Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements, 54471-54483 [2015-22027]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 28, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015–22863 Filed 9–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0198; FRL–9933–38–
Region 1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions from Connecticut
regarding the infrastructure
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8-hr
ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and
2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to
convert conditional approvals for
several infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and for
the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5)
NAAQS to full approval under the CAA.
Furthermore, we are proposing to newly
conditionally approve elements of
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
Connecticut’s infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act
regarding prevention of significant
deterioration requirements to treat
nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone
and to establish a minor source baseline
date for PM2.5 emissions. Lastly, EPA is
proposing to approve three statutes
submitted by Connecticut in support of
their demonstration that the
infrastructure requirements of the CAA
have been met.
The infrastructure requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality
management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under
the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by the appropriate Docket ID
number as indicated in the instructions
section below, 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: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air
Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs
Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109–3912.
5. Hand Delivery: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air
Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109–3912. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID. EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0198.
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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54471
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 docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison Simcox, Environmental
Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air
Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05–
02), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts
02109–3912; (617) 918–1684;
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these State
Implementation Plan submissions?
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does
this rulemaking address?
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of
these SIP submissions?
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits
and Other Control Measures
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
54472
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring/Data System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures and for
Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP
measures
ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program for Major Sources
and Major Modifications
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction
Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
i. Sub-Element 1: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere
With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong
2)
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3)
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution
Abatement
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—
International Pollution Abatement
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source
Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP
Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area
Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with
Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With
Government Officials
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public notification
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality
Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/
Participation by Affected Local Entities
N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion into
the Connecticut SIP
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading,
Federal Register date, and page
number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you
to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part or section number.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested
changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate
your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the background of these
State Implementation Plan
submissions?
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions
does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses
submissions from the Connecticut
Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP).
The state submitted its infrastructure
SIP for each NAAQS on the following
dates: 2008 Pb—October 13, 2011; 2008
ozone—December 28, 2012; 2010 NO2—
January 2, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—May
30, 2013. This rulemaking also
addresses certain infrastructure SIP
elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.51
NAAQS for which EPA previously
issued a conditional approval. See 77
FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). The state
submitted these infrastructure SIPs on
September 4, 2008, and September 18,
2009, respectively. Lastly, this
rulemaking addresses one infrastructure
SIP element for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for which EPA previously
issued a conditional approval. See 76
FR 40248 (July 8, 2011). The state
submitted this infrastructure SIP on
December 28, 2007.
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
CAA, states are required to submit
infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their
SIPs provide for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These
submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2), or
1 PM
2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’
particles.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
certifications that their existing SIPs for
the NAAQS already meet those
requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory
requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007
Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA
issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo),
followed by the October 14, 2011,
‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP
Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently,
EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13,
2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions
referenced in this rulemaking pertain to
the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and to elements of
Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS which we previously
conditionally approved. See 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012). To the extent
that the PSD program is comprehensive
and non-NAAQS specific, a narrow
evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, will be
included in the appropriate sections.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting upon the SIP
submissions from Connecticut that
address the infrastructure requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, we
are proposing to convert conditional
approvals for several infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (see 76 FR 40248 (July 8, 2011))
and for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16,
2012)) to full approval, proposing
approval of three statutes submitted by
Connecticut that support the
infrastructure SIP submittals, and
proposing to conditionally approve
certain aspects of the infrastructure SIP
which pertain to the State’s PSD
program.
The requirement for states to make a
SIP submission of this type arises out of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Pursuant to these sections, each state
must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make
such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or
such shorter period as the Administrator
may prescribe) after the promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This
requirement is triggered by the
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS and is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any other action. Section
110(a)(2) includes the specific elements
that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP
submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
the term to distinguish this particular
type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the planning requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three
substantive areas that are not integral to
acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’
emissions) that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA’s policies addressing
such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ‘‘director’s
variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that
purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited
public process or without requiring
further approval by EPA, that may be
contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s
discretion’’); and, (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may
be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New
Source Review (NSR) Improvement
Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31,
2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June
13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of
these substantive areas separately. A
detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale for EPA’s approach to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed
rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the
scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR
27241 at 27242–27245 (May 13, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
III. What guidance is EPA using to
evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
non-binding guidance documents to
make recommendations for states’
development and EPA review of
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements. EPA guidance
applicable to these infrastructure SIP
submissions is embodied in several
documents. Specifically, attachment A
of the 2007 Memo (Required Section
110 SIP Elements) identifies the
statutory elements that states need to
submit in order to satisfy the
requirements for an infrastructure SIP
submission. The 2009 Memo provides
additional guidance for certain elements
regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2011 Memo provides guidance
specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly,
the 2013 Memo identifies and further
clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs
that are not NAAQS specific.
IV. What is the result of EPA’s review
of these SIP submissions?
Pursuant to section 110(a), and as
noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013
Memo, states must provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for public
hearing for all infrastructure SIP
submissions. CT DEEP held public
hearings for each infrastructure SIP on
the following dates: 2008 Pb—
September 20, 2011; 2008 ozone—
December 20, 2012; 2010 NO2—
December 20, 2012; and, 2010 SO2—
May 1, 2013. Connecticut received
comments from EPA on each of its
proposed infrastructure SIPs, and also
received comments from a U.S. Army
Regulatory Affairs Specialist on its
proposed ozone and NO2 infrastructure
SIPs, and from a consultant with Enhesa
in Washington, DC on its proposed SO2
infrastructure SIP. EPA is also soliciting
comment on our evaluation of the state’s
infrastructure SIP submissions in this
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Connecticut provided detailed synopses
of how various components of its SIP
meet each of the requirements in section
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as
applicable. The following review
evaluates the state’s submissions in light
of section 110(a)(2) requirements and
relevant EPA guidance. The review also
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54473
evaluates certain infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for which EPA previously
issued conditional approvals. See 76 FR
40248 (July 8, 2011) and 77 FR 63228
(October 16, 2012.)
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission
Limits and Other Control Measures
This section requires SIPs to include
enforceable emission limits and other
control measures, means or techniques,
schedules for compliance, and other
related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control
measures for attaining the standards as
being due when nonattainment
planning requirements are due.2 In the
context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is
not evaluating the existing SIP
provisions for this purpose. Instead,
EPA is only evaluating whether the
state’s SIP has basic structural
provisions for the implementation of the
NAAQS.
Connecticut Public Act No. 11–80
established the Connecticut Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection
(CT DEEP), and Connecticut General
Statutes (CGS) Section 22a–6(a)(1)
provides the Commissioner of CT DEEP
authority to adopt, amend or repeal
environmental standards, criteria and
regulations. It is under this general grant
of authority that the Commissioner has
adopted emissions standards and
control measures for a variety of sources
and pollutants. Connecticut also has
SIP-approved provisions for specific
pollutants. For example, CT DEEP has
adopted primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards for each of these
pollutants in Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a–
174–24 as follows: For SO2, Section
22a–174–24(d); for PM2.5, Section 22a–
174–24(f); for ozone, Section 22a–174–
24(i); for NO2, 22a–174–24(k); and for
lead, Section 22a–174–24(l). As noted in
EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s Section
22a–174–24, Ambient Air Quality
Standards, on June 24, 2015 (80 FR
36242), Connecticut’s standards are
consistent with the current federal
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that
Connecticut meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
In addition, we previously issued a
conditional approval for Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP submittal made for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
because portions of Connecticut’s
2 See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964,
67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
54474
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
section 22a–174–24, Ambient Air
Quality Standards were outdated. See
77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).
However, as noted in our June 24, 2014
action mentioned above, Connecticut
has revised their standards and they are
now consistent with the federal
NAAQS. In light of this, we propose to
convert the conditional approval for this
infrastructure requirement for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012)) to full
approval. As previously noted, EPA is
not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions or rules
related to SSM or director’s discretion
in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to include
provisions to provide for establishing
and operating ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing
ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to EPA upon
request. Each year, states submit annual
air monitoring network plans to EPA for
review and approval. EPA’s review of
these annual monitoring plans includes
our evaluation of whether the state: (i)
Monitors air quality at appropriate
locations throughout the state using
EPA-approved Federal Reference
Methods or Federal Equivalent Method
monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air
Quality System (AQS) in a timely
manner; and, (iii) provides EPA
Regional Offices with prior notification
of any planned changes to monitoring
sites or the network plan.
CT DEEP continues to operate a
monitoring network, and EPA approved
the state’s 2015 Annual Air Monitoring
Network Plan for PM2.5, Pb, ozone, NO2,
and SO2 on July 10, 2015. Furthermore,
CT DEEP populates AQS with air
quality monitoring data in a timely
manner, and provides EPA with prior
notification when considering a change
to its monitoring network or plan. EPA
proposes that CT DEEP has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for
Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources
States are required to include a
program providing for enforcement of
all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified
stationary sources to meet NSR
requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD,
while part D of the CAA (sections 171–
193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state’s
submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP
measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and,
(iii) permitting program for minor
sources and minor modifications. A
discussion of GHG permitting and the
‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 3 is included within
our evaluation of the PSD provisions of
Connecticut’s submittals.
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP
Measures
CT DEEP staffs and implements an
enforcement program pursuant to CGS
section 22a. Specifically, CGS section
22a–6 authorizes the Commissioner of
CT DEEP to inspect and investigate to
ascertain whether violations of any
statute, regulation, or permit may have
occurred and to impose civil penalties.
CGS section 22a–171 requires the
Commissioner to ‘‘adopt, amend, repeal,
and enforce regulations . . . and do any
other act necessary to enforce the
provisions of’’ CGS sections 22a–170
through 22a–206, which provide CT
DEEP with the authority to, among other
things, enforce its regulations, issue
orders to correct violations of
regulations or permits, impose state
administrative penalties, and seek
judicial relief. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the enforcement of
SIP measures requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program for
Major Sources and Major Modifications
Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permitting requirements apply to
new major sources or major
modifications made to major sources,
for pollutants where the area in which
3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking
for infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program
must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of
all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76
FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see
77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state
lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb,
NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors,
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or
the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be
considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS
that triggered the requirement to submit an
infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the source is located is in attainment
with, or unclassifiable with regard to,
the relevant NAAQS. CT DEEP’s EPAapproved PSD rules in RCSA sections
22a–174–1, 22a–174–2a, and 22a–174–
3a contain provisions that address the
majority of the applicable infrastructure
SIP requirements related to the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule
to Implement Certain Aspects of the
1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter,
and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule)
was published on November 29, 2005
(70 FR 71612). Among other
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule
obligated states to revise their PSD
programs to explicitly identify NOX as
a precursor to ozone (see 70 FR 71612
at 71679, 71699–71700 (November 29,
2005)). This requirement was codified
in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires that
states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the
rule, including provisions that would
treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a
precursor to ozone. These SIP revisions
were to have been submitted to EPA by
states by June 15, 2007. See 70 FR 71612
at 71683 (November 29, 2005).
Connecticut’s PSD rules do not
currently contain the provisions needed
to ensure that NOX be treated as a
precursor to ozone, and the State’s PSD
rules must be changed in the future to
meet this requirement. To correct this
deficiency, the CT DEEP has committed,
by letter dated August 5, 2015, to submit
for EPA approval into the SIP provisions
that meet the requirements at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1) and (b)(2) relating to the
requirement to treat NOX as a precursor
pollutant to ozone. Accordingly, as we
articulate further on in our discussion of
this sub-element, while the majority of
Connecticut’s submittals pertaining to
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are consistent with the federal
requirements, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
PSD regulations as to those specific
regulatory provisions that will need to
be amended by Connecticut in order to
treat NOX emissions as precursor
emissions to ozone formation.
On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864),
EPA issued a final rule entitled
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule
established several components for
making PSD permitting determinations
for PM2.5, including adding the required
elements for PM2.5 into a state’s existing
system of ‘‘increment analysis,’’ which
is the mechanism used in the PSD
permitting program to estimate
significant deterioration of ambient air
quality for a pollutant in relation to new
source construction or modification.
The maximum allowable increment
increases for different pollutants are
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40
CFR 52.21(c).
The 2010 NSR Rule described in the
preceding paragraph revised the existing
system for determining increment
consumption by establishing a new
‘‘major source baseline date’’ for PM2.5
of October 20, 2010, and by establishing
a trigger date for PM2.5 in relation to the
definition of ‘‘minor source baseline
date.’’ These revisions to the federal
PSD rules are codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c).
Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the
definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ to include
a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i).
States were required to revise their SIPs
consistent with these changes to the
federal regulations.
On October 9, 2012, Connecticut
submitted revisions to its PSD program
incorporating two of the four changes
addressed by the 2010 NSR Rule. The
two changes were 1) a revised definition
of ‘‘Major source baseline date’’ that
included a date for PM2.5 specifically;
and 2) the addition of the maximum
allowable increment for PM2.5. EPA
approved Connecticut’s October 9, 2012
SIP revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR
43960). Therefore, we propose to
convert to a full approval the earlier
conditional approval as it applies to
these two elements of the EPA’s 2010
rulemaking in the context of the
infrastructure requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012).
CT DEEP’s October 9, 2012 SIP
revision did not specifically address the
two other changes EPA made to the PSD
rules in 2010, and for the following
reasons EPA did not intend for those
two issues to be part of the conditional
approval described in our October 16,
2012 notice. One of those changes is the
requirement that a State’s definition of
‘‘minor source baseline date’’ be
amended to include a trigger date for
PM2.5 emissions (see EPA’s definition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
for ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)). Instead of using a
specific date, EPA’s definition for minor
source baseline date provides that the
minor source baseline date is triggered
by a state’s receipt of its first complete
PSD application. At the time CT DEEP
made its October 9, 2012 SIP revision,
it would not have been possible for the
State to have amended its regulation to
include a specific minor source baseline
date because no source had submitted a
complete PSD application for PM2.5.
This is also true for CT DEEP’s other
infrastructure SIPs addressed in this
action. This is so because CT DEEP’s
PSD regulations are structured in a way
that uses actual specific dates based on
submission of a first complete PSD
application for a particular pollutant.
(The approach contained in EPA’s
regulations is somewhat different in the
sense that instead of using actual
specific dates, EPA articulates the
concept of a first complete PSD
application as the minor source baseline
date trigger.) EPA understands that CT
DEEP did not receive a complete PSD
application for a source subject to PSD
for PM2.5 emissions until September 24,
2014. Consequently, the State could not
have included an actual date in its
definition of ‘‘minor source baseline
date’’ within its October 9, 2012 SIP
revision.
Although Connecticut could not
establish an actual date for PM2.5 in its
definition of ‘‘minor source baseline
date,’’ at the time of its October 9, 2012
SIP revision, Connecticut is now able to
revise this definition to include a
specific date that is consistent with
EPA’s definition because a complete
PSD application has been submitted to
CT DEEP for a major new source of
PM2.5 emissions. Accordingly, the CT
DEEP has committed by letter dated
August 5, 2015, to submit for EPA
approval into the SIP a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 that meets the
requirements at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c). Consequently, we
propose to conditionally approve
Connecticut’s submittals for this subelement pertaining to section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Consistent with our reasoning
above, we are also proposing to newly
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
submittals for this sub-element with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
The fourth change to the PSD
regulations that EPA made in 2010 was
to add ‘‘equal or greater than 0.3 mg/m3
(annual average) for PM2.5’’ to the
definition of ‘‘baseline area.’’ This
requires states to determine whether
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54475
another baseline area, other than the
baseline area where the PSD subject
source is locating, needs to be analyzed
based on the air quality impact
predicted from the new PSD source. The
impact on another baseline area is
limited to any impacts above the
defined thresholds contained within the
definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ on another
area within Connecticut. In other words,
under EPA’s PSD requirements the
baseline area evaluation does not
include within it analysis of a new
source’s impacts in another state.
Connecticut’s current SIP and State
PSD rules do not contain a definition of
‘‘baseline area.’’ EPA has confirmed in
communications with CT DEEP that it
treats the entire state as a single baseline
area, which obviates the need to have a
definition for this term. EPA agrees that
the language EPA added to the federal
definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ in the
federal PSD requirements is not
necessary in Connecticut because there
is no other baseline area within the
State.
Moreover, EPA has concluded that the
lack of such a specific definition of
‘‘baseline area’’ does not in theory, and
has not in fact over many years,
preclude CT DEEP from ensuring that
emissions from a major new source or
major modification will not consume
more increment than would be available
or allowable even had CT DEEP adopted
a definition that was exactly the same as
EPA’s definition of baseline area. In
other words, CT DEEP has a regulatory
structure that it has used over many
years to ensure that increment
consumption arising from new
construction comports as a practical
matter with federal PSD requirements
and is functionally equivalent. EPA last
approved CT DEEP’s increment
calculation methodology on February
27, 2003 (68 FR 9009).
Based on actual emissions data from
the most recent National Emission
Inventory emissions data base (2011),
there are only 15 existing major
stationary sources in Connecticut, all of
which are major due to NOX emissions.
None of these sources emitted 100 tons
per year or more of PM10, PM2.5, or VOC
emissions. Further, 10 of these NOX
sources are the only such source in their
city or town, two are located in
Middletown, and three are located in
Bridgeport. Typically, the determination
of whether a new or modified source’s
emissions could potentially consume
more than the available increment in an
area depends on whether other
significant sources of air emissions
impact the same area. The facts
described above show how unlikely this
would be, even if theoretically possible.
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54476
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EPA has determined that the differences
between Connecticut’s mechanism for
determining if emissions from the new
or modified source will exceed the
available increment and EPA’s
mechanism is negligible, if different at
all, in terms of emissions. Connecticut’s
and EPAs mechanisms both take into
account, in a manner sufficiently
protective of air quality, consumption of
available increment from nearby
sources.
In addition to the above, once CT
DEEP addresses the conditional
approval discussed earlier regarding the
State’s definition of ‘‘minor source
baseline date,’’ the impact of
Connecticut’s approved mechanism for
determining available increment most
likely will result in a more conservative
or protective approach than EPA’s
increment structure. This is because all
growth within Connecticut after
September 24, 2014, that would result
in any increase in PM2.5 emissions will
be consuming the available increment
for a new or modified source required
to obtain a PSD permit for PM2.5
emissions anywhere within the State.
Under EPA’s mechanism for
determining available increment,
because there has, to date, only been a
PSD application submitted for a new
source that constructed in New Haven
County, changes to the available
increment would only be evaluated
from sources in New Haven County. Put
differently, EPA’s mechanism would
allow some of the future growth in PM2.5
emissions outside of New Haven County
to be considered part of the baseline
concentration and, therefore, would not
consume increment elsewhere in
Connecticut.
On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA
issued the Final Rule on the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008
NSR Rule finalized several new
requirements for SIPs to address sources
that directly emit PM2.5 emissions and
sources that emit other pollutants that
contribute to secondary PM2.5
formation. One of these requirements is
for NSR permits to address pollutants
responsible for the secondary formation
of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursor
pollutants. In the 2008 rule, EPA
identified precursors to PM2.5 for the
PSD program to be SO2 and NOX (unless
the state demonstrates to the
Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA
demonstrates that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to
that area’s ambient PM2.5
concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule
also specifies that volatile organic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
compounds (VOCs) are not considered
to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD
program unless the state demonstrates
to the Administrator’s satisfaction or
EPA demonstrates that emissions of
VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area’s ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX,
and VOCs as they pertain to secondary
PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying
pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,
the 2008 NSR Rule also required states
to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’
as it relates to a net emissions increase
or the potential of a source to emit
pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(b)(23)(i)
define ‘‘significant’’ for PM2.5 to mean
the following emissions rates: 10 tons
per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of
SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state
demonstrates to the Administrator’s
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a
significant contributor to that area’s
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The
deadline for states to submit SIP
revisions to their PSD programs
incorporating these changes was May
16, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28341
(May 16, 2008).4
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require
states to immediately account for gases
that could condense to form particulate
matter, known as ‘‘condensables’’, in
4 EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the
2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s
requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I,
Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements
for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250).
As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to
nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the
portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements
for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be
affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does
not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in
order to comply with the court’s decision.
Accordingly, the EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP as to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with
respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the
2008 implementation rule does not conflict with the
court’s opinion.
The Court’s decision with respect to the
nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by
the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect
EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action.
EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment
area requirements, including requirements
associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years
after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead,
these elements are typically referred to as
nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements,
which would be due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following designations
for some elements.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in NSR
permits. Instead, EPA determined that
states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing
emissions limitations for PM2.5 and
PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321
at 28334. This requirement is codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and
52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states’
PSD programs incorporating the
inclusion of condensables were required
be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011
(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
On October 9, 2012, Connecticut
submitted revisions to its PSD program
incorporating the necessary changes
required by the 2008 NSR Rule with
respect to provisions that explicitly
identify precursors to PM2.5. EPA
approved Connecticut’s October 9, 2012
SIP revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR
43960).
Connecticut’s SIP-approved PSD
program does not contain a specific
provision that explicitly contains the
language in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)
addressing the inclusion of the gaseous,
condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10
for the purpose of PSD applicability or
establishing permit emissions limits
conditions.
However, by letter submitted to EPA
Region 1 and dated August 5, 2015
Connecticut explained that its major
stationary source preconstruction
permitting program does, in fact, require
inclusion of the condensable portion of
PM10 and PM2.5 for PSD applicable
purposes and establishing permit
emissions limits and conditions,
because Section 22a–174–1 of the
State’s regulations defines those two
pollutants in terms of an amount
measured at ambient air conditions.
Consequently, because the gaseous,
condensable portions of PM10 and PM2.5
are, in fact, condensed at ambient air
conditions, Connecticut’s requirements
meet the corresponding federal
requirements.
Therefore, we are proposing that
Connecticut has met this set of
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the
requirements of EPA’s 2008 NSR Rule.
Additionally, we are also proposing to
convert our prior conditional approval
for this infrastructure requirement for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77
FR 63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full
approval.
On June 23, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD
permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said
that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for purposes of
determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also said that the EPA could
continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions
of pollutants other than GHGs, contain
limitations on GHG emissions based on
the application of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT).
In accordance with the Supreme
Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit)
issued an amended judgment vacating
the regulations that implemented Step 2
of the EPA’s PSD and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not
the regulations that implement Step 1 of
that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule
covers sources that are required to
obtain a PSD permit based on emissions
of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2
applied to sources that emitted only
GHGs above the thresholds triggering
the requirement to obtain a PSD permit.
The amended judgment preserves,
without the need for additional
rulemaking by the EPA, the application
of the BACT requirement to GHG
emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’
sources. With respect to Step 2 sources,
the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment
vacated the regulations at issue in the
litigation, including 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they
require a stationary source to obtain a
PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits
or has the potential to emit above the
applicable major source thresholds, or
(ii) for which there is a significant
emission increase from a modification.’’
The EPA is planning to take
additional steps to revise federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court
opinion and subsequent D.C. Circuit
judgment. Some states have begun to
revise their existing SIP-approved PSD
programs in light of these court
decisions, and some states may prefer
not to initiate this process until they
have more information about the
planned revisions to EPA’s PSD
regulations. The EPA is not expecting
states to have revised their PSD
programs in anticipation of the EPA’s
planned actions to revise its PSD
program rules in response to the court
decisions. For purposes of infrastructure
SIP submissions, the EPA is only
evaluating such submissions to assure
that the state’s program addresses GHGs
consistent with both court decisions.
At present, the EPA has determined
that Connecticut’s SIP is sufficient to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
satisfy this sub-element of section
110(a)(2)(C) (as well as sub-elements
(D)(i)(II) and (J)(iii)) with respect to
GHGs. This is because the PSD
permitting program previously
approved by the EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits
issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain
limitations on GHG emissions based on
the application of BACT.
The approved Connecticut PSD
permitting program still contains some
provisions regarding Step 2 sources that
are no longer necessary in light of the
Supreme Court decision and D.C.
Circuit amended judgment.
Nevertheless, the presence of these
provisions in the previously-approved
plan does not render the infrastructure
SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Elements C, D (sub-element (i)(II)), and
J. The SIP contains the PSD
requirements for applying the BACT
requirement to greenhouse gas
emissions from ‘‘anyway sources’’ that
are necessary at this time. The
application of those requirements is not
impeded by the presence of other
previously-approved provisions
regarding the permitting of Step 2
sources. Accordingly, the Supreme
Court decision and subsequent D.C.
Circuit judgment do not prevent the
EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP as to the requirements
of Element C (as well as sub-elements
(D)(i)(II) and (J)(iii)).
For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that
NSR Reform is not in the scope of these
actions. Therefore, we are not taking
action on existing NSR Reform
regulations for Connecticut.
In summary, we are proposing to
approve the majority of Connecticut’s
submittals for this sub-element
pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NOX, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but to
conditionally approve the aspects
pertaining to treating NOX as a
precursor to ozone and to establishing a
minor source baseline date for PM2.5.
We are also proposing to newly
conditionally approve Connecticut’s
submittals for this sub-element with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for these same PSD
requirements.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction
Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
To address the pre-construction
regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources
and minor modifications of major
stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54477
submission should identify the existing
EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or
include new provisions that govern the
minor source pre-construction program
that regulates emissions of the relevant
NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved
Connecticut’s minor NSR program, as
well as updates to that program, with
the most recent approval occurring on
February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9009). Since
this date, Connecticut and EPA have
relied on the existing minor NSR
program to ensure that new and
modified sources not captured by the
major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
We are proposing to find that
Connecticut has met the requirement to
have a SIP approved minor new source
review permit program as required
under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate
Transport
This section contains a
comprehensive set of air quality
management elements pertaining to the
transport of air pollution that states
must comply with. It covers the
following 5 topics, categorized as subelements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to
nonattainment, and interference with
maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element
2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility
protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate
pollution abatement; and Sub-element
5, International pollution abatement.
Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the Act, and these items are further
categorized into the 4 prongs discussed
below, 2 of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of
the Act and include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
of the Act relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
i. Sub-Element 1: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere
With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
the 2011 Memo notes that the physical
properties of Pb prevent it from
experiencing the same travel or
formation phenomena as PM2.5 or
ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp
decrease in Pb concentrations as the
distance from a Pb source increases.
Accordingly, although it may be
possible for a source in a state to emit
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54478
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Pb at a location and in such quantities
that contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interference with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA
anticipates that this would be a rare
situation (e.g., sources emitting large
quantities of Pb in close proximity to
state boundaries). The 2011 Memo
suggests that the applicable interstate
transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can
be met through a state’s assessment as
to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its
borders have emissions that impact a
neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in that state.
Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
notes that there are no sources of Pb
emissions located in close proximity to
any of the state’s borders with
neighboring states. Additionally,
Connecticut’s submittal and the
emissions data the state collects from its
sources indicate that there is no single
source of Pb, or group of sources,
anywhere within the state that emits
enough Pb to cause ambient
concentrations to approach the Pb
NAAQS. Our review of data within our
National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
database confirms this, and, therefore,
we propose that Connecticut has met
this set of requirements related to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
With respect to the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, on February 17, 2012, EPA
designated the entire country as
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for this
standard, explaining that this
designation means that ‘‘available
information does not indicate that the
air quality in these areas exceeds the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.’’ See 77 FR 9532
(February 17, 2012). In other words,
Connecticut and all neighboring states
are currently designated as
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
NOX emissions in Fairfield and New
Haven Counties in Connecticut are
projected to decrease by more than 50
percent between 2007 and 2025, further
reducing any impacts from Connecticut
on other states. Similar reductions are
expected throughout the rest of the state
(see Connecticut’s PM2.5 Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan,
Technical Support Document, June 22,
2012 included in the docket for this
notice). Furthermore, EPA examined the
design values from NO2 monitors in
Connecticut and neighboring states
based on data collected between 2011
and 2013. In Connecticut, the highest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
design value was 55 parts per billion
(ppb) (versus the NO2 standard of 100
ppb) at a monitor in New Haven. The
highest design values in neighboring
states were 60 ppb in New York (Bronx
site 360050133), 52 ppb in
Massachusetts (Worcester site
250270023), and 43 ppb in Rhode Island
(Providence site 440070012). EPA
believes that, with the continued
implementation of Connecticut’s SIPapproved PSD and NNSR regulations
found in RCSA section 22a–174–3a, the
state’s low monitored values of NO2 will
continue. In other words, the NO2
emissions from Connecticut are not
expected to cause or contribute to a
violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in
another state,5 and these emissions are
not likely to interfere with the
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in another state. Therefore, EPA
proposes that Connecticut has met this
set of requirements related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS.
In summary, we are proposing that
Connecticut has met section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and
2010 NO2 NAAQS. Connecticut made a
SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS on June 15, 2015 and the 2010
SO2 NAAQS on May 30, 2013. EPA is
reviewing these SIP submissions and
will take actions on this infrastructure
requirement for both the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at a
later date.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3)
One aspect of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering
with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in
another state. One way for a state to
meet this requirement is through a
comprehensive PSD permitting program
that applies to all regulated NSR
pollutants and that satisfies the
requirements of EPA’s PSD
implementation rules. As has already
been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing the PSD sub-element of
Element C, Connecticut has satisfied the
majority, though not all, of the
applicable PSD implementation rule
requirements.
States also have an obligation to
ensure that sources located in
5 The highest design value for the 1 hr NO
2
standard for a monitor in an adjacent state and is
located nearby Connecticut is 60 ppb at a monitor
in Bronx, New York.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment areas do not interfere
with a neighboring state’s PSD program.
One way that this requirement can be
satisfied is through an NNSR program
consistent with the CAA that addresses
any pollutants for which there is a
designated nonattainment area within
the state. EPA approved Connecticut’s
NNSR regulations on February 27, 2003
(68 FR 9009). These regulations contain
provisions for how the state must treat
and control sources in nonattainment
areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or
appendix S to 40 CFR part 51.
As noted above and in Element C,
Connecticut’s PSD program does not
fully satisfy the requirements of EPA’s
PSD implementation rules, although
Connecticut has committed to submit
the required provisions for EPA
approval by a date no later than one
year from conditional approval of
Connecticut’s infrastructure
submissions. Consequently, we are
proposing to conditionally approve this
sub-element for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing
to convert our prior conditional
approval of this sub-element as it relates
to certain PSD implementation rules
described under Element C above for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full
approval. We are also proposing to
newly conditionally approve this subelement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for certain other
implementation rule requirements for
the reasons discussed under Element C
above.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are
subject to visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C of
the CAA (which includes sections 169A
and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011
Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these
requirements can be satisfied by an
approved SIP addressing reasonably
attributable visibility impairment, if
required, or an approved SIP addressing
regional haze.
Connecticut’s Regional Haze SIP was
approved by EPA on July, 10, 2014 (79
FR 39322). Accordingly, EPA proposes
that Connecticut has met the visibility
protection requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution
Abatement
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with
the applicable requirements of section
126 relating to interstate pollution
abatement.
Section 126(a) requires new or
modified sources to notify neighboring
states of potential impacts from the
source. The statute does not specify the
method by which the source should
provide the notification. States with
SIP-approved PSD programs must have
a provision requiring such notification
by new or modified sources. A lack of
such a requirement in state rules would
be grounds for disapproval of this
element.
EPA approved revisions to
Connecticut’s PSD program on July 24,
2015 (80 FR 43960), including the
element pertaining to notification to
neighboring states of the issuance of
PSD permits. Therefore, we propose to
approve Connecticut’s compliance with
the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 126(a) with respect to the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. EPA also proposes to
convert the previous conditional
approvals for this infrastructure
requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16,
2012)) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see
76 FR 40255 (July 8, 2011)) to full
approval. Connecticut has no
obligations under any other provision of
section 126.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
v. Sub-Element 5: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution
Abatement
One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with
the applicable requirements of section
115 relating to international pollution
abatement. Connecticut does not have
any pending obligations under section
115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA is proposing that Connecticut has
met the applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
related to section 115 of the CAA
(international pollution abatement) for
the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate
Resources
This section requires each state to
provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state
law to carry out its SIP and related
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
issues. Additionally, Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to
comply with the requirements with
respect to state boards under section
128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)
requires that, where a state relies upon
local or regional governments or
agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions, the state retain
responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of SIP obligations with
respect to relevant NAAQS. This subelement, however, is inapplicable to this
action, because Connecticut does not
rely upon local or regional governments
or agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel,
Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and
Related Issues
Connecticut, through its infrastructure
SIP submittals, has documented that its
air agency has the requisite authority
and resources to carry out its SIP
obligations. CGS section 22a–171
authorizes the Commissioner of the CT
DEEP to enforce the state’s air laws,
accept and administer grants, and
exercise incidental powers necessary to
carry out the law. The Connecticut SIP,
as originally submitted on March 3,
1972, and subsequently amended,
provides additional descriptions of the
organizations, staffing, funding and
physical resources necessary to carry
out the plan. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of this portion of
section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-element 2: State Board
Requirements Under Section 128 of the
CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each
SIP to contain provisions that comply
with the state board requirements of
section 128 of the CAA. That provision
contains two explicit requirements: (i)
That any board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders under
this chapter shall have at least a
majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any
significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permits and
enforcement orders under this chapter,
and (ii) that any potential conflicts of
interest by members of such board or
body or the head of an executive agency
with similar powers be adequately
disclosed.
In Connecticut, no board or body
approves permits or enforcement orders;
these are approved by the Commissioner
of CT DEEP. Thus, Connecticut is
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54479
subject only to the requirements of
paragraph (a)(2) of section 128 of the
CAA. Infrastructure SIPs submitted by
Connecticut include descriptions of
conflict-of-interest provisions in CGS
section 1–85, which applies to all state
employees and public officials. Section
1–85 prevents the Commissioner from
acting on a matter in which the
Commissioner has an interest that is ‘‘in
substantial conflict with the proper
discharge of his duties or employment
in the public interest and of his
responsibilities as prescribed in the
laws of’’ Connecticut. Connecticut
submitted CGS section 1–85 for
incorporation into the SIP on December
28, 2012 with its infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS,6 and we are
herein proposing to approve this statute
into the Connecticut SIP.
Upon approval of CGS section 1–85
into the SIP, EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this
section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. In addition, EPA previously
issued a conditional approval to
Connecticut for this infrastructure
requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16,
2012). Given that Connecticut has now
addressed this issue, we are also
proposing to convert the prior
conditional approval for this
infrastructure requirement for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to full approval.
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary
Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to
monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions
reports. Each plan shall also require the
installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources. The state plan shall
also require periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such
sources, and correlation of such reports
by each state agency with any emission
limitations or standards established
pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the
reports shall be available at reasonable
times for public inspection.
CGS section 22a–6(a)(5) authorizes
the Commissioner to enter at all
reasonable times, any public or private
property (except a private residence) to
investigate possible violations of any
6 CT DEEP also requested approval into the SIP
of CGS section 1–85 in its January 2, 2013
infrastructure SIP for the 2002 NO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
54480
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
statute, regulation, order or permit.
Additionally, CGS section 22a–174
authorizes the Commissioner to require
periodic inspection of sources of air
pollution and to require any person to
maintain, and to submit to CT DEEP,
certain records relating to air pollution
or to the operation of facilities designed
to abate air pollution. For monitoring
possible air violations, CT DEEP
implements RCSA section 22a–174–4,
‘‘Source monitoring, record keeping and
reporting,’’ to require the installation,
maintenance, and use of emissions
monitoring devices and to require
periodic reporting to the Commissioner
of the nature and extent of the
emissions. Section 22a–174–4 has been
approved into the SIP (see 79 FR 41427
(July 16, 2014). Additionally, CT DEEP
implements RCSA section 22a–175–5,
‘‘Methods for sampling, emissions
testing, sample analysis, and reporting,’’
which provides, among other things,
specific test methods to be used to
demonstrate compliance with various
aspects of Connecticut’s air regulations,
and this rule has also been approved
into the SIP (see 46 FR 43418 (December
19, 1980)). Furthermore, under RCSA
section 22a–174–10, emissions data are
to be available to the public and are not
entitled to protection as a trade secret
(see 37 FR 23085 (October 28, 1972)).
EPA recognizes that Connecticut
routinely collects information on air
emissions from its industrial sources
and makes this information available to
the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F)
with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Powers
This section requires that a plan
provide for authority that is analogous
to what is provided in section 303 of the
CAA, and adequate contingency plans
to implement such authority. Section
303 of the CAA provides authority to
the EPA Administrator to seek a court
order to restrain any source from
causing or contributing to emissions
that present an ‘‘imminent and
substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare, or the environment.’’
Section 303 further authorizes the
Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as
may be necessary to protect public
health or welfare or the environment’’ in
the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to
assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.’’
We propose to find that Connecticut’s
submittals and certain state statutes
provide for authority comparable to that
in section 303. Connecticut’s submittals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
specify that CGS section 22a–181,
Emergency Action, authorizes the
Commissioner of the CT DEEP to issue
an order requiring any person to
immediately reduce or discontinue air
pollution as required to protect the
public health or safety. In a letter dated
August 5, 2015, Connecticut also
specified that CGS section 22a–7 grants
the Commissioner the authority,
whenever he finds ‘‘that any person is
causing, engaging in or maintaining, or
is about to cause, engage in or maintain,
any condition or activity which, in his
judgment, will result in or is likely to
result in imminent and substantial
damage to the environment, or to public
health within the jurisdiction of the
commissioner under the provisions of
chapter[ ] . . . 446c [Air Pollution
Control] . . . [to] issue a cease and
desist order in writing to such person to
discontinue, abate or alleviate such
condition or activity.’’ This section
further provides the Commissioner with
the authority to seek a court ‘‘to enjoin
any person from violating a cease and
desist order issued pursuant to [sec.
22a–7] and to compel compliance with
such order.’’
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that,
for any NAAQS, except Pb, Connecticut
have an approved contingency plan for
any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
within the state that is classified as
Priority I, IA, or II. A contingency plan
is not required if the entire state is
classified as Priority III for a particular
pollutant. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart H.
Classifications for the four AQCRs in
Connecticut can be found at 40 CFR
52.371. Connecticut’s portion of the
New Jersey–New York–Connecticut
Interstate AQCR is classified as a
Priority I area for SOX, NO2, and ozone.
In addition, Connecticut’s portion of the
Hartford–New Haven–Springfield
Interstate AQCR is classified as a
Priority I area for SOX and ozone.
Consequently, Connecticut’s SIP must
contain an emergency contingency plan
meeting the specific requirements of 40
CFR 51.151 and 51.152, as appropriate,
with respect to these pollutants. As
noted in Connecticut’s infrastructure
SIP submittals for ozone, NO2, and SO2,
Connecticut has adopted ‘‘Air pollution
emergency episode procedures’’ at
RCSA section 22a–174–6. This
regulation, originally numbered RCSA
19–508–6, was initially approved into
the Connecticut SIP on May 31, 1972
(37 FR 23085), with amendments to the
rule approved on December 23, 1980 (45
FR 84769).
As stated in Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP submittals under the
discussion of public notification
(Element J), Connecticut also, as a
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
matter of practice, posts on the internet
daily forecasted ozone and fine particle
levels through the EPA AirNow and
EPA EnviroFlash systems. Information
regarding these two systems is available
on EPA’s Web site at www.airnow.gov.
Notices are sent out to EnviroFlash
participants when levels are forecast to
exceed the current 8-hour ozone or 24hour PM2.5 standard. In addition, when
levels are expected to exceed the ozone
or PM2.5 standard in Connecticut, the
media are alerted via a press release,
and the National Weather Service
(NWS) is alerted to issue an Air Quality
Advisory through the normal NWS
weather alert system.
Connecticut’s participation in the
AirNow and EnviroFlash programs
addresses several of the public
announcement and communications
procedures and coordination with the
National Weather Service included in
the discussion of contingency plans in
subpart H. See 40 CFR 51.152(a)(2),
(b)(1), and (b)(3).
In addition, Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP submittals reference
CGS section 22a–174(c) under Element
F, regarding the inspection of sources.
This statute, which provides the
Commissioner of CT DEEP with the
authority to require periodic inspection
of sources of air pollution, is also
relevant under Element G, since 40 CFR
51.152(b)(2) requires each contingency
plan to provide for the inspection of
sources to be sure they are complying
with any required emergency control
actions.
Finally, with respect to Pb, we note
that Pb is not explicitly included in the
contingency plan requirements of
subpart H. In addition, we note that
there are no large sources of Pb in
Connecticut. Specifically, a review of
the National Emission Inventory shows
that there are no sources of Pb in
Connecticut that exceed EPA’s reporting
threshold of 0.5 tons per year. Although
not expected, if that situation were to
change, as noted previously,
Connecticut does have general authority
(e.g., CGS sections 22a–7 and 22a–181)
to restrain any source from causing
imminent and substantial
endangerment.
Therefore, EPA proposes that
Connecticut through the combination of
statutes, regulations, and participation
in EPA’s AirNow program discussed
above, has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the
2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP
Revisions
This section requires states to have
the authority to revise their SIPs in
response to: changes in the NAAQS;
availability of improved methods for
attaining the NAAQS; or an EPA finding
that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
Connecticut certifies that its SIP may
be revised should EPA find that it is
substantially inadequate to attain a
standard or to comply with any
additional requirements under the CAA
and notes that CGS section 22a–174(d)
grants the Commissioner all incidental
powers necessary to control and
prohibit air pollution. EPA proposes
that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment
Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under
Part D
The CAA requires that each plan or
plan revision for an area designated as
a nonattainment area meet the
applicable requirements of part D of the
CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment
areas. EPA has determined that section
110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA
takes action on part D attainment plans
through separate processes.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation
With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
The evaluation of the submissions
from Connecticut with respect to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
are described below.
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With
Government Officials
States must provide a process for
consultation with local governments
and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
carrying out NAAQS implementation
requirements.
CGS section 22a–171, Duties of
Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection, directs the
Commissioner to consult with agencies
of the United States, agencies of the
state, political subdivisions and
industries and any other affected groups
in matters relating to air quality.
Additionally, CGS section 22a–171
directs the Commissioner to initiate and
supervise state-wide programs of air
pollution control education and to
adopt, amend, repeal and enforce air
regulations. Furthermore, RCSA section
22a–174–2a, which has been approved
into Connecticut’s SIP (see 80 FR 43960
(July 24, 2015)), directs CT DEEP to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
notify relevant municipal officials and
FLMs, among others, of tentative
determinations by CT DEEP with
respect to certain permits. In its SO2
infrastructure SIP submittal, CT DEEP
submits CGS section 22a–171 for
inclusion into the SIP. EPA proposes to
approve this statute into the SIP and
proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with
respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires
states to notify the public if NAAQS are
exceeded in an area and must enhance
public awareness of measures that can
be taken to prevent exceedances.
As part of the fulfillment of CGS
section 22a–171, Duties of
Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection, Connecticut
issues press releases and posts warnings
on its Web site advising people what
they can do to help prevent NAAQS
exceedances and avoid adverse health
effects on poor air quality days.
Connecticut is also an active partner in
EPA’s AirNow and Enviroflash air
quality alert programs. EPA proposes
that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this
portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with
respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. Connecticut’s PSD
program in the context of infrastructure
SIPs has already been discussed in the
paragraphs above addressing section
110(a)(2)(C), and EPA notes that the
proposed actions for those sections are
consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our
proposed actions are reiterated below.
As noted above in Element C,
Connecticut’s PSD program does not
fully satisfy the requirements of EPA’s
PSD implementation rules, although
Connecticut has committed to submit
the required provisions for EPA
approval by a date no later than one
year from conditional approval of
Connecticut’s infrastructure
submissions. Consequently, we are
proposing to conditionally approve this
sub-element for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing
to convert our prior conditional
approval of this sub-element as it relates
to certain PSD implementation rules
described under Element C above for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54481
63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full
approval. We are also proposing to
newly conditionally approve this subelement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for certain other
implementation rule requirements for
the reasons discussed under Element C
above.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In
the event of the establishment of a new
NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Thus, we
find that there is no new visibility
obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective. In other words, the
visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality
Modeling/Data
To satisfy element K, the state air
agency must demonstrate that it has the
authority to perform air quality
modeling to predict effects on air
quality of emissions of any NAAQS
pollutant and submission of such data
to EPA upon request.
Connecticut reviews the potential
impact of major sources consistent with
40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
‘‘Guidelines on Air Quality Models.’’
The modeling data are sent to EPA along
with the draft major permit. Pursuant to
CGS section 22a–5, the Commissioner is
directed to ‘‘promote and coordinate
management of . . . air resources to
assure their protection, enhancement
and proper allocation and utilization’’
and to ‘‘provide for the prevention and
abatement of all . . . air pollution
including, but not limited to, that
related to particulates, gases, dust,
vapors, [and] odors.’’ Under RCSA
section 22a–174–3a(i), Ambient Air
Quality Analysis, which has been
approved into the Connecticut SIP on
February 27, 2003 (68 FR 3009), the
Commissioner is authorized to request
any owner or operator to submit an
ambient air quality impact analysis
using CT DEEP approved air quality
models and modeling protocols. The
state also collaborates with the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC), and the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and EPA in order to
perform large-scale urban airshed
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
54482
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
modeling. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K)
with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate
that each major stationary source pay
permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing,
and enforcing a permit.
EPA’s full approval of Connecticut’s
Title V program became effective on
May 31, 2002. See 67 FR 31966 (May 13,
2002). Before EPA can grant full
approval, a state must demonstrate the
ability to collect adequate fees. CGS
section 22a–174(g) directs the
Commissioner of CT DEEP to require the
payment of a fee sufficient to cover the
reasonable cost of reviewing and acting
upon an application for, and monitoring
compliance with, any state or federal
permit, license, registration, order, or
certificate. CT DEEP implements this
directive through state regulations at
RCSA sections 22a–174–26 and 22a–
174–33, which contain specific
requirements related to permit fees,
including fees for Title V sources. EPA
proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/
Participation by Affected Local Entities
Pursuant to element M, states must
consult with, and allow participation
from, local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
CGS section 4–168, Notice prior to
action on regulations, provides a public
participation process for all
stakeholders that includes a minimum
of a 30-day comment period and an
opportunity for public hearing for all
SIP-related actions. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M)
with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion
Into the Connecticut SIP
As noted above in the discussion of
elements E and J, Connecticut
submitted, and EPA is proposing to
approve, CGS sections 1–85 and 22a–
171 for approval into the SIP. In
addition, in its May 30, 2013
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, Connecticut submitted CGS
section 16a–21a ‘‘Sulfur content of
home heating oil and off-road diesel
fuel. Suspension of requirements for
emergency,’’ effective July 1, 2011. EPA
previously approved a prior version of
this statute, which had been included as
a component of Connecticut’s Regional
Haze SIP, into the Connecticut SIP on
July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322). The
updated version of the statute includes
an additional provision limiting the
sulfur content of number two heating
oil. The sulfur content restrictions in the
updated statute are more stringent than
those in the previously approved
version, thus meeting the antibacksliding requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the updated
statute into the Connecticut SIP.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve SIP
submissions from Connecticut certifying
that its current SIP is sufficient to meet
the required infrastructure elements
under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of
certain aspects relating to PSD which
we are proposing to conditionally
approve. EPA’s proposed actions
regarding these infrastructure SIP
requirements are contained in Table 1
below.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON CT INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR VARIOUS NAAQS
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Element
2008
Pb
2008
Ozone
2010
NO2
2010
SO2
(A): Emission limits and other control measures ............................................................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ......................................................
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures ..............................................................................
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ...................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications .........................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1
and 2) ...........................................................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ...................................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ............................................................................
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement .............................................................................
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement ........................................................................
(E)(i): Adequate resources ..............................................................................................
(E)(ii): State boards .........................................................................................................
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies ........................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system .......................................................................
(G): Emergency power ....................................................................................................
(H): Future SIP revisions .................................................................................................
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ..........................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials ..................................................................
(J)(ii): Public notification ..................................................................................................
(J)(iii): PSD ......................................................................................................................
(J)(iv): Visibility protection ................................................................................................
(K): Air quality modeling and data ...................................................................................
(L): Permitting fees ..........................................................................................................
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .........................................
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
No action
A*
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
No action
A*
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
+
A
A
A*
+
A
A
A
Key to Table 1: Proposed action on CT infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS:
A—Approve.
A*—Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to NOX as a precursor to ozone and minor source baseline date for
PM2.5.
+—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
No action—EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirement.7
NA—Not applicable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules
With respect to the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to
convert conditional approvals for
infrastructure requirements pertaining
to Elements A, D(ii) (interstate pollution
abatement), and E(ii) (state boards) to
full approval. Also with respect to the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is
proposing to newly conditionally
approve Connecticut’s submittals
pertaining to Elements C(ii), D(i)(II), and
J(iii) for the requirements to treat NOX
as a precursor to ozone and to establish
a minor source baseline date for PM2.5
in the PSD program.
With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to convert
the conditional approval for the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) pertaining to interstate
pollution abatement to a full approval.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
approve, and incorporate into the
Connecticut SIP, the following
Connecticut statutes which were
included for approval in Connecticut’s
infrastructure SIP submittals:
CGS Section 1–85 (Formerly Sec. 1–
68), Interest in conflict with discharge of
duties, effective in 1979.
CGS Section 22a–171, Duties of
Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection, effective in
1971; and
CGS Section 16a–21a, Sulfur content
of home heating oil and off-road diesel
fuel, effective July 1, 2011.
As noted in Table 1, we are proposing
to conditionally approve portions of
Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP
submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD
program. The outstanding issues with
the PSD program concern properly
treating NOX as a precursor to ozone
and establishing a minor source baseline
date for PM2.5 emissions.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act,
EPA may conditionally approve a plan
based on a commitment from the State
to adopt specific enforceable measures
by a date certain, but not later than 1
year from the date of approval. If EPA
conditionally approves the commitment
in a final rulemaking action, the State
must meet its commitment to submit an
update to its PSD program that fully
remedies the requirements mentioned
above. If the State fails to do so, this
action will become a disapproval one
year from the date of final approval.
EPA will notify the State by letter that
this action has occurred. At that time,
this commitment will no longer be a
part of the approved Connecticut SIP.
EPA subsequently will publish a
document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional
approval converted to a disapproval. If
the State meets its commitment, within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Sep 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
the applicable time frame, the
conditionally approved submission will
remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes
final action approving or disapproving
the new submittal. If EPA disapproves
the new submittal, the conditionally
approved infrastructure SIP elements
will also be disapproved at that time. In
addition, a final disapproval would
trigger the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) requirement under section 110(c).
If EPA approves the new submittal, the
PSD program and relevant infrastructure
SIP elements will be fully approved and
replace the conditionally approved
program in the SIP.
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.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference into the
Connecticut SIP the three Connecticut
statutes referenced in Section V above.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the
appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
54483
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (see
65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2015–22027 Filed 9–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM
10SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 175 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54471-54483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22027]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0198; FRL-9933-38-Region 1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from
Connecticut regarding the infrastructure requirements of Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8-hr ozone, 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing
to convert conditional approvals for several infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and for the 1997 and 2006
fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS to full approval under the CAA.
Furthermore, we are proposing to newly conditionally approve elements
of Connecticut's infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act
regarding prevention of significant deterioration requirements to treat
nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone and to establish a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 emissions. Lastly, EPA is proposing
to approve three statutes submitted by Connecticut in support of their
demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been
met.
The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket
ID number as indicated in the instructions section below, 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: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air
Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05-2, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-
3912.
5. Hand Delivery: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Air Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05-2, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-
0198. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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 docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison Simcox, Environmental
Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code
OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-
1684; simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these State Implementation Plan
submissions?
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
[[Page 54472]]
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP measures
ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program for Major Sources and Major Modifications
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources
and Minor Modifications
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility
Protection (Prong 4)
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate
Pollution Abatement
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International
Pollution Abatement
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation with Government Officials;
Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public notification
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion into the Connecticut SIP
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the background of these State Implementation Plan
submissions?
A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). The state
submitted its infrastructure SIP for each NAAQS on the following dates:
2008 Pb--October 13, 2011; 2008 ozone--December 28, 2012; 2010
NO2--January 2, 2013; and, 2010 SO2--May 30,
2013. This rulemaking also addresses certain infrastructure SIP
elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5\1\ NAAQS for which EPA
previously issued a conditional approval. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16,
2012). The state submitted these infrastructure SIPs on September 4,
2008, and September 18, 2009, respectively. Lastly, this rulemaking
addresses one infrastructure SIP element for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for which EPA previously issued a conditional approval. See 76 FR
40248 (July 8, 2011). The state submitted this infrastructure SIP on
December 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must
contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their
existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011,
``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).
The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) and address the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS, and to elements of Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals
for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS which we
previously conditionally approved. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).
To the extent that the PSD program is comprehensive and non-NAAQS
specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, will be included in the appropriate sections.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Connecticut that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing to convert
conditional approvals for several infrastructure requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 76 FR 40248 (July 8, 2011)) and for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16,
2012)) to full approval, proposing approval of three statutes submitted
by Connecticut that support the infrastructure SIP submittals, and
proposing to conditionally approve certain aspects of the
infrastructure SIP which pertain to the State's PSD program.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).
[[Page 54473]]
Pursuant to these sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.'' This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the
specific elements that ``each such plan'' must address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the planning
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these
substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is
the scope of this rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245 (May 13,
2014).
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with
the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as
appropriate. Historically, EPA has elected to use non-binding guidance
documents to make recommendations for states' development and EPA
review of infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed
interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying
interpretations that have already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA guidance
applicable to these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in
several documents. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Memo
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an
infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo provides additional
guidance for certain elements regarding the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2011 Memo provides guidance specific to the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo identifies and further clarifies aspects
of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
Pursuant to section 110(a), and as noted in the 2011 Memo and the
2013 Memo, states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for
public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. CT DEEP held
public hearings for each infrastructure SIP on the following dates:
2008 Pb--September 20, 2011; 2008 ozone--December 20, 2012; 2010
NO2--December 20, 2012; and, 2010 SO2--May 1,
2013. Connecticut received comments from EPA on each of its proposed
infrastructure SIPs, and also received comments from a U.S. Army
Regulatory Affairs Specialist on its proposed ozone and NO2
infrastructure SIPs, and from a consultant with Enhesa in Washington,
DC on its proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP. EPA is also
soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's infrastructure SIP
submissions in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Connecticut provided
detailed synopses of how various components of its SIP meet each of the
requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The
following review evaluates the state's submissions in light of section
110(a)(2) requirements and relevant EPA guidance. The review also
evaluates certain infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for which EPA
previously issued conditional approvals. See 76 FR 40248 (July 8, 2011)
and 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012.)
A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.\2\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Public Act No. 11-80 established the Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), and
Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 22a-6(a)(1) provides the
Commissioner of CT DEEP authority to adopt, amend or repeal
environmental standards, criteria and regulations. It is under this
general grant of authority that the Commissioner has adopted emissions
standards and control measures for a variety of sources and pollutants.
Connecticut also has SIP-approved provisions for specific pollutants.
For example, CT DEEP has adopted primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for each of these pollutants in Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-24 as follows: For
SO2, Section 22a-174-24(d); for PM2.5, Section
22a-174-24(f); for ozone, Section 22a-174-24(i); for NO2,
22a-174-24(k); and for lead, Section 22a-174-24(l). As noted in EPA's
approval of Connecticut's Section 22a-174-24, Ambient Air Quality
Standards, on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36242), Connecticut's standards are
consistent with the current federal NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that
Connecticut meets the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
In addition, we previously issued a conditional approval for
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittal made for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS because portions of Connecticut's
[[Page 54474]]
section 22a-174-24, Ambient Air Quality Standards were outdated. See 77
FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). However, as noted in our June 24, 2014
action mentioned above, Connecticut has revised their standards and
they are now consistent with the federal NAAQS. In light of this, we
propose to convert the conditional approval for this infrastructure
requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012)) to full approval. As previously noted, EPA is
not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or
rules related to SSM or director's discretion in the context of section
110(a)(2)(A).
B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring
network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these
annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state:
(i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state
using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent
Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in
a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior
notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network
plan.
CT DEEP continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved
the state's 2015 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5, Pb, ozone, NO2, and SO2 on July
10, 2015. Furthermore, CT DEEP populates AQS with air quality
monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides EPA with prior
notification when considering a change to its monitoring network or
plan. EPA proposes that CT DEEP has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and, (iii) permitting program for
minor sources and minor modifications. A discussion of GHG permitting
and the ``Tailoring Rule'' \3\ is included within our evaluation of the
PSD provisions of Connecticut's submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In EPA's April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS,
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other
words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb,
NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors,
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5
increments, or the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions
of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD permitting program
must be considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS that
triggered the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, including
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
CT DEEP staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to
CGS section 22a. Specifically, CGS section 22a-6 authorizes the
Commissioner of CT DEEP to inspect and investigate to ascertain whether
violations of any statute, regulation, or permit may have occurred and
to impose civil penalties. CGS section 22a-171 requires the
Commissioner to ``adopt, amend, repeal, and enforce regulations . . .
and do any other act necessary to enforce the provisions of'' CGS
sections 22a-170 through 22a-206, which provide CT DEEP with the
authority to, among other things, enforce its regulations, issue orders
to correct violations of regulations or permits, impose state
administrative penalties, and seek judicial relief. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program for
Major Sources and Major Modifications
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting
requirements apply to new major sources or major modifications made to
major sources, for pollutants where the area in which the source is
located is in attainment with, or unclassifiable with regard to, the
relevant NAAQS. CT DEEP's EPA-approved PSD rules in RCSA sections 22a-
174-1, 22a-174-2a, and 22a-174-3a contain provisions that address the
majority of the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements related to
the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). Among other
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD
programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone
(see 70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700 (November 29, 2005)). This
requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires that states
submit SIP revisions incorporating the requirements of the rule,
including provisions that would treat nitrogen oxides (NOX)
as a precursor to ozone. These SIP revisions were to have been
submitted to EPA by states by June 15, 2007. See 70 FR 71612 at 71683
(November 29, 2005).
Connecticut's PSD rules do not currently contain the provisions
needed to ensure that NOX be treated as a precursor to
ozone, and the State's PSD rules must be changed in the future to meet
this requirement. To correct this deficiency, the CT DEEP has
committed, by letter dated August 5, 2015, to submit for EPA approval
into the SIP provisions that meet the requirements at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1) and (b)(2) relating to the requirement to treat
NOX as a precursor pollutant to ozone. Accordingly, as we
articulate further on in our discussion of this sub-element, while the
majority of Connecticut's submittals pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
are consistent with the federal requirements, we are proposing to
conditionally approve Connecticut's PSD regulations as to those
specific regulatory provisions that will need to be amended by
Connecticut in order to treat NOX emissions as precursor
emissions to ozone formation.
On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864), EPA issued a final rule entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
[[Page 54475]]
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR Rule). This rule established several
components for making PSD permitting determinations for
PM2.5, including adding the required elements for
PM2.5 into a state's existing system of ``increment
analysis,'' which is the mechanism used in the PSD permitting program
to estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a
pollutant in relation to new source construction or modification. The
maximum allowable increment increases for different pollutants are
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
The 2010 NSR Rule described in the preceding paragraph revised the
existing system for determining increment consumption by establishing a
new ``major source baseline date'' for PM2.5 of October 20,
2010, and by establishing a trigger date for PM2.5 in
relation to the definition of ``minor source baseline date.'' These
revisions to the federal PSD rules are codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the definition of
``baseline area'' to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter, annual average, for PM2.5. This change is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i). States were
required to revise their SIPs consistent with these changes to the
federal regulations.
On October 9, 2012, Connecticut submitted revisions to its PSD
program incorporating two of the four changes addressed by the 2010 NSR
Rule. The two changes were 1) a revised definition of ``Major source
baseline date'' that included a date for PM2.5 specifically;
and 2) the addition of the maximum allowable increment for
PM2.5. EPA approved Connecticut's October 9, 2012 SIP
revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 43960). Therefore, we propose to
convert to a full approval the earlier conditional approval as it
applies to these two elements of the EPA's 2010 rulemaking in the
context of the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012).
CT DEEP's October 9, 2012 SIP revision did not specifically address
the two other changes EPA made to the PSD rules in 2010, and for the
following reasons EPA did not intend for those two issues to be part of
the conditional approval described in our October 16, 2012 notice. One
of those changes is the requirement that a State's definition of
``minor source baseline date'' be amended to include a trigger date for
PM2.5 emissions (see EPA's definition for ``minor source
baseline date'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)). Instead of using a
specific date, EPA's definition for minor source baseline date provides
that the minor source baseline date is triggered by a state's receipt
of its first complete PSD application. At the time CT DEEP made its
October 9, 2012 SIP revision, it would not have been possible for the
State to have amended its regulation to include a specific minor source
baseline date because no source had submitted a complete PSD
application for PM2.5. This is also true for CT DEEP's other
infrastructure SIPs addressed in this action. This is so because CT
DEEP's PSD regulations are structured in a way that uses actual
specific dates based on submission of a first complete PSD application
for a particular pollutant. (The approach contained in EPA's
regulations is somewhat different in the sense that instead of using
actual specific dates, EPA articulates the concept of a first complete
PSD application as the minor source baseline date trigger.) EPA
understands that CT DEEP did not receive a complete PSD application for
a source subject to PSD for PM2.5 emissions until September
24, 2014. Consequently, the State could not have included an actual
date in its definition of ``minor source baseline date'' within its
October 9, 2012 SIP revision.
Although Connecticut could not establish an actual date for
PM2.5 in its definition of ``minor source baseline date,''
at the time of its October 9, 2012 SIP revision, Connecticut is now
able to revise this definition to include a specific date that is
consistent with EPA's definition because a complete PSD application has
been submitted to CT DEEP for a major new source of PM2.5
emissions. Accordingly, the CT DEEP has committed by letter dated
August 5, 2015, to submit for EPA approval into the SIP a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 that meets the requirements at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c). Consequently, we propose to conditionally
approve Connecticut's submittals for this sub-element pertaining to
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Consistent with our
reasoning above, we are also proposing to newly conditionally approve
Connecticut's submittals for this sub-element with respect to the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The fourth change to the PSD regulations that EPA made in 2010 was
to add ``equal or greater than 0.3 [micro]g/m\3\ (annual average) for
PM2.5'' to the definition of ``baseline area.'' This
requires states to determine whether another baseline area, other than
the baseline area where the PSD subject source is locating, needs to be
analyzed based on the air quality impact predicted from the new PSD
source. The impact on another baseline area is limited to any impacts
above the defined thresholds contained within the definition of
``baseline area'' on another area within Connecticut. In other words,
under EPA's PSD requirements the baseline area evaluation does not
include within it analysis of a new source's impacts in another state.
Connecticut's current SIP and State PSD rules do not contain a
definition of ``baseline area.'' EPA has confirmed in communications
with CT DEEP that it treats the entire state as a single baseline area,
which obviates the need to have a definition for this term. EPA agrees
that the language EPA added to the federal definition of ``baseline
area'' in the federal PSD requirements is not necessary in Connecticut
because there is no other baseline area within the State.
Moreover, EPA has concluded that the lack of such a specific
definition of ``baseline area'' does not in theory, and has not in fact
over many years, preclude CT DEEP from ensuring that emissions from a
major new source or major modification will not consume more increment
than would be available or allowable even had CT DEEP adopted a
definition that was exactly the same as EPA's definition of baseline
area. In other words, CT DEEP has a regulatory structure that it has
used over many years to ensure that increment consumption arising from
new construction comports as a practical matter with federal PSD
requirements and is functionally equivalent. EPA last approved CT
DEEP's increment calculation methodology on February 27, 2003 (68 FR
9009).
Based on actual emissions data from the most recent National
Emission Inventory emissions data base (2011), there are only 15
existing major stationary sources in Connecticut, all of which are
major due to NOX emissions. None of these sources emitted
100 tons per year or more of PM10, PM2.5, or VOC
emissions. Further, 10 of these NOX sources are the only
such source in their city or town, two are located in Middletown, and
three are located in Bridgeport. Typically, the determination of
whether a new or modified source's emissions could potentially consume
more than the available increment in an area depends on whether other
significant sources of air emissions impact the same area. The facts
described above show how unlikely this would be, even if theoretically
possible.
[[Page 54476]]
EPA has determined that the differences between Connecticut's mechanism
for determining if emissions from the new or modified source will
exceed the available increment and EPA's mechanism is negligible, if
different at all, in terms of emissions. Connecticut's and EPAs
mechanisms both take into account, in a manner sufficiently protective
of air quality, consumption of available increment from nearby sources.
In addition to the above, once CT DEEP addresses the conditional
approval discussed earlier regarding the State's definition of ``minor
source baseline date,'' the impact of Connecticut's approved mechanism
for determining available increment most likely will result in a more
conservative or protective approach than EPA's increment structure.
This is because all growth within Connecticut after September 24, 2014,
that would result in any increase in PM2.5 emissions will be
consuming the available increment for a new or modified source required
to obtain a PSD permit for PM2.5 emissions anywhere within
the State. Under EPA's mechanism for determining available increment,
because there has, to date, only been a PSD application submitted for a
new source that constructed in New Haven County, changes to the
available increment would only be evaluated from sources in New Haven
County. Put differently, EPA's mechanism would allow some of the future
growth in PM2.5 emissions outside of New Haven County to be
considered part of the baseline concentration and, therefore, would not
consume increment elsewhere in Connecticut.
On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that directly emit PM2.5 emissions and
sources that emit other pollutants that contribute to secondary
PM2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for NSR
permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation
of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursor pollutants. In the
2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for the PSD
program to be SO2 and NOX (unless the state
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates
that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant
contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations).
The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD
program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are
significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to
submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28341 (May 16, 2008).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008
NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for
PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4),
and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250).
As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, the
EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable
areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, the EPA's approval of Connecticut's infrastructure SIP
as to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with respect to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the court's opinion.
The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does
not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption
or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically
referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which
would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2
through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
``condensables'', in PM2.5 and PM10 emission
limits in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to
account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations
for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28334. This requirement is
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a).
Revisions to states' PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of
condensables were required be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73
FR 28321 at 28341).
On October 9, 2012, Connecticut submitted revisions to its PSD
program incorporating the necessary changes required by the 2008 NSR
Rule with respect to provisions that explicitly identify precursors to
PM2.5. EPA approved Connecticut's October 9, 2012 SIP
revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 43960).
Connecticut's SIP-approved PSD program does not contain a specific
provision that explicitly contains the language in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i) addressing the inclusion of the gaseous, condensable
fraction of PM2.5 and PM10 for the purpose of PSD
applicability or establishing permit emissions limits conditions.
However, by letter submitted to EPA Region 1 and dated August 5,
2015 Connecticut explained that its major stationary source
preconstruction permitting program does, in fact, require inclusion of
the condensable portion of PM10 and PM2.5 for PSD
applicable purposes and establishing permit emissions limits and
conditions, because Section 22a-174-1 of the State's regulations
defines those two pollutants in terms of an amount measured at ambient
air conditions. Consequently, because the gaseous, condensable portions
of PM10 and PM2.5 are, in fact, condensed at
ambient air conditions, Connecticut's requirements meet the
corresponding federal requirements.
Therefore, we are proposing that Connecticut has met this set of
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the
requirements of EPA's 2008 NSR Rule. Additionally, we are also
proposing to convert our prior conditional approval for this
infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
(see 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full approval.
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group
[[Page 54477]]
v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court
said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes
of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a
PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require
that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants
other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that
rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to
obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs.
Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds
triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the
application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or
``anyway'' sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's
amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation,
including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a
stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit
above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there
is a significant emission increase from a modification.''
The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion and subsequent D.C. Circuit
judgment. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved
PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may
prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information
about the planned revisions to EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is not
expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of
the EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules in response
to the court decisions. For purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions,
the EPA is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's
program addresses GHGs consistent with both court decisions.
At present, the EPA has determined that Connecticut's SIP is
sufficient to satisfy this sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(C) (as well
as sub-elements (D)(i)(II) and (J)(iii)) with respect to GHGs. This is
because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into
the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to ``anyway
sources'' contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application
of BACT.
The approved Connecticut PSD permitting program still contains some
provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in
light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C. Circuit amended judgment.
Nevertheless, the presence of these provisions in the previously-
approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP submission
inadequate to satisfy Elements C, D (sub-element (i)(II)), and J. The
SIP contains the PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to
greenhouse gas emissions from ``anyway sources'' that are necessary at
this time. The application of those requirements is not impeded by the
presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the
permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision
and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval
of Connecticut's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Element C
(as well as sub-elements (D)(i)(II) and (J)(iii)).
For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that
NSR Reform is not in the scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not
taking action on existing NSR Reform regulations for Connecticut.
In summary, we are proposing to approve the majority of
Connecticut's submittals for this sub-element pertaining to section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NOX, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but to conditionally
approve the aspects pertaining to treating NOX as a
precursor to ozone and to establishing a minor source baseline date for
PM2.5. We are also proposing to newly conditionally approve
Connecticut's submittals for this sub-element with respect to the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for these same PSD requirements.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and
Minor Modifications
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved
Connecticut's minor NSR program, as well as updates to that program,
with the most recent approval occurring on February 28, 2003 (68 FR
9009). Since this date, Connecticut and EPA have relied on the existing
minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured
by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
We are proposing to find that Connecticut has met the requirement
to have a SIP approved minor new source review permit program as
required under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must
comply with. It covers the following 5 topics, categorized as sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interference
with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3,
Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement;
and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1
through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and
these items are further categorized into the 4 prongs discussed below,
2 of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are
found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and include provisions
insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Contribute to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the
physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically,
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, although it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit
[[Page 54478]]
Pb at a location and in such quantities that contribute significantly
to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by, any other
state, EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation (e.g.,
sources emitting large quantities of Pb in close proximity to state
boundaries). The 2011 Memo suggests that the applicable interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb
can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions
from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have
emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that
state.
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
notes that there are no sources of Pb emissions located in close
proximity to any of the state's borders with neighboring states.
Additionally, Connecticut's submittal and the emissions data the state
collects from its sources indicate that there is no single source of
Pb, or group of sources, anywhere within the state that emits enough Pb
to cause ambient concentrations to approach the Pb NAAQS. Our review of
data within our National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database confirms
this, and, therefore, we propose that Connecticut has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS.
With respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, on February 17,
2012, EPA designated the entire country as ``unclassifiable/
attainment'' for this standard, explaining that this designation means
that ``available information does not indicate that the air quality in
these areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.'' See 77 FR 9532
(February 17, 2012). In other words, Connecticut and all neighboring
states are currently designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
NOX emissions in Fairfield and New Haven Counties in
Connecticut are projected to decrease by more than 50 percent between
2007 and 2025, further reducing any impacts from Connecticut on other
states. Similar reductions are expected throughout the rest of the
state (see Connecticut's PM2.5 Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan, Technical Support Document, June 22, 2012 included in
the docket for this notice). Furthermore, EPA examined the design
values from NO2 monitors in Connecticut and neighboring
states based on data collected between 2011 and 2013. In Connecticut,
the highest design value was 55 parts per billion (ppb) (versus the
NO2 standard of 100 ppb) at a monitor in New Haven. The
highest design values in neighboring states were 60 ppb in New York
(Bronx site 360050133), 52 ppb in Massachusetts (Worcester site
250270023), and 43 ppb in Rhode Island (Providence site 440070012). EPA
believes that, with the continued implementation of Connecticut's SIP-
approved PSD and NNSR regulations found in RCSA section 22a-174-3a, the
state's low monitored values of NO2 will continue. In other
words, the NO2 emissions from Connecticut are not expected
to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in another state,\5\ and these emissions are not likely to interfere
with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Connecticut has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The highest design value for the 1 hr NO2
standard for a monitor in an adjacent state and is located nearby
Connecticut is 60 ppb at a monitor in Bronx, New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we are proposing that Connecticut has met section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Connecticut made a SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2015 and the
2010 SO2 NAAQS on May 30, 2013. EPA is reviewing these SIP
submissions and will take actions on this infrastructure requirement
for both the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at a
later date.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state. One way for
a state to meet this requirement is through a comprehensive PSD
permitting program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and
that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. As
has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing the PSD sub-
element of Element C, Connecticut has satisfied the majority, though
not all, of the applicable PSD implementation rule requirements.
States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD
program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state. EPA
approved Connecticut's NNSR regulations on February 27, 2003 (68 FR
9009). These regulations contain provisions for how the state must
treat and control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with 40
CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51.
As noted above and in Element C, Connecticut's PSD program does not
fully satisfy the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules,
although Connecticut has committed to submit the required provisions
for EPA approval by a date no later than one year from conditional
approval of Connecticut's infrastructure submissions. Consequently, we
are proposing to conditionally approve this sub-element for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, we are proposing to convert our prior conditional
approval of this sub-element as it relates to certain PSD
implementation rules described under Element C above for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a
full approval. We are also proposing to newly conditionally approve
this sub-element for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
certain other implementation rule requirements for the reasons
discussed under Element C above.
iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011
Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by
an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility
impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on July, 10,
2014 (79 FR 39322). Accordingly, EPA proposes that Connecticut has met
the visibility protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
[[Page 54479]]
iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution
Abatement
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain
adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.
Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for
disapproval of this element.
EPA approved revisions to Connecticut's PSD program on July 24,
2015 (80 FR 43960), including the element pertaining to notification to
neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. Therefore, we
propose to approve Connecticut's compliance with the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA also proposes
to convert the previous conditional approvals for this infrastructure
requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR
63228 (October 16, 2012)) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see 76 FR 40255
(July 8, 2011)) to full approval. Connecticut has no obligations under
any other provision of section 126.
v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to
contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution
abatement. Connecticut does not have any pending obligations under
section 115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, or 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing that Connecticut has
met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of the CAA (international
pollution abatement) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP and
related issues. Additionally, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each
state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards
under section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that,
where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for
the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP obligations
with respect to relevant NAAQS. This sub-element, however, is
inapplicable to this action, because Connecticut does not rely upon
local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
Connecticut, through its infrastructure SIP submittals, has
documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and
resources to carry out its SIP obligations. CGS section 22a-171
authorizes the Commissioner of the CT DEEP to enforce the state's air
laws, accept and administer grants, and exercise incidental powers
necessary to carry out the law. The Connecticut SIP, as originally
submitted on March 3, 1972, and subsequently amended, provides
additional descriptions of the organizations, staffing, funding and
physical resources necessary to carry out the plan. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion
of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
In Connecticut, no board or body approves permits or enforcement
orders; these are approved by the Commissioner of CT DEEP. Thus,
Connecticut is subject only to the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
section 128 of the CAA. Infrastructure SIPs submitted by Connecticut
include descriptions of conflict-of-interest provisions in CGS section
1-85, which applies to all state employees and public officials.
Section 1-85 prevents the Commissioner from acting on a matter in which
the Commissioner has an interest that is ``in substantial conflict with
the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest
and of his responsibilities as prescribed in the laws of'' Connecticut.
Connecticut submitted CGS section 1-85 for incorporation into the SIP
on December 28, 2012 with its infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS,\6\ and we are herein proposing to approve this statute into the
Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CT DEEP also requested approval into the SIP of CGS section
1-85 in its January 2, 2013 infrastructure SIP for the 2002
NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon approval of CGS section 1-85 into the SIP, EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for
this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, EPA
previously issued a conditional approval to Connecticut for this
infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). Given that Connecticut has
now addressed this issue, we are also proposing to convert the prior
conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to full approval.
F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
CGS section 22a-6(a)(5) authorizes the Commissioner to enter at all
reasonable times, any public or private property (except a private
residence) to investigate possible violations of any
[[Page 54480]]
statute, regulation, order or permit. Additionally, CGS section 22a-174
authorizes the Commissioner to require periodic inspection of sources
of air pollution and to require any person to maintain, and to submit
to CT DEEP, certain records relating to air pollution or to the
operation of facilities designed to abate air pollution. For monitoring
possible air violations, CT DEEP implements RCSA section 22a-174-4,
``Source monitoring, record keeping and reporting,'' to require the
installation, maintenance, and use of emissions monitoring devices and
to require periodic reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and
extent of the emissions. Section 22a-174-4 has been approved into the
SIP (see 79 FR 41427 (July 16, 2014). Additionally, CT DEEP implements
RCSA section 22a-175-5, ``Methods for sampling, emissions testing,
sample analysis, and reporting,'' which provides, among other things,
specific test methods to be used to demonstrate compliance with various
aspects of Connecticut's air regulations, and this rule has also been
approved into the SIP (see 46 FR 43418 (December 19, 1980)).
Furthermore, under RCSA section 22a-174-10, emissions data are to be
available to the public and are not entitled to protection as a trade
secret (see 37 FR 23085 (October 28, 1972)). EPA recognizes that
Connecticut routinely collects information on air emissions from its
industrial sources and makes this information available to the public.
EPA, therefore, proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. Section 303 of the CAA
provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a court order to
restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that
present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or
welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further authorizes the
Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary to protect
public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event that ``it is
not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by commencement of
such civil action.''
We propose to find that Connecticut's submittals and certain state
statutes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303.
Connecticut's submittals specify that CGS section 22a-181, Emergency
Action, authorizes the Commissioner of the CT DEEP to issue an order
requiring any person to immediately reduce or discontinue air pollution
as required to protect the public health or safety. In a letter dated
August 5, 2015, Connecticut also specified that CGS section 22a-7
grants the Commissioner the authority, whenever he finds ``that any
person is causing, engaging in or maintaining, or is about to cause,
engage in or maintain, any condition or activity which, in his
judgment, will result in or is likely to result in imminent and
substantial damage to the environment, or to public health within the
jurisdiction of the commissioner under the provisions of chapter[ ] . .
. 446c [Air Pollution Control] . . . [to] issue a cease and desist
order in writing to such person to discontinue, abate or alleviate such
condition or activity.'' This section further provides the Commissioner
with the authority to seek a court ``to enjoin any person from
violating a cease and desist order issued pursuant to [sec. 22a-7] and
to compel compliance with such order.''
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, except Pb,
Connecticut have an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR) within the state that is classified as Priority
I, IA, or II. A contingency plan is not required if the entire state is
classified as Priority III for a particular pollutant. See 40 CFR part
51 subpart H. Classifications for the four AQCRs in Connecticut can be
found at 40 CFR 52.371. Connecticut's portion of the New Jersey-New
York-Connecticut Interstate AQCR is classified as a Priority I area for
SOX, NO2, and ozone. In addition, Connecticut's
portion of the Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate AQCR is
classified as a Priority I area for SOX and ozone.
Consequently, Connecticut's SIP must contain an emergency contingency
plan meeting the specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152, as
appropriate, with respect to these pollutants. As noted in
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals for ozone, NO2,
and SO2, Connecticut has adopted ``Air pollution emergency
episode procedures'' at RCSA section 22a-174-6. This regulation,
originally numbered RCSA 19-508-6, was initially approved into the
Connecticut SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 23085), with amendments to the
rule approved on December 23, 1980 (45 FR 84769).
As stated in Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals under the
discussion of public notification (Element J), Connecticut also, as a
matter of practice, posts on the internet daily forecasted ozone and
fine particle levels through the EPA AirNow and EPA EnviroFlash
systems. Information regarding these two systems is available on EPA's
Web site at www.airnow.gov. Notices are sent out to EnviroFlash
participants when levels are forecast to exceed the current 8-hour
ozone or 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In addition, when levels
are expected to exceed the ozone or PM2.5 standard in
Connecticut, the media are alerted via a press release, and the
National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted to issue an Air Quality
Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert system.
Connecticut's participation in the AirNow and EnviroFlash programs
addresses several of the public announcement and communications
procedures and coordination with the National Weather Service included
in the discussion of contingency plans in subpart H. See 40 CFR
51.152(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(3).
In addition, Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals reference
CGS section 22a-174(c) under Element F, regarding the inspection of
sources. This statute, which provides the Commissioner of CT DEEP with
the authority to require periodic inspection of sources of air
pollution, is also relevant under Element G, since 40 CFR 51.152(b)(2)
requires each contingency plan to provide for the inspection of sources
to be sure they are complying with any required emergency control
actions.
Finally, with respect to Pb, we note that Pb is not explicitly
included in the contingency plan requirements of subpart H. In
addition, we note that there are no large sources of Pb in Connecticut.
Specifically, a review of the National Emission Inventory shows that
there are no sources of Pb in Connecticut that exceed EPA's reporting
threshold of 0.5 tons per year. Although not expected, if that
situation were to change, as noted previously, Connecticut does have
general authority (e.g., CGS sections 22a-7 and 22a-181) to restrain
any source from causing imminent and substantial endangerment.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Connecticut through the combination of
statutes, regulations, and participation in EPA's AirNow program
discussed above, has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
[[Page 54481]]
H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
This section requires states to have the authority to revise their
SIPs in response to: changes in the NAAQS; availability of improved
methods for attaining the NAAQS; or an EPA finding that the SIP is
substantially inadequate.
Connecticut certifies that its SIP may be revised should EPA find
that it is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply
with any additional requirements under the CAA and notes that CGS
section 22a-174(d) grants the Commissioner all incidental powers
necessary to control and prohibit air pollution. EPA proposes that
Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.
J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
The evaluation of the submissions from Connecticut with respect to
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements.
CGS section 22a-171, Duties of Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection, directs the Commissioner to consult with
agencies of the United States, agencies of the state, political
subdivisions and industries and any other affected groups in matters
relating to air quality. Additionally, CGS section 22a-171 directs the
Commissioner to initiate and supervise state-wide programs of air
pollution control education and to adopt, amend, repeal and enforce air
regulations. Furthermore, RCSA section 22a-174-2a, which has been
approved into Connecticut's SIP (see 80 FR 43960 (July 24, 2015)),
directs CT DEEP to notify relevant municipal officials and FLMs, among
others, of tentative determinations by CT DEEP with respect to certain
permits. In its SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal, CT DEEP
submits CGS section 22a-171 for inclusion into the SIP. EPA proposes to
approve this statute into the SIP and proposes that Connecticut has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
As part of the fulfillment of CGS section 22a-171, Duties of
Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, Connecticut issues
press releases and posts warnings on its Web site advising people what
they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse health
effects on poor air quality days. Connecticut is also an active partner
in EPA's AirNow and Enviroflash air quality alert programs. EPA
proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP requirements
of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. Connecticut's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs above
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C), and EPA notes that the proposed
actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed actions are
reiterated below.
As noted above in Element C, Connecticut's PSD program does not
fully satisfy the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules,
although Connecticut has committed to submit the required provisions
for EPA approval by a date no later than one year from conditional
approval of Connecticut's infrastructure submissions. Consequently, we
are proposing to conditionally approve this sub-element for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, we are proposing to convert our prior conditional
approval of this sub-element as it relates to certain PSD
implementation rules described under Element C above for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a
full approval. We are also proposing to newly conditionally approve
this sub-element for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for
certain other implementation rule requirements for the reasons
discussed under Element C above.
iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
To satisfy element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it
has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on
air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such
data to EPA upon request.
Connecticut reviews the potential impact of major sources
consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, ``Guidelines on Air Quality
Models.'' The modeling data are sent to EPA along with the draft major
permit. Pursuant to CGS section 22a-5, the Commissioner is directed to
``promote and coordinate management of . . . air resources to assure
their protection, enhancement and proper allocation and utilization''
and to ``provide for the prevention and abatement of all . . . air
pollution including, but not limited to, that related to particulates,
gases, dust, vapors, [and] odors.'' Under RCSA section 22a-174-3a(i),
Ambient Air Quality Analysis, which has been approved into the
Connecticut SIP on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 3009), the Commissioner is
authorized to request any owner or operator to submit an ambient air
quality impact analysis using CT DEEP approved air quality models and
modeling protocols. The state also collaborates with the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC), and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association and EPA in order to perform large-scale urban
airshed
[[Page 54482]]
modeling. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
EPA's full approval of Connecticut's Title V program became
effective on May 31, 2002. See 67 FR 31966 (May 13, 2002). Before EPA
can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to
collect adequate fees. CGS section 22a-174(g) directs the Commissioner
of CT DEEP to require the payment of a fee sufficient to cover the
reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon an application for, and
monitoring compliance with, any state or federal permit, license,
registration, order, or certificate. CT DEEP implements this directive
through state regulations at RCSA sections 22a-174-26 and 22a-174-33,
which contain specific requirements related to permit fees, including
fees for Title V sources. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities
Pursuant to element M, states must consult with, and allow
participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
CGS section 4-168, Notice prior to action on regulations, provides
a public participation process for all stakeholders that includes a
minimum of a 30-day comment period and an opportunity for public
hearing for all SIP-related actions. EPA proposes that Connecticut has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with
respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion Into the Connecticut SIP
As noted above in the discussion of elements E and J, Connecticut
submitted, and EPA is proposing to approve, CGS sections 1-85 and 22a-
171 for approval into the SIP. In addition, in its May 30, 2013
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Connecticut
submitted CGS section 16a-21a ``Sulfur content of home heating oil and
off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of requirements for emergency,''
effective July 1, 2011. EPA previously approved a prior version of this
statute, which had been included as a component of Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP, into the Connecticut SIP on July 10, 2014 (79 FR
39322). The updated version of the statute includes an additional
provision limiting the sulfur content of number two heating oil. The
sulfur content restrictions in the updated statute are more stringent
than those in the previously approved version, thus meeting the anti-
backsliding requirements of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the updated statute into the Connecticut SIP.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve SIP submissions from Connecticut
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008
Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
with the exception of certain aspects relating to PSD which we are
proposing to conditionally approve. EPA's proposed actions regarding
these infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Proposed Action on CT Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Various NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures......... A A A A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system..... A A A A
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures..................... A A A A
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major A* A* A* A*
modifications..........................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor A A A A
modifications..........................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with A No action A No action
maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2)..................
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3)............................... A* A* A* A*
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4)............. A A A A
(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement................. A A A A
(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement.............. A A A A
(E)(i): Adequate resources.............................. A A A A
(E)(ii): State boards................................... A A A A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local NA NA NA NA
agencies...............................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system................ A A A A
(G): Emergency power.................................... A A A A
(H): Future SIP revisions............................... A A A A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under + + + +
part D.................................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials.......... A A A A
(J)(ii): Public notification............................ A A A A
(J)(iii): PSD........................................... A* A* A* A*
(J)(iv): Visibility protection.......................... + + + +
(K): Air quality modeling and data...................... A A A A
(L): Permitting fees.................................... A A A A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local A A A A
entities...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table 1: Proposed action on CT infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS:
A--Approve.
A*--Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to NOX as a precursor to ozone and minor
source baseline date for PM2.5.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
No action--EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirement.\7\
NA--Not applicable.
[[Page 54483]]
With respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is
proposing to convert conditional approvals for infrastructure
requirements pertaining to Elements A, D(ii) (interstate pollution
abatement), and E(ii) (state boards) to full approval. Also with
respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing
to newly conditionally approve Connecticut's submittals pertaining to
Elements C(ii), D(i)(II), and J(iii) for the requirements to treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone and to establish a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 in the PSD program.
With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to
convert the conditional approval for the infrastructure SIP
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) pertaining to interstate pollution
abatement to a full approval.
In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the
Connecticut SIP, the following Connecticut statutes which were included
for approval in Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals:
CGS Section 1-85 (Formerly Sec. 1-68), Interest in conflict with
discharge of duties, effective in 1979.
CGS Section 22a-171, Duties of Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection, effective in 1971; and
CGS Section 16a-21a, Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-
road diesel fuel, effective July 1, 2011.
As noted in Table 1, we are proposing to conditionally approve
portions of Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittals pertaining to
the state's PSD program. The outstanding issues with the PSD program
concern properly treating NOX as a precursor to ozone and
establishing a minor source baseline date for PM2.5
emissions.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of
approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final
rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to submit an
update to its PSD program that fully remedies the requirements
mentioned above. If the State fails to do so, this action will become a
disapproval one year from the date of final approval. EPA will notify
the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this
commitment will no longer be a part of the approved Connecticut SIP.
EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the conditional approval converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its commitment, within the applicable
time frame, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new
submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally
approved infrastructure SIP elements will also be disapproved at that
time. In addition, a final disapproval would trigger the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). If EPA
approves the new submittal, the PSD program and relevant infrastructure
SIP elements will be fully approved and replace the conditionally
approved program in the SIP.
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.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference into the Connecticut SIP the three Connecticut
statutes referenced in Section V above. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (see 65 FR 67249 (November 9,
2000)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 13, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2015-22027 Filed 9-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
