprove the state’s submittals for
section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C),
prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J) as they relate
to the state’s PSD program, as well as
(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
However, this disapproval will not
trigger any sanctions or additional FIP
obligation.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this proposal or
on other relevant matters. These
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act,
EPA may conditionally approve a plan
based on a commitment from a State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by
a date certain, but not later than one
year from the date of approval. If EPA
conditionally approves the commitment
in a final rulemaking action, the State
must meet its commitment to complete
requirements of each section 110(a)(2)
element listed above. If Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts or New
Hampshire fails to do so for any section
110(a)(2) element, our conditional
approval of that element will, by
operation of law, become a disapproval
for the applicable State or States one
year from the date of final approval.
EPA will notify the State or States by
letter that this action has occurred. At
that time, this commitment will no
longer be a part of the approved SIP for
the applicable State or States. EPA
subsequently will publish a document
in the Federal Register notifying the
public that the conditional approval
automatically converted to a
disapproval. If Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire
meet their commitments within the
applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain a part
of the SIP or SIPs until EPA takes final
action approving or disapproving the
element in question. If EPA disapproves
a State’s new submittal, the
conditionally approved section 110(a)(2)
element will also be disapproved at that
time. If EPA approves the submittal, the
section 110(a)(2) element will be fully
approved in its entirety and replace the
conditionally approved 110(a)(2)
element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on
information received before EPA takes
final action on this proposal, EPA
determines that it cannot issue a final
conditional approval for one or more
elements for which EPA has proposed a
conditional approval, then EPA will
instead issue a disapproval for such
elements.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43031
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,
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
43032
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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: July 16, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
[FR Doc. 2012–17902 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0081; FRL–9702–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Mississippi:
New Source Review-Prevention of
Significant Deterioration; Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the Mississippi State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) through
the Division of Air Pollution Control to
EPA on May 12, 2011. The SIP revision
modifies Mississippi’s New Source
Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. The May
12, 2011, SIP revision incorporates by
reference the federal NSR PSD
requirements for the fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) as amended
in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule (hereafter referred
to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) and the
2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant
Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule
(hereafter referred to the ‘‘PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule’’) into the
Mississippi SIP. EPA is proposing to
approve portions of Mississippi’s SIP
revision because the Agency has
preliminarily determined that the
provisions proposed for approval are
consistent with section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA
regulations regarding NSR permitting.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0081 by one of the following
methods:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 Jul 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0081,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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 federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0081.’’ EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
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
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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 federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information regarding the Mississippi
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Bradley’s telephone number is (404)
562–9352; email address:
bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For
information regarding NSR, contact Ms.
Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at
the same address above. Ms. Adams’
telephone number is (404) 562–9241;
email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov.
For information regarding the PM2.5
NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey,
Regulatory Development Section, at the
same address above. Mr. Huey’s
telephone number is (404) 562–9104;
email address: huey.joel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
III. What are the NSR implementation
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Mississippi’s
SIP revision?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On May 12, 2011, MDEQ submitted a
SIP revision to EPA for approval into
the Mississippi SIP to incorporate by
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43023-43032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (CT); EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 (ME); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 (MA); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-
0324 (NH); A-1-FRL-9704-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs
for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submittals from
the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We
are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of these
submittals, as well as disapprove a few elements of Massachusetts'
submittals. The submittals outline how each state's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the requirements of section 110(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) 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 August 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our proposed action
for Connecticut,\1\ EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 for
comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2009-
0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining to our proposed
action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for New
Hampshire by one of the following methods:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For each State, the first docket number refers to the docket
for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal and the
second docket number refers to the docket for the 2006
PM2.5 infrastructure submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317; EPA-
R01-OAR-2011-0321; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322; EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0459; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323; EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460; or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324,'' 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-2011-0317 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0322 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine,
EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining
to our proposed action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action
for New Hampshire. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at 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
www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email 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
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is
[[Page 43024]]
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 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.
In addition, copies of the state submittals 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 Energy and
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; Division of
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources Division,
Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95,
Concord, NH 03302-0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. 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?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing action on infrastructure SIPs submitted by the
States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA guidance \2\ for addressing the SIP
infrastructure elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2),
there are fourteen section 110(a)(2) components that must be included
in the SIPs that the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
These fourteen section 110(a)(2) components are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated October 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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,
Prevention of significant deterioriation (PSD), and Visibility
protection.
(K) Air quality modeling/Data.
(L) Permitting fees.
(M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and
(M).
EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection,
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A)
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's
submittals for section110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), which
relates to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Massachusetts' 110(a)
submissions do not meet these PSD requirements, the state is already
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c). Furthermore, the
state will not be subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this
disapproval.
II. What is the background for this action?
On July 18, 1997, EPA published new NAAQS for particulate matter
(PM) (62 FR 38652). This included a new annual and a new 24-hour NAAQS
for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted PM2.5). The annual
PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2.5
standard was set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
Thus, states were required to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000.
However, intervening litigation over the 1997 PM2.5 (and
1997 8-hour ozone) NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed, and
many states did not provide the required ``infrastructure'' SIP
submissions for these newly promulgated NAAQS.
On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 (and
8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice, which required EPA
to complete a Federal Register notice
[[Page 43025]]
announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
by October 5, 2008.
On October 17, 2006, EPA published revised standards for PM (71 FR
61144). For PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 [micro]g/m\3\
was retained, and the 24-hour standard was revised to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
For PM10, the annual standard was revoked, and the 24-hour
standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) was retained. As required by section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) (``infrastructure'') submittals were
due within three years of promulgation of the revised 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (i.e., by September 21, 2009).
For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA
on September 4, 2008; September 10, 2008; April 4, 2008; and April 3,
2008, respectively. On October 22, 2008, EPA published findings
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the
1997 PM2.5 standards (73 FR 62902). In the October 2008
action, we found that Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire had made
complete submissions. Massachusetts received a ``finding of failure to
submit'' a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) pertaining to
the Part C PSD permit program. However, this requirement has already
been addressed by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in
place, and therefore, the finding-of-failure action did not trigger any
additional FIP obligations.
For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA
on September 18, 2009; July 27, 2009; September 21, 2009; and September
18, 2009, respectively. On September 8, 2011, EPA published findings
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the
2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 55577). None of these four
states received a finding for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to fully approve most elements of the 110(a)
submittals from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
We are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of
these submittals, as well as proposing disapproval of a few elements of
Massachusetts' submittals. Elements for which we are proposing
approval, conditional approval, and disapproval are listed in section I
and IV of this notice.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
EPA has reviewed the submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards listed above and has determined that most,
but not all, of each state's SIPs meet the section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements of the CAA and are consistent with the
relevant EPA guidance. Each state's submittals and EPA's evaluation of
those submittals are detailed in the following technical support
documents (TSDs). These TSDs (one per state) are available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov: Docket numbers EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (Connecticut), EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 and EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0322 (Maine), EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323
(Massachusetts), and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324
(New Hampshire).
In their submittals, each state references items in their state
laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that address the elements detailed
in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically, Connecticut references
the Connecticut Air Quality SIP, the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS)
and the Regulations of the Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA); Maine
references the Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of Maine Regulations
(CMR) and the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA); Massachusetts
references the Massachusetts Air Quality SIP, the Massachusetts General
Laws (MGL) and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR); and New
Hampshire references the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the New
Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) as well as the New Hampshire
Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and New Hampshire
Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq.
The discussion below summarizes how each state meets each relevant
CAA infrastructure requirement. As noted above, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire provided infrastructure submittals for
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the
demonstrations submitted by each State for how it is meeting many of
the section 110(a)(2) elements are substantively identical for both of
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the
following evaluation of each element pertains to both standards. For
more information, please refer to the TSDs referenced 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. The rules approved in the EPA-
approved SIPs for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
apply a substantial level of control on PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors.
In January 2011, Connecticut revised Section 22a-174-3a. However,
to be sure that references to NAAQS in Section 22a-174 incorporate by
reference the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Connecticut
submitted a letter to EPA, dated July 11, 2012, committing to provide a
statement of legal authority or to take any necessary actions to meet
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year
from conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(A).
Maine's Ambient Air Quality Standards in Chapter 110 currently do
not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) has recently proposed
revisions to Chapter 110 to address the more recent NAAQS. On June 30,
2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit
the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date that is no later
than one year from conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to conditionally
approve Maine's 110(a) submissions for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(A).
Regarding Massachusetts, the current SIP-approved 310 CMR 6.00
(Ambient Air Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Massachusetts has submitted a letter to EPA on
July 12, 2012, committing to take action to meet requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year from conditional
approval of Massachusetts' PM2.5 infrastructure submissions.
Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve Massachusetts'
110(a) submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
For New Hampshire, the current SIP-approved Env-A 300 (Ambient Air
Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. However,
[[Page 43026]]
in March 2012, New Hampshire proposed the necessary revisions to Env-A
300, and has submitted a letter dated June 29, 2012, committing to
adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of New
Hampshire's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. We propose to
conditionally approve New Hampshire's 110(a) submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
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, Massachusetts
and New Hampshire have all established and currently 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. We conclude that all four states' infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(B).
C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to have a plan that includes a
program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the
regulation of modification and construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS
are achieved, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment New
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
Recent PM2.5 PSD rules that require updates to state
regulations and subsequent submittal to EPA for approval include
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) and ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). States were also
required to update their regulations to meet PSD rules related to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are the ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule''
(75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), as modified by the ``Limitation of
Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans'' or ``Narrowing Rule'' (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010). The
effect of EPA narrowing its approval in this manner is that the
provisions of previously approved SIPs that apply PSD to increases in
GHG emissions from sources that emit GHGs below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds have the status of having been submitted by the state, but
not yet acted upon by EPA.
In this action, we are not evaluating nonattainment-related
provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D in
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS because these submittals are required beyond the
date (3 years from NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure
submittals are required.
The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emission (76 FR 26933). This PSD program takes advantage of the
Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability.
New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule.
For Connecticut and New Hampshire, EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the state 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS do not meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C)
which relate to the state's need to have a federally enforceable PSD
program that meets requirements of the two major source
PM2.5 PSD rules, ``Implementation of the New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), and ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010). However, Connecticut and New Hampshire are making
progress. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted a letter to EPA
committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to
EPA by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. On June 28,
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and
submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date no later
than one year from conditional approval of New Hampshire's
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to
conditionally approve Connecticut's and New Hampshire's 110(a)
submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) as it relates to
the states' need to have a PSD program that meets all federal
requirements. As discussed below, for these states, we are also
proposing to conditionally approve related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. Maine has adopted revisions to
its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but has not yet
submitted these rules to EPA.
For Maine, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the state
110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS do not
meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the state's
need to have a federally enforceable PSD program that meets
requirements of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules listed
above (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). In
addition, Maine's current PSD regulations do not properly account for
NOX as a precursor to ozone as required by the Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). However, ME DEP
is in the process of adopting rules to meet its obligations for PSD
under the
[[Page 43027]]
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, and, on June 13, 2012, Maine
submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit regulation
revisions to EPA to meet requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of the state's
PM2.5 110(a) submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Maine's 110(a) submittals with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed
below, we are also proposing to conditionally approve related elements
(D)(i)(II) and (J).
Massachusetts does not have an approved PSD SIP, and has long been
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Between 1982 and 2003,
Massachusetts implemented that FIP through a delegation agreement.
Massachusetts rescinded the delegation agreement in 2003. However,
effective April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) full delegation
authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program (76 FR
31241). Because the state is subject to a PSD FIP, its infrastructure
submissions are not approvable with respect to this element. However,
the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of
this type of infrastructure SIP disapproval, for the reason that the
SIP deficiencies are neither with respect to a submittal that is
required under part D nor in response to a SIP call under section
110(k)(5) of the CAA. Moreover, the requirements for which the state is
subject to the FIP are already satisfied by the FIP, and so EPA has no
additional FIP obligations under section 110(c).
For these reasons, we conclude that Massachusetts' infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the enforcement
and minor NSR requirements, but not the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts'
110(a) submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Notwithstanding our conclusion that the
Massachusetts' 110(a) submissions do not meet the PSD requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C), the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions
as a result of this disapproval. As discussed below, we are also
proposing to disapprove related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
D. Interstate Transport
Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into two components,
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, EPA has subdivided
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into four ``prongs,'' two under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs
under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by
any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are (prong 3) interfere with measures required to
be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or
(prong 4) to protect visibility.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses interstate and international
pollution abatement, and requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
Connecticut
In this action for Connecticut, we are only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with PSD) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
As discussed above under (C) (program for enforcement of control
measures), Connecticut's PSD program does not yet meet requirements of
the most recent federal PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR
64864, October 20, 2010), but Connecticut has committed to revising its
PSD regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
Connecticut's 110(a) submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Connecticut's PSD regulations
provide for notice to most of the parties consistent with the
requirements in the EPA PSD program. There is, however, a flaw in
Connecticut's SIP-approved PSD program regarding notice to other
states. Compare CAA section 126 (a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv)
(requiring notice to, among others, ``any State * * * or Indian
Governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source
or modification'') with RCSA 22a-174-2a(b)(6) (specifically excluding
other states from the list of parties to receive copies of draft PSD
permits). Although there is no specific mandate in Connecticut's
regulations that affected states receive notice, Connecticut issues
extensive notice of its draft permits, and neighboring states
consistently get copied on those drafts. On January 12, 2012,
Connecticut proposed revisions to their permit program notification
requirements in 22a-174-2a(b)(5) and (6). On June 15, 2012, Connecticut
sent a letter to EPA committing to submit the adopted provision to EPA
by a date that is no later than one year from conditional approval of
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Also, the
State also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of
the Act. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve
Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine
In this action for Maine, we are addressing all four prongs of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). On June 30, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA
certifying that it is not contributing significantly to nonattainment
or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August 8,
2011) that shows that Maine does not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Maine's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine's SIP-approved
PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent federal
PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS or the Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule, but Maine has committed to revising its PSD
regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are proposing
to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in Maine's 110(a)
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding prong 4 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with
visibility protection), EPA proposes to approve Maine's 110(a)
submissions. Specifically, Maine submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA
on December 9, 2010, with supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011
and November 9, 2011. On April 24, 2012, EPA approved Maine's Regional
Haze SIP for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018 (77 FR
24385).
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Maine's currently approved SIP,
which EPA approved on February 14, 1996 (61 FR 5690), provides for
notice to various parties consistent with the requirements in the EPA
PSD program at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iv). (Maine has since revised its
notice regulation for PSD permits,
[[Page 43028]]
and since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are not
presently reviewing the revised regulation.) In its 110(a) submissions,
the state certified that it has no pending obligations under section
115 or 126(b) of the CAA. As noted in the June 2011 addendum to their
110(a) submittals, Maine notifies affected states regarding new source
and modifications under its Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emission License
Regulations. However, this regulation has not been approved into the
Maine SIP. On June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing
to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of Maine's
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve Maine's submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Massachusetts
In this action for Massachusetts, we are only addressing prong 3 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i.e., interference with PSD). As discussed under (C)
(program for enforcement of control measures), Massachusetts is
currently subject to a PSD FIP. A state's infrastructure SIP submittal
cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until
EPA has issued final approval of that state's PSD SIP or,
alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has
otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states'
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' 110(a)
submissions for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, this disapproval
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and
international pollution abatement, as noted above, Massachusetts is
subject to a PSD FIP. States relying on the federal PSD program
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(q), which provide for notification of
affected state and local air agencies, to satisfy this requirement have
programs that are considered technically deficient and not approvable.
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' submissions
for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, this disapproval
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
New Hampshire
In this action for New Hampshire, we are addressing prongs 1, 2 and
3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 3,
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA certifying that it is not
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) that shows that New
Hampshire does not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are proposing to approve
New Hampshire's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2 of
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New Hampshire's SIP-
approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent
federal PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, but New
Hampshire has committed to revising its PSD regulations to meet current
requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in New Hampshire's 110(a) submittals for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), New Hampshire is required to
give notice of draft PSD permits that meet the requirements in our
regulations. In the currently approved SIP, former Env-A 205.03
provides that New Hampshire specifically defers to 40 CFR Part 52 for
the process by which PSD permits are issued. Forty CFR Part 52
effectively incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124, which
include affected state notice. (See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) &
(x).) (New Hampshire has since revised its notice regulation for PSD
permits, Env-A 621.03-04, and it does not reference 40 CR Part 52.
However, since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are
not presently reviewing the revised regulation.) The State also has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve New Hampshire's submissions for
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
E. Adequate Resources
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
Congress added section 128 in the 1977 amendments as the result of
a conference agreement. Titled ``State boards,'' section 128 provides
in relevant part: (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7,
1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements
that:
(1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders
under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members who
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders
under [this Act], and (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have SIP-
approved regulations that provide adequate authority for each of the
states to carry out their SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Each of the four states receives sections
103 and 105 grant funds through their Performance Partnership Grants
along with required state-matching funds to provide funding necessary
to carry out their SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes to find
that Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have
sufficient resources to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Maine and New Hampshire
have state boards, Maine Board of Environmental Protection and New
Hampshire Air Resources Council, that approve permits or enforcement
orders under the CAA. Therefore, both states are subject to the
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1), as well as to the requirements of
section 128(a)(2). However, although both states have conflict-of-
interest provisions in their general statutes, they have not been
approved by EPA into either the Maine or New Hampshire SIP. These items
were not addressed in Maine and New Hampshire's original
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. In a letter dated June
29, 2012, New Hampshire submitted its statute addressing conflict of
interest for SIP approval. EPA has not yet acted on this submittal.
Also, in a letter dated June 13, 2012, Maine committed to submitting
the statutory provisions pertaining to conflict of
[[Page 43029]]
interest to EPA within one year of our final action on its
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the infrastructure submittals for both Maine and
New Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
Connecticut and Massachusetts do not have state boards that approve
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and
enforcement orders are approved by each state's Commissioner of
Environmental Protection. Thus, Connecticut and Massachusetts are not
subject to the requirements of subsection 128(a)(1). However, they are
subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2), but neither state
demonstrated in their infrastructure submittals that they have met
these requirements. Subsequently, on June 15, 2012, Connecticut
submitted a letter to EPA committing to address this issue by a date no
later than one year from conditional approval of Connecticut's
PM2.5 Infrastructure submittals. Massachusetts submitted a
similar commitment letter to EPA on July 12, 2012. Therefore, we are
proposing to conditionally approve Connecticut's and Massachusetts'
submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), none of the four states
has assigned responsibility for carrying out portions of the SIP to any
local government, agency, or other instrumentality. Therefore, the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire 110(a) submittals
meet the requirements for this element.
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. The infrastructure submittals for
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference specific
regulations that require sources to monitor emissions and submit
reports to EPA. The specific rules are referenced in the TSD for each
state.
EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states' infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(F).
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.
For PM2.5, EPA's guidance dated September 25, 2009 \3\
provides clarification that states that have air quality control
regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II by
the ``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes'' rules at 40 CFR
51.150 must develop emergency episode contingency plans. The guidance
recommends that until EPA establishes significant harm levels (SHL) for
PM2.5, states should establish their own SHL levels based on
EPA's February 12, 2007 issue paper on setting priority and emergency
action levels and also consider the recommended levels set forth in
Attachment B of the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be
required to develop emergency episode plans for any area that has
monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than
140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ since 2006. A state that has never exceeded this
level since 2006 is considered to be Priority III in accordance with
the guidance, may certify that it has appropriate general emergency
powers to address PM2.5 -related episodes, and is not
required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given
the existing monitored levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated September 25,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-quality monitors in all four states show that PM2.5
levels for the past three years are below the 140.5 [micro]g/m\3\
threshold. Connecticut and Massachusetts certified in their
infrastructure submittals that they expect to be classified as Priority
III regions and, therefore, emergency episode plans for
PM2.5 are not required. Maine and New Hampshire submitted
letters to EPA, dated June 13, 2012, and July 3, 2012, respectively,
certifying that they expect to be classified as Priority III regions.
Therefore, all four states have met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
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.
Infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and
New Hampshire for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards
certify that SIPs for each state may be revised should EPA find that a
plan is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply with
any additional requirements under the CAA. Therefore, Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have met the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(H).
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 Official, Public Notification, PSD, and
Visibility Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(J) 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. Section 127 requires that the state notify the public
of any NAAQS exceedences, advise the public of health hazards
associated with such pollution, and include measures to enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to meet applicable
requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant
deterioration and visibility protection. EPA interprets this section
110 provision on visibility as not being ``triggered'' by a new NAAQS
because the visibility requirements in part C are not changed by a new
NAAQS.
Consultation With Government Officials
EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals from Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials.
Public Notification
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire are all state
partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality
[[Page 43030]]
Alert programs. (See www.airnow.gov.) We are proposing to approve the
infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification.
PSD
Regarding the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the
infrastructure submittals meet the applicable requirements of part C of
title I of the CAA, EPA evaluated this requirement in the context of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting (see discussion under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures)).
The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emission (76 FR 26933, May 10, 2011). This PSD program takes advantage
of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability. However, as
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures),
Connecticut's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements
of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). The State has, however,
committed to address this issue. Therefore, we are proposing to
conditionally approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of
section 110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations)
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. However, as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine has adopted
revisions to its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but
has not yet submitted these rules to EPA. In addition, Maine has not
completed rulemaking to meet requirements of the two PM2.5
PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010)
discussed above, nor of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule. However,
Maine is making progress and, on June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a
letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation
revisions to EPA by a date that is no later than one year from
conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5 infrastructure
submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve the
state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) that
relates to PSD.
Massachusetts is currently subject to a PSD FIP, as discussed under
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures). The approvability of
a state's PSD program in its entirety is essential to the approvability
of the infrastructure SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Until
the state provides such a program, the Massachusetts infrastructure SIP
is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, we
propose to disapprove Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP with respect to
the PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J). However, as noted above, this
disapproval does not impose any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule. However, as
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New
Hampshire's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of
the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16,
2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010), or implement the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS itself. The State has, however, committed to
address these issues. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally
approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
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 CAA. 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 is no new visibility obligation triggered under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
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. The infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference regulations that have
provisions for performing air-quality modeling, including modeling for
attainment plans, permits, and redesignation requests. The specific
rules are referenced in the TSD for each state.
EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has
determined that all four states infrastructure submittals for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(K).
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
time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the
State's Title V operating permit program.
EPA's full approval of Title V programs for Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire became effective on May 31, 2002 (CT),
December 17, 2001 (ME), November 27, 2001 (MA), and November 23, 2001
(NH). Before EPA can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees. Each of the four states' title V
programs included a demonstration that the state will collect a fee
from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with
40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). The states collect sufficient fees to administer
their title V permit programs. Therefore, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire all meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
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
[[Page 43031]]
development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
EPA reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into the
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire SIPs, and proposes
to find that all four states' 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(M).
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and
(M).
EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection,
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A)
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's
submittals for section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), prong 3 of (D)(i),
and (J) as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii),
which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement.
However, this disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional
FIP obligation.
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.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from a State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date
of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final
rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to complete
requirements of each section 110(a)(2) element listed above. If
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts or New Hampshire fails to do so for
any section 110(a)(2) element, our conditional approval of that element
will, by operation of law, become a disapproval for the applicable
State or States one year from the date of final approval. EPA will
notify the State or States by letter that this action has occurred. At
that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved SIP
for the applicable State or States. EPA subsequently will publish a
document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the
conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire meet their
commitments within the applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain a part of the SIP or SIPs until EPA
takes final action approving or disapproving the element in question.
If EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally approved
section 110(a)(2) element will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the submittal, the section 110(a)(2) element will be fully
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved
110(a)(2) element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on information
received before EPA takes final action on this proposal, EPA determines
that it cannot issue a final conditional approval for one or more
elements for which EPA has proposed a conditional approval, then EPA
will instead issue a disapproval for such elements.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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,
[[Page 43032]]
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: July 16, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-17902 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
