Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards, 63228-63234 [2012-25300]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63228
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
on State, local, and tribal governments,
or on the private sector.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Numbers and Titles
40 CFR Part 52
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program number and title for
this rule is 64.109, Veterans
Compensation for Service-Connected
Disability.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. John
R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, approved this
document on October 4, 2012, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Radioactive
materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
Dated: October 10, 2012.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director of Regulation Policy and
Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 38 CFR part 3 that was
published at 76 FR 81834 on December
29, 2011, is adopted as a final rule with
the following change:
PART 3—ADJUDICATION
1. The authority citation for part 3,
subpart A continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless
otherwise noted.
2. In § 3.317, revise the section
heading to read as follows:
■
§ 3.317 Compensation for certain
disabilities occurring in Persian Gulf
veterans.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–25353 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am]
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
[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–9740–1]
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).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving most
elements of submittals from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire. We are also
conditionally approving certain
elements of these submittals, as well as
disapproving 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). These actions are being taken
under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets
for these actions under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0317 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0321 for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01–OAR–
2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0322 for Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009–
0459 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323
for Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR–
2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–
0324 for New Hampshire. All
documents in the dockets are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
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 through
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action 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. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
Under CAA section 110(a)(1), states
are required to submit plans called state
implementation plans (SIPs) that
provide for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each
NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, in turn,
specifically requires SIPs to contain
provisions adequate to prohibit
emissions activity within the state that
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
contributes significantly to
nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance in another state. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
On July 23, 2012, EPA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
for the States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
See 77 FR 43023. The NPR proposed
action on submittals from these four
states that outlined how each state’s SIP
meets the requirements of section 110(a)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
The States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submitted SIPs to meet infrastructure
requirements under section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
SIPs addressed the following section
110(a)(2) components:
(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.
(J) Consultation with government
officials, Public notification, Prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) and
Visibility protection.
(K) Air quality modeling/Data
(L) Permitting fees.
(M) Consultation/participation by
affected local entities.
EPA proposed 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 section 110(a)(2)
elements and sub-elements: (B), (C)
(enforcement program only), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J)
(public notification), (K), (L), and (M).
EPA also proposed 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. EPA proposed to determine
that their existing SIPs satisfy these
prongs because emissions from these
states do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 annual or the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
other state. See 77 FR 43207. In
addition, EPA proposed 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to
interstate and international pollution
abatement.
EPA proposed to conditionally
approve the submittals from all four
states for the following section 110(a)(2)
elements and sub-elements: (A) and
(E)(ii) (state boards and conflict of
interest provisions). We proposed 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 also proposed to
conditionally approve the submittals
from Connecticut and Maine for section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA proposed to
disapprove the state’s submittals for
section 110(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
Massachusetts’ section 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.
A detailed explanation of the
requirements for PM2.5 infrastructure
SIPs, as well as EPA’s analysis of the
submittals from Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire,
was provided in the NPR and is not
restated here.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on our
proposed action from an anonymous
commenter and from the Sierra Club.
The anonymous commenter noted that
EPA’s action on the four states’
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is a good move to
alleviate air pollution, thus reducing
poor air quality days. EPA agrees with
this commenter. The Sierra Club’s
comments focused on the states’ airquality standards and PSD programs,
and a recent judicial decision vacating
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR). The comments are provided in
the dockets for today’s final actions. A
summary of the comments and EPA’s
responses are provided below.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63229
Comment 1: The Sierra Club noted
that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits.
The Sierra Club argued that any
infrastructure SIP submissions
ultimately approved by EPA must
include emissions limitations on direct
PM2.5 emissions, PM precursors, and
condensable PM. It also asserted that the
state infrastructure SIP submissions
needed to impose specific PM2.5
emissions limitations on major sources
such as the Schiller and Merrimack
coal-fired power plants in New
Hampshire, the Mount Tom and Brayton
Point plants in Massachusetts, and the
Bridgeport plant in Connecticut.
Response 1: In this action, EPA is
conditionally approving the states’
PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(A) pending each state’s
timely submission (i.e., within one year
of conditional approval) of specific
enforceable measures to fulfill specific
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) as
explained in the proposal. We will
review each state’s submission as it is
received, and will propose to approve or
disapprove that submission based on
our evaluation of whether the
submission meets the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
relevant to infrastructure SIP
requirements. At that time, it will be
appropriate for commenters to raise any
questions regarding whether the
submission has met applicable
requirements.
Comment 2: The Sierra Club noted
that sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J)
require infrastructure submittals to
include, among other things, a SIPapproved PSD program that meets all
federal requirements. The Sierra Club
argued that any infrastructure SIP
submission approved by EPA must
include PM2.5 increments under the PSD
Program.
Response 2: In this action, EPA is
conditionally approving the
infrastructure SIPs submitted by
Connecticut, Maine, and New
Hampshire with respect to sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) pending each
state’s timely submission (i.e., within
one year of conditional approval) of
specific enforceable measures to fulfill
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D), and (J) as explained in the proposal.
EPA proposed conditional approval
consistent with EPA’s authority under
section 110(k)(4), and based upon a
commitment by each State to address
these deficiencies within one year. We
will review each state’s submission as it
is received, and will propose to approve
or disapprove that submission based on
our evaluation of whether the
submission meets the applicable
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63230
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C),
D(i)(II), and (J), relevant to infrastructure
SIP requirements. At that time, it will be
appropriate for commenters to raise any
questions regarding whether the
submission has met applicable
requirements. As described in section
110(k)(4), should the States fail to meet
their commitments to address these
deficiencies, a final conditional
approval for these elements would
become a disapproval. The Commenter
does not argue that this proposed action
is inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA.
However, EPA disagrees with
Commenter’s suggestion that EPA must
generally approve the PM2.5 increments
prior to fully approving sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Pursuant to the
2010 PSD for PM2.5 Rule (75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010) and CAA section
166(b), States were not required to
submit a revised SIP addressing the
PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012.
The Agency proposed action on
Connecticut, Maine, and New
Hampshire’s infrastructure SIPs in a
notice signed on July 16, 2012.2
Therefore, on the date that the proposed
rule was signed by the Agency, the
PM2.5 increments were not required to
be included in the States’ SIPs in order
for the States to meet the PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D), and (J) of the Act. However,
Connecticut, Maine, and New
Hampshire each submitted to EPA a
request for a conditional approval of
these infrastructure elements based, in
part, on its commitment to adopt the
PM2.5 increments into the State rules
and submit revisions including the
PM2.5 increments to EPA within one
year of EPA’s conditional approval.
Accordingly, although EPA would not
generally have been required to address
the PM2.5 increments prior to the
deadline for submission of such
revisions on July 20, 2012, because the
States requested conditional approval
contingent on their commitments to
address the increments, EPA’s proposed
conditional approval was also made
contingent on those commitments. EPA
will review the sufficiency of any future
submissions made by the States in order
to satisfy the conditional approvals
consistent with its commitments and in
accordance with the CAA.
Furthermore, we are disapproving the
Massachusetts submittals with respect
to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J).
Massachusetts does not have an
2 Although
the notice was published by the
Federal Register on July 23, 2012, the notice was
signed by the Regional Administrator on July 16,
2012, before the statutory deadline for submission
of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
approved PSD SIP, and has long been
subject to a FIP. Because the state is
subject to a PSD FIP, PM2.5 increments
are applied consistent with the federal
program. Although Massachusetts’
infrastructure submissions are not
approvable with respect to sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J), the state is not
subject to mandatory sanctions because
the SIP deficiencies are not associated
with a submittal required under part D
or in response to a SIP call. In addition,
because state requirements are satisfied
by the FIP, this disapproval action will
not trigger additional FIP obligations.
Comment 3: The Sierra Club noted
that on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
Court issued an opinion vacating the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
which is also known as the Transport
Rule and was promulgated by EPA in
2011 to address interstate pollution
issues. See EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir.
August 21, 2012). The Sierra Club
asserted that EPA can no longer approve
any submission in which compliance
with interstate transport (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or visibility (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) requirements are
based on the CSAPR.
Response 3: We discuss sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
separately.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): In this
action, EPA is approving infrastructure
SIP submissions for Maine and New
Hampshire with respect to both prongs
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (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 that NAAQS. The
CSAPR also addressed and quantified
certain states’ requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 76 FR
48208. Neither Maine nor New
Hampshire were subject to any
requirements under the CSAPR, see 76
FR 48208, 48236–45 (Aug. 8, 2011), and
neither state’s compliance with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
is based on CSAPR. As such, this action
does not rely on any requirements of the
CSAPR or emission reductions
associated with that rule to support its
conclusion that these two states have
met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA’s decision to approve the
infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New
Hampshire for this element is based on
our conclusion that the existing SIPs for
both states have adequate provisions to
satisfy the obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
these requirements with respect to the
1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. As explained in section III of
this notice, this conclusion is based on
air quality modeling originally
conducted to quantify each individual
state’s contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas
during the rulemaking process for the
CSAPR.
The recent D.C. Circuit opinion in the
CSAPR litigation, EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C.
Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our
conclusion that the existing SIPs for
Maine and New Hampshire adequately
address this requirement. Nothing in the
Homer City opinion disturbs or calls
into question that conclusion or the
validity of the air quality modeling on
which the conclusion is based. In
addition, nothing in that opinion
undermines our conclusion that Maine
and New Hampshire do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in another
state because emissions from neither
state contributes more than one percent
of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to
any downwind area with nonattainment
or maintenance problems.3
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): For New
Hampshire, we will take separate action
on PM2.5 infrastructure SIP visibility
requirements. Notably, we recently
approved the New Hampshire Regional
Haze SIP. See 77 FR 50602, August 22,
2012. However, we are not taking action
on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility
requirements for New Hampshire today.
For Maine, in this action, we are
approving Maine’s PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP as meeting the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This approval is based
on the fact that EPA has approved
Maine’s Regional Haze SIP for the first
planning period from 2008 through
2018 (77 FR 24385).
III. Final Action
EPA is approving PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP submittals from Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire 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 is also approving the submittals
from Maine and New Hampshire as
3 To the contrary, the Court looked favorably
upon EPA’s determination to exclude certain states
from the CSAPR based on the amount of the
upwind State’s contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance areas in downwind states. See EME
Homer City, slip op. at 34.
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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. EPA’s
decision to approve the infrastructure
SIPs for Maine and New Hampshire for
this element is based on our conclusion
that the existing SIPs for both states
have adequate provisions to satisfy the
obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address
these requirements with respect to the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
conclusion is based on air quality
modeling originally conducted to
quantify each individual state’s
contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas
during the rulemaking process for the
CSAPR. A technical support document
describing that modeling is available in
the dockets for the Maine and New
Hampshire portions of this rulemaking.
This air quality modeling demonstrates
that emissions from the states of Maine
and New Hampshire do not contribute
more than one percent of the NAAQS to
any downwind areas with
nonattainment and maintenance
problems with respect to the 1997 and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For this reason,
EPA concludes that these states do not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in another state.
In addition, EPA is approving the
submittals from Maine for the prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to
interference with visibility protection.
EPA is also approving the submittals
from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
related to interstate and international
pollution abatement.
EPA is conditionally approving the
submittals from all four states for the
following 110(a)(2) elements and subelements: (A) and (E)(ii) (state boards
and conflict of interest provisions). We
are conditionally approving the
submittals from three states
(Connecticut, Maine, and New
Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) subelements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they
relate to the states’ PSD programs. We
are also conditionally approving the
submittals from Connecticut and Maine
for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is
disapproving the state’s submittals for
section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the
state’s PSD program, as well as (D)(ii),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63231
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
either is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state or does not
alter the requirements of any state law
that may already apply in Indian
country. EPA notes that this approval
will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by December 17, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 27, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
63232
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart H—Connecticut
2. Section 52.379 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.379
Control strategy: PM2.5.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Approval—Submittal from the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 4, 2008, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This submittal is approved as
meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
(d) Conditional Approval—Submittal
from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 4, 2008, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). EPA is conditionally
approving Connecticut’s submittal with
respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C)
only as it related to the PSD program,
(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates
to the PSD program. This conditional
approval is contingent upon
Connecticut taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within
one year of conditional approval, as
committed to in letters from the state to
§ 52.1019 Identification of plan—
conditional approval.
EPA Region 1 dated June 15, 2012, and
July 11, 2012.
(e) Approval—Submittal from the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and
August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This submittal is approved as
meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
(f) Conditional Approval—Submittal
from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and
August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). EPA is conditionally
approving Connecticut’s submittal with
respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C)
only as it related to the PSD program,
(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates
to the PSD program. This conditional
approval is contingent upon
Connecticut taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within
one year of conditional approval, as
committed to in letters from the state to
EPA Region 1 dated June 15, 2012, and
July 11, 2012.
(a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP
submitted September 10, 2008, with a
supplement submitted on June 1, 2011,
is conditionally approved for Clean Air
Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C)
only as it relates to the PSD program,
(D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD
program, (D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as
it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon
Maine taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within
one year of conditional approval, as
committed to in letters from the state to
EPA Region 1 dated June 13, 2012, and
June 30, 2012.
(b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP
submitted July 27, 2009, with a
supplement submitted on June 1, 2011,
is conditionally approved for CAA
elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it
relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II)
only as it relates to the PSD program,
(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates
to the PSD program. This conditional
approval is contingent upon Maine
taking actions to meet requirements of
these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to
in letters from the state to EPA Region
1 dated June 13, 2012, and June 30,
2012.
Subpart U—Maine
§ 52.1020
3. Section 52.1019 is added to read as
follows:
*
■
4. In § 52.1020, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding two entries to
the end to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
MAINE NON REGULATORY
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
*
Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Name of non regulatory SIP provision
State submittal date/
effective date
*
Statewide ...................
*
*
*
9/10/2008; supple10/16/2012 [Insert
ment submitted 6/1/
Federal Register
2011.
page number where
the document begins].
Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide ...................
7/27/2009; supplement submitted 6/1/
2011.
EPA approved date 3
10/16/2012 [Insert
Federal Register
page number where
the document begins].
Explanations
*
*
This submittal is approved with respect to
the following CAA elements or portions
thereof: 110(a)(2) (B), (C) (enforcement
program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (visibility
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K),
(L), and (M).
This submittal is approved with respect to
the following CAA elements or portions
thereof: 110(a)(2) (B), (C) (enforcement
program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (visibility
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K),
(L), and (M).
3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart W—Massachusetts
5. Section 52.1131 is amended by
adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)
and (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1131
matter.
Control strategy: Particulate
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Approval—Submittal from the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April
4, 2008 to address the Clean Air Act
(CAA) infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal
satisfies requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
(c) Conditional Approval—Submittal
from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April
4, 2008, to address the Clean Air Act
(CAA) infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally
approved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A)
and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is
contingent upon Massachusetts taking
actions to meet requirements of these
elements within one year of conditional
approval, as committed to in a letter
from the state to EPA Region 1 dated
July 12, 2012.
(d) Disapproval—Submittal from the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April
4, 2008, to address the Clean Air Act
(CAA) infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal
does not satisfy requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program
only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only),
(D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only).
(e) Approval—Submittal from the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and
August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal satisfies
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program
only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
(f) Conditional Approval—Submittal
from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and
August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is conditionally approved for CAA
elements 110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This
conditional approval is contingent upon
Massachusetts taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within
one year of conditional approval, as
committed to in a letter from the state
to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012.
(g) Disapproval—Submittal from the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated
September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and
August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy
requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only),
(D)(i)(II) (PSD program only), (D)(ii), and
(J) (PSD program only).
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
6. Section 52.1519 is amended by
adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read
as follows:
■
63233
§ 52.1519 Identification of plan—
conditional approval.
(a) * * *
(3) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submitted on April 3,
2008, with a supplement submitted on
July 3, 2012, is conditionally approved
for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements
110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the
PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates
to the PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only
as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon
New Hampshire taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within
one year of conditional approval, as
committed to in a letter from the state
to EPA Region 1 dated June 29, 2012.
(4) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIP submitted on
September 18, 2009, with a supplement
submitted on July 3, 2012, is
conditionally approved for CAA
elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it
relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II)
only as it relates to the PSD program,
(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the
PSD program. This conditional approval
is contingent upon New Hampshire
taking actions to meet requirements of
these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to
in a letter from the state to EPA Region
1 dated June 29, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 52.1520 is amended to read
as follows:
In § 52.1520, the table in paragraph (e)
is amended by adding two entries to the
end to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
NEW HAMPSHIRE NON REGULATORY
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
*
Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Name of non regulatory SIP provision
State submittal date/
effective date
EPA approved
date 3
*
Statewide ...................
*
*
*
4/3/2008; supplement
10/16/2012 [Insert
submitted 7/3/2012.
Federal Register
page number where
the document begins].
Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide ...................
9/18/2009; supplement submitted 7/3/
2012.
10/16/2012 [Insert
Federal Register
page number where
the document begins].
Explanations
*
*
This submittal is approved with respect to
the following CAA elements or portions
thereof: 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement
program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and
public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
This submittal is approved with respect to
the following CAA elements or portions
thereof: 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement
program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and
public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
63234
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2012–25300 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015; FRL–9739–2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; North Carolina
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
approve in part and conditionally
approve in part portions of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions,
submitted by the State of North
Carolina, through the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC
DENR), Division of Air Quality (DAQ),
as demonstrating that the State meets
the SIP requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour 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 EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. North Carolina
certified in two separate submissions
that its SIP contains provisions that
ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in North
Carolina (hereafter referred to as
‘‘infrastructure submissions’’). With the
exception of elements 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(J), North Carolina’s
infrastructure submissions, provided to
EPA on April 1, 2008, and September
21, 2009, address all the required
infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is
conditionally approving these
requirements.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
This rule will be effective on
November 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2010–1015. All documents in the docket
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information 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 through
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:
Sean Lakeman, 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. This Action
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address
basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance for that new NAAQS. On
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA
promulgated a new annual PM2.5
NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 24, 2012, EPA
proposed to approve North Carolina’s
April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009,
infrastructure submissions for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
See 77 FR 43196. A summary of the
background for today’s final action is
provided below. See EPA’s July 24,
2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR
43196 for more detail.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS within three years following
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised
NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. The data
and analytical tools available at the time
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affect the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains. In
the case of the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements
required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection
with previous PM NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must
meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As
already mentioned, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements
such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed
to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. The requirements that are
the subject of this final rulemaking are
listed below1 and in EPA’s October 2,
2007, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ and
September 25, 2009, memorandum
entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.’’
1 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are
not governed by the three year submission deadline
of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating
necessary local nonattainment area controls are not
due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time
the nonattainment area plan requirements are due
pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1)
Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
extent that subsection refers to a permit program as
required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which
pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s final
rulemaking does not address infrastructure
elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C).
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63228-63234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25300]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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-9740-1]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving most elements of submittals from the States
of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We are also
conditionally approving certain elements of these submittals, as well
as disapproving 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). These actions are being
taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for
Connecticut,\1\ EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 for
Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for
Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 for
New Hampshire. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the documents relevant to this action 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. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
Under CAA section 110(a)(1), states are required to submit plans
called state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS. 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(1). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, in turn,
specifically requires SIPs to contain provisions adequate to prohibit
emissions activity within the state that
[[Page 63229]]
contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance in another state. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
On July 23, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire. See 77 FR 43023. The NPR proposed action on submittals from
these four states that outlined how each state's SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
The States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
submitted SIPs to meet infrastructure requirements under section
110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The SIPs
addressed the following section 110(a)(2) components:
(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.
(J) Consultation with government officials, Public notification,
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Visibility
protection.
(K) Air quality modeling/Data
(L) Permitting fees.
(M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
EPA proposed 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 section 110(a)(2) elements
and sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification),
(K), (L), and (M). EPA also proposed 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. EPA proposed to determine that their existing SIPs satisfy these
prongs because emissions from these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
1997 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state. See 77 FR 43207. In addition, EPA proposed 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
EPA proposed to conditionally approve the submittals from all four
states for the following section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements:
(A) and (E)(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We
proposed 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 also proposed to conditionally approve the submittals from
Connecticut and Maine for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA proposed to disapprove the state's
submittals for section 110(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 Massachusetts' section 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.
A detailed explanation of the requirements for PM2.5
infrastructure SIPs, as well as EPA's analysis of the submittals from
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, was provided in
the NPR and is not restated here.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on our proposed action from an anonymous
commenter and from the Sierra Club. The anonymous commenter noted that
EPA's action on the four states' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is a good move to alleviate air pollution,
thus reducing poor air quality days. EPA agrees with this commenter.
The Sierra Club's comments focused on the states' air-quality standards
and PSD programs, and a recent judicial decision vacating the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The comments are provided in the
dockets for today's final actions. A summary of the comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
Comment 1: The Sierra Club noted that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission limits. The Sierra Club argued
that any infrastructure SIP submissions ultimately approved by EPA must
include emissions limitations on direct PM2.5 emissions, PM
precursors, and condensable PM. It also asserted that the state
infrastructure SIP submissions needed to impose specific
PM2.5 emissions limitations on major sources such as the
Schiller and Merrimack coal-fired power plants in New Hampshire, the
Mount Tom and Brayton Point plants in Massachusetts, and the Bridgeport
plant in Connecticut.
Response 1: In this action, EPA is conditionally approving the
states' PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs with respect to section
110(a)(2)(A) pending each state's timely submission (i.e., within one
year of conditional approval) of specific enforceable measures to
fulfill specific requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) as explained in
the proposal. We will review each state's submission as it is received,
and will propose to approve or disapprove that submission based on our
evaluation of whether the submission meets the applicable requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A) relevant to infrastructure SIP requirements. At
that time, it will be appropriate for commenters to raise any questions
regarding whether the submission has met applicable requirements.
Comment 2: The Sierra Club noted that sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D),
and (J) require infrastructure submittals to include, among other
things, a SIP-approved PSD program that meets all federal requirements.
The Sierra Club argued that any infrastructure SIP submission approved
by EPA must include PM2.5 increments under the PSD Program.
Response 2: In this action, EPA is conditionally approving the
infrastructure SIPs submitted by Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire
with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) pending each
state's timely submission (i.e., within one year of conditional
approval) of specific enforceable measures to fulfill requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) as explained in the proposal. EPA
proposed conditional approval consistent with EPA's authority under
section 110(k)(4), and based upon a commitment by each State to address
these deficiencies within one year. We will review each state's
submission as it is received, and will propose to approve or disapprove
that submission based on our evaluation of whether the submission meets
the applicable
[[Page 63230]]
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J), relevant to
infrastructure SIP requirements. At that time, it will be appropriate
for commenters to raise any questions regarding whether the submission
has met applicable requirements. As described in section 110(k)(4),
should the States fail to meet their commitments to address these
deficiencies, a final conditional approval for these elements would
become a disapproval. The Commenter does not argue that this proposed
action is inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA.
However, EPA disagrees with Commenter's suggestion that EPA must
generally approve the PM2.5 increments prior to fully
approving sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Pursuant to the 2010 PSD
for PM2.5 Rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010) and CAA
section 166(b), States were not required to submit a revised SIP
addressing the PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012. The
Agency proposed action on Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire's
infrastructure SIPs in a notice signed on July 16, 2012.\2\ Therefore,
on the date that the proposed rule was signed by the Agency, the
PM2.5 increments were not required to be included in the
States' SIPs in order for the States to meet the PSD requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) of the Act. However, Connecticut,
Maine, and New Hampshire each submitted to EPA a request for a
conditional approval of these infrastructure elements based, in part,
on its commitment to adopt the PM2.5 increments into the
State rules and submit revisions including the PM2.5
increments to EPA within one year of EPA's conditional approval.
Accordingly, although EPA would not generally have been required to
address the PM2.5 increments prior to the deadline for
submission of such revisions on July 20, 2012, because the States
requested conditional approval contingent on their commitments to
address the increments, EPA's proposed conditional approval was also
made contingent on those commitments. EPA will review the sufficiency
of any future submissions made by the States in order to satisfy the
conditional approvals consistent with its commitments and in accordance
with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although the notice was published by the Federal Register on
July 23, 2012, the notice was signed by the Regional Administrator
on July 16, 2012, before the statutory deadline for submission of
the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we are disapproving the Massachusetts submittals with
respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Massachusetts does not
have an approved PSD SIP, and has long been subject to a FIP. Because
the state is subject to a PSD FIP, PM2.5 increments are
applied consistent with the federal program. Although Massachusetts'
infrastructure submissions are not approvable with respect to sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J), the state is not subject to mandatory
sanctions because the SIP deficiencies are not associated with a
submittal required under part D or in response to a SIP call. In
addition, because state requirements are satisfied by the FIP, this
disapproval action will not trigger additional FIP obligations.
Comment 3: The Sierra Club noted that on August 21, 2012, the D.C.
Circuit Court issued an opinion vacating the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which is also known as the Transport Rule and was
promulgated by EPA in 2011 to address interstate pollution issues. See
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. August
21, 2012). The Sierra Club asserted that EPA can no longer approve any
submission in which compliance with interstate transport (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or visibility (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
requirements are based on the CSAPR.
Response 3: We discuss sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) separately.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): In this action, EPA is approving
infrastructure SIP submissions for Maine and New Hampshire with respect
to both prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (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 that NAAQS. The CSAPR
also addressed and quantified certain states' requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 76 FR 48208. Neither Maine nor New
Hampshire were subject to any requirements under the CSAPR, see 76 FR
48208, 48236-45 (Aug. 8, 2011), and neither state's compliance with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on CSAPR. As such,
this action does not rely on any requirements of the CSAPR or emission
reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion that
these two states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's decision to approve the infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New
Hampshire for this element is based on our conclusion that the existing
SIPs for both states have adequate provisions to satisfy the obligation
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address these
requirements with respect to the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in section III of this notice,
this conclusion is based on air quality modeling originally conducted
to quantify each individual state's contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas during the rulemaking process for
the CSAPR.
The recent D.C. Circuit opinion in the CSAPR litigation, EME Homer
City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir., August 21, 2012), does
not alter our conclusion that the existing SIPs for Maine and New
Hampshire adequately address this requirement. Nothing in the Homer
City opinion disturbs or calls into question that conclusion or the
validity of the air quality modeling on which the conclusion is based.
In addition, nothing in that opinion undermines our conclusion that
Maine and New Hampshire do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state because
emissions from neither state contributes more than one percent of the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any downwind area with
nonattainment or maintenance problems.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To the contrary, the Court looked favorably upon EPA's
determination to exclude certain states from the CSAPR based on the
amount of the upwind State's contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance areas in downwind states. See EME Homer City, slip op.
at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): For New Hampshire, we will take
separate action on PM2.5 infrastructure SIP visibility
requirements. Notably, we recently approved the New Hampshire Regional
Haze SIP. See 77 FR 50602, August 22, 2012. However, we are not taking
action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements for New
Hampshire today.
For Maine, in this action, we are approving Maine's
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP as meeting the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This approval is based on
the fact that EPA has approved Maine's Regional Haze SIP for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018 (77 FR 24385).
III. Final Action
EPA is approving PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals
from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire 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 is also approving the submittals from Maine and New Hampshire
as
[[Page 63231]]
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. EPA's decision to approve
the infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New Hampshire for this element is
based on our conclusion that the existing SIPs for both states have
adequate provisions to satisfy the obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address these requirements with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This conclusion is
based on air quality modeling originally conducted to quantify each
individual state's contributions to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance areas during the rulemaking process for the CSAPR. A
technical support document describing that modeling is available in the
dockets for the Maine and New Hampshire portions of this rulemaking.
This air quality modeling demonstrates that emissions from the states
of Maine and New Hampshire do not contribute more than one percent of
the NAAQS to any downwind areas with nonattainment and maintenance
problems with respect to the 1997 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
For this reason, EPA concludes that these states do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
In addition, EPA is approving the submittals from Maine for the
prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with
visibility protection. EPA is also approving the submittals from New
Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and international
pollution abatement.
EPA is conditionally approving 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
conditionally approving 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 conditionally approving the submittals from Connecticut and Maine
for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
For Massachusetts, EPA is disapproving the state's submittals for
section 110(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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP either is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the
state or does not alter the requirements of any state law that may
already apply in Indian country. EPA notes that this approval will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 17, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 27, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
[[Page 63232]]
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart H--Connecticut
0
2. Section 52.379 is amended by adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.379 Control strategy: PM2.5.
* * * * *
(c) Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 4, 2008, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal is
approved as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
(d) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, dated September 4, 2008, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is
conditionally approving Connecticut's submittal with respect to CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it related to the PSD program,
(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Connecticut taking actions to
meet requirements of these elements within one year of conditional
approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1
dated June 15, 2012, and July 11, 2012.
(e) Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal is
approved as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).
(f) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, dated September 18, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 7, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is conditionally
approving Connecticut's submittal with respect to CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it related to the PSD program, (D)(ii),
(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Connecticut taking actions to
meet requirements of these elements within one year of conditional
approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1
dated June 15, 2012, and July 11, 2012.
Subpart U--Maine
0
3. Section 52.1019 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1019 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
(a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted September 10,
2008, with a supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, is conditionally
approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it
relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD
program, (D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD
program. This conditional approval is contingent upon Maine taking
actions to meet requirements of these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to in letters from the state to EPA
Region 1 dated June 13, 2012, and June 30, 2012.
(b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP submitted July 27, 2009,
with a supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, is conditionally approved
for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the PSD
program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(ii),
(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program. This
conditional approval is contingent upon Maine taking actions to meet
requirements of these elements within one year of conditional approval,
as committed to in letters from the state to EPA Region 1 dated June
13, 2012, and June 30, 2012.
0
4. In Sec. 52.1020, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
two entries to the end to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Maine Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of non regulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approved date
provision nonattainment date/effective \3\ Explanations
area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Submittal to meet Section Statewide........ 9/10/2008; 10/16/2012 This submittal is
110(a)(2) Infrastructure supplement [Insert Federal approved with respect
Requirements for the 1997 submitted 6/1/ Register page to the following CAA
PM2.5 NAAQS. 2011. number where the elements or portions
document begins]. thereof: 110(a)(2)
(B), (C) (enforcement
program only),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II)
(visibility only),
(E)(i), (E)(iii),
(F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and
public notification
only), (K), (L), and
(M).
Submittal to meet Section Statewide........ 7/27/2009; 10/16/2012 This submittal is
110(a)(2) Infrastructure supplement [Insert Federal approved with respect
Requirements for the 2006 submitted 6/1/ Register page to the following CAA
PM2.5 NAAQS. 2011. number where the elements or portions
document begins]. thereof: 110(a)(2)
(B), (C) (enforcement
program only),
(D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II)
(visibility only),
(E)(i), (E)(iii),
(F), (G), (H), (J)
(consultation and
public notification
only), (K), (L), and
(M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[[Page 63233]]
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
5. Section 52.1131 is amended by adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f) and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1131 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
* * * * *
(b) Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008 to address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal satisfies requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), (L),
and (M).
(c) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008, to address
the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally approved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is contingent upon
Massachusetts taking actions to meet requirements of these elements
within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a letter
from the state to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012.
(d) Disapproval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated April 4, 2008, to address the Clean Air
Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only),
(D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only).
(e) Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal satisfies requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification
only), (K), (L), and (M).
(f) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with
supplements submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to
address the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally approved for CAA elements
110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is contingent upon
Massachusetts taking actions to meet requirements of these elements
within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a letter
from the state to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012.
(g) Disapproval--Submittal from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, dated September 21, 2009, with supplements
submitted on January 13, 2011, and August 19, 2011, to address the
Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program
only), (D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only).
Subpart EE--New Hampshire
0
6. Section 52.1519 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.1519 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
(a) * * *
(3) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on April 3, 2008, with a supplement submitted on July 3,
2012, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements
110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II)
only as it relates to the PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only as it
relates to the PSD program. This conditional approval is contingent
upon New Hampshire taking actions to meet requirements of these
elements within one year of conditional approval, as committed to in a
letter from the state to EPA Region 1 dated June 29, 2012.
(4) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on September 18, 2009, with a supplement submitted on July 3,
2012, is conditionally approved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only
as it relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the
PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the PSD program.
This conditional approval is contingent upon New Hampshire taking
actions to meet requirements of these elements within one year of
conditional approval, as committed to in a letter from the state to EPA
Region 1 dated June 29, 2012.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 52.1520 is amended to read as follows:
In Sec. 52.1520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
two entries to the end to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
New Hampshire Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of non regulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approved date
provision nonattainment date/effective \ 3\ Explanations
area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Submittal to meet Section Statewide........ 4/3/2008; 10/16/2012 This submittal is
110(a)(2) Infrastructure supplement [Insert Federal approved with respect
Requirements for the 1997 submitted 7/3/ Register page to the following CAA
PM2.5 NAAQS. 2012. number where the elements or portions
document begins]. thereof:
110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program
only), (D)(i)(I),
(D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G),
(H), (J)
(consultation and
public notification
only), (K), (L), and
(M).
Submittal to meet Section Statewide........ 9/18/2009; 10/16/2012 This submittal is
110(a)(2) Infrastructure supplement [Insert Federal approved with respect
Requirements for the 2006 submitted 7/3/ Register page to the following CAA
PM2.5 NAAQS. 2012. number where the elements or portions
document begins]. thereof:
110(a)(2)(B), (C)
(enforcement program
only), (D)(i)(I),
(D)(ii), (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G),
(H), (J)
(consultation and
public notification
only), (K), (L), and
(M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[[Page 63234]]
[FR Doc. 2012-25300 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
