16358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

additional period(s) of no more than 30 

days in accordance with this section. 

VA will not provide per diem if VA 

determines that a veteran was provided 

adult day health care in a facility that 

does not meet the standards set forth in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and VA 

may recover all per diem payments 

made for the care of the veteran in that 

facility. 

(e) Approval of response. Per diem 

payments will not be made under this 

section unless and until the director of 

the VAMC determines, or the director of 

the VISN in which the State home is 

located (if the VAMC director is not 

capable of doing so) determines, that an 

emergency exists and that the 

evacuation facility meets VA standards 

set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

(Authority 38 U.S.C. 501, 1720, 1742) 

[FR Doc. 2011–6737 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0639; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2008–0641; EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

00642; EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0643; A–1– 

FRL–9285–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island; Infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the States of 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island. These submittals 

outline how each state’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

requirements of section 110(a) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is 

commonly referred to as an 

infrastructure SIP. These actions are 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2008– 

00639 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Connecticut, EPA– 

R01–OAR–2008–0641 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2008–06432 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for New Hampshire, or EPA– 

R01–OAR–2008–0643 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Rhode Island, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0639, 

EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0641, EPA–RO1– 

OAR–2008–642, or EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0643’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0639 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for Connecticut, 

EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0641 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Maine, EPA–RO1–OAR– 

2008–0642 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for New Hampshire 

or EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0643 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Rhode Island. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

through http://www.regulations.gov, or 

e-mail, information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109–3912, 

telephone number (617) 918–1664, fax 

number (617) 918–0664, e-mail 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal and EPA’s technical support 

documents are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630; the Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, First Floor of the Tyson 

Building, Augusta Mental Health 

Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333– 

0017; Air Resources Division, 

Department of Environmental Services, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16359 

6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, 

NH 03302–0095; and the Office of Air 

Resources, Department of 

Environmental Management, 235 

Promenade Street, Providence, RI 

02908–5767. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the States’ 

submittals? 

A. Emission Limits and Other Control 

Measures 

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data 

System 

C. Program for Enforcement of Control 

Measures 

D. Interstate Transport 

E. Adequate Resources 

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System 

G. Emergency Power 

H. Future SIP Revisions 

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D 

J. Consultation With Government Officials; 

Public Notification; PSD; and Visibility 

Protection 

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data 

L. Permitting Fees 

M. Consultation/Participation by Affected 

Local Entities 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

submittals from the States of 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island as meeting the Section 

110(a) infrastructure requirements of the 

Clean Air Act for the 1997 ozone 

standard. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on 

8-hour average ozone concentrations. 

The 8-hour averaging period replaced 

the previous 1-hour averaging period, 

and the level of the NAAQS was 

changed from 0.12 parts per million 

(ppm) to 0.08 ppm (see 62 FR 38856). 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states 

within 3 years after promulgation of a 

new or revised standard. 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(1) and (2). Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) require states to address basic 

SIP requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 1997 standards 

to EPA no later than June 2000. 

However, intervening litigation over the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards created 

uncertainty about how to proceed, and 

certain States did not provide the 

required infrastructure SIP submission 

for this newly promulgated standard. 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon States to make a SIP submission 

to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the State develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

State’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, States typically have met the 

basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone standards. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 

guidance document entitled, ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ This 

guidance noted that to the extent an 

existing SIP already meets the section 

110(a)(2) requirements, states need only 

to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. 

The States of Connecticut, Maine, 

New Hampshire, and Rhode Island each 

submitted such certification letters to 

EPA on December 28, 2007, January 3, 

2008, December 14, 2007 and December 

14, 2007, respectively. All four 

submittals were deemed complete, 

effective April 28, 2008. (See 73 FR 

16205; March 27, 2008.) 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

States’ submittals? 

EPA has reviewed the December 2007 

submittal from Connecticut, the January 

2008 submittal from Maine, the 

December 2007 submittal from New 

Hampshire, and the December 2007 

submittal from Rhode Island. The 

Agency has determined that each state’s 

SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

and is consistent with the relevant EPA 

guidance. Each state’s submittal and 

EPA’s evaluation of that submittal are 

detailed in the following technical 

support documents (TSDs) which are 

available in the docket for these actions 

and at the EPA New England Regional 

Office referenced in the ADDRESSES

section: (1) ‘‘Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the Connecticut 

Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements 

for 1997 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 

Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

March 9, 2011; (2)‘‘Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the Maine 

Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements 

for 1997 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 

Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

March 10, 2011; (3) ‘‘Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the New Hampshire 

Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements 

for 1997 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 

Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

March 10, 2011; and (4) ‘‘Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for the Rhode 

Island Submittal to Fulfill the 

Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 

Act Under Section 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

March 9, 2011. 

In their submittals each state 

references items in their state specific 

laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that 

address the elements detailed in section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. These elements 

and the corresponding subsection of the 

CAA are as follows: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (110(a)(2)(A)); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B)); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C)); 

Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E)); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F)); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G)); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H)); 

Consultation with government 

officials (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(110(a)(2)(J)); 

Air quality modeling data 

(110(a)(2)(K)); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities (110(a)(2)(M)). 

In its submittal, Connecticut 

references the Connecticut Air Quality 

SIP, the Connecticut General Statues 

(CGS) and the Regulations of the 

Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA). 

In its submittal, Maine references the 

Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of 

Maine Regulations (CMR) and the Maine 

Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA). In 

its submittal, New Hampshire references 

the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes 

Annotated (RSA) as well as the New 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ (August 11, 

1999). 

Hampshire Rules Governing the Control 

of Air Pollution, and NH Admin. Rules 

Env-A 100 et seq. In its submittal, 

Rhode Island references the Rhode 

Island Air Quality SIP, the Rhode Island 

Air Pollution Control Regulations 

(RIAPCR) and the Rhode Island General 

Laws (RIGL). 

The discussion below summarizes 

how each state meets each relevant CAA 

infrastructure requirement outlined 

above. 

A. Emission Limits and Other Control 

Measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, schedules for compliance 

and other related matters. Each state’s 

infrastructure submittal includes a list 

of regulations that have been previously 

adopted by the state and approved by 

EPA which include specific emission 

limits and the framework for 

implementation of these limits. The 

specific details of each state’s submittal 

and EPA analysis of the submittal for 

this element is stated in the TSD for 

each state. Also, a table containing each 

regulation and the citation of EPA’s 

approval of this regulation is included 

in the Appendix of each state’s TSD. 

EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D 

of Title I of the CAA to be governed by 

the submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Connecticut, 

Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode 

Island have included some SIP 

provisions originally submitted in 

response to part D in its submission 

documenting its compliance with the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2). These states have over time 

continually updated the elements of 

their SIPs addressing the ozone NAAQS, 

and the provisions reviewed here are a 

weave of SIP revisions submitted in 

response to the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) and 

the nonattainment requirements of part 

D. 

For the purposes of this action, EPA 

is reviewing any rules originally 

submitted in response to part D solely 

for the purposes of determining whether 

they support a finding that the state has 

met the basic infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2). 

For example, in response to the 

requirement to have enforceable 

emission limits under section 

110(a)(2)(A), Connecticut, Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Rhode Island cited to 

several rules that were submitted to 

meet the Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirement of part 

D. EPA is here approving those rules as 

meeting the requirement to have 

enforceable emission limits on ozone 

precursors; any judgment about whether 

those emission limits discharge the 

state’s obligation to impose RACT under 

part D was or will be made separately, 

in an action reviewing those rules 

pursuant to the requirements of part D. 

Also, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. EPA believes 

that a number of states may have SSM 

provisions that are contrary to the CAA 

and existing EPA guidance,1 and the 

Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

In addition, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states may have such provisions that 

are contrary to the CAA and existing 

EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, November 

24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision that is 

contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance 

to take steps to correct the deficiency as 

soon as possible. 

The Connecticut submittal cites 16 

specific rules the state adopted to 

control the emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX). In addition the State of 

Connecticut has also adopted the 

California-Low Emission Vehicle 

standard for automobiles. 

The Maine submittal cites over 20 

specific rules the state adopted to 

control the emissions of VOCs and NOX. 

The New Hampshire submittal cites a 

general overview of the RSA, Chapters: 

Env-A 300, 600, 700, 1200, and 3200 of 

their air quality regulations, and five 

specific rules for the control the 

emissions of VOCs and NOX. In 

addition, they also cite several rules for 

the control of control the emissions of 

VOCs and NOX from automobiles. 

The Rhode Island submittal cites 15 

specific rules the state adopted to 

control the emissions of VOCs and NOX. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data 

System 

Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to 

include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. Connecticut, Maine, New 

Hampshire and Rhode Island all operate 

ambient air quality monitors and submit 

the data collected to EPA. All four states 

have submitted annual air monitoring 

network plans which have been 

approved by EPA as follows: 

Connecticut (submitted on August 16, 

2010, approved by EPA on August 31, 

2010); Maine (submitted on June 30, 

2010, approved by EPA on July 7, 2010); 

New Hampshire (submitted on 

September 7, 2010, approved by EPA on 

October 13, 2010); and Rhode Island 

(submitted on July 12, 2010, approved 

by EPA on July 13, 2010). 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(B) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

C. Program for Enforcement of Control 

Measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to 

include a program providing for 

enforcement of all SIP measures and the 

regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) requirements. 

In this action, EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment-related provisions, such 

as the NSR program required by part D 

in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs because these submittals are 

required beyond the date (3 years from 

NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure submittals are required. 

Also, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

state rules with regard to the NSR 

Reform requirements. EPA will act on 

SIP submittals that are made for 

purposes of addressing NSR Reform 

through a separate rulemaking process. 

EPA has determined that 

Connecticut’s, Maine’s, New 

Hampshire’s, and Rhode Island’s minor 

NSR programs adopted pursuant to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16361 

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulate 

ozone precursor emissions. EPA is 

concerned that certain provisions of 

some states’ minor NSR programs 

adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act might not meet all the 

requirements found in EPA’s regulations 

implementing that provision. See 40 

CFR 51.160–51.164. EPA previously 

approved all four states minor NSR 

programs into the SIP, and there was at 

the time no objection to the provisions 

of these programs. For Connecticut, 58 

FR 10987 (Feb. 23, 1993); for Maine, 45 

FR 6786 (Jan. 30, 1980); for New 

Hampshire, 51 FR 10863 (March 15, 

1983); and for Rhode Island, 48 FR 

29690, (June 28, 1983). Since then, the 

states and EPA have relied on the 

existing state minor NSR programs to 

assure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Therefore, in this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Connecticut’s, 

Maine’s, New Hampshire’s, and Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the state’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have minor NSR provisions that are 

contrary to the existing EPA regulations 

for this program. EPA intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

As further discussed in the TSDs, and 

each states’s respective submittal, each 

state cites specific sections of their rules 

and regulations that show how the state 

meets the requirements for this element. 

The Connecticut submittal cites 

several sections of the CGS (see CGS 

Sections 22a–171, 22a–174, 22a–175, 

22a–176 and 22a–178)) and several 

regulations of the RCSA (see RSCA 22a– 

174–3a and RSCA 22a–174–12), 

including a program to meet minor 

source NSR and PSD requirements. 

Connecticut’s 110 submittal meets the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(C), with the following 

exception which is currently being 

addressed. EPA previously noted that 

Connecticut’s PSD program had a 

deficiency because the state did not 

have the authority to implement the 

PSD permitting program with respect to 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. (See 

75 FR 77698; December 13, 2010.) 

Connecticut proposed rule revisions to 

address this deficiency and EPA 

proposed approval of those revisions 

through parallel processing procedures 

on January 6, 2011 (76 FR 752). On 

February 9, 2011, Connecticut 

submitted a final SIP revision 

addressing this deficiency. Final 

approval of Connecticut’s GHG SIP 

revision is expected prior to final 

approval of Connecticut’s section 110 

infrastructure submittal. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to fully approve this 

element for Connecticut. 

The Maine submittal cites 38 MRSA 

§ 347–A and C, § 348, and § 349 which 

provides the Maine DEP with civil and 

criminal enforcement authorities, 

including the authority to assess 

penalties. In addition Maine cites, CMR 

Chapter 100 Definitions and Regulations 

and CMR Chapter 115 Emission License 

Regulation, which contains the 

regulations for minor source NSR and 

PSD programs. Maine’s submittal meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that 

there was a deficiency in Maine’s PSD 

program because the state does not have 

adequate resources to implement the 

PSD permitting program with respect to 

GHG emissions. (See 75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010). Maine DEP has 

adopted revisions to its program to 

address this deficiency, but has not yet 

submitted these rules to EPA. In that 

same December 30, 2010 action, EPA 

issued a SIP error correction 

withdrawing EPA’s approval of Maine’s 

PSD program to the extent it applies to 

increases in GHG emissions below the 

thresholds in EPA’s tailoring rule 

revisions to the federal PSD program in 

the so-called ‘‘narrowing rule.’’ Ibid. On 

March 10, 2011, Maine submitted a 

letter to EPA stating that in evaluating 

its section 110 infrastructure submittal, 

EPA should consider the state’s PSD 

program as currently approved in the 

SIP and as corrected by EPA’s December 

30, 2010 narrowing rule. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to fully approve this 

element for Maine for the purposes of 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address 

how the state’s newly adopted PSD 

rules implement GHG requirements in a 

separate action. 

The New Hampshire submittal cites 

the RSA and ENV–A (see RSA 125–C:4, 

125–C:11, and 125–C:15, and ENV–A 

618 and ENVA–619), including a 

program for the minor source NSR and 

PSD programs. New Hampshire’s 

submittal meets the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 

previously noted that there was a 

deficiency in New Hampshire’s PSD 

program because the state does not have 

adequate resources to implement the 

PSD permitting program with respect to 

GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536 (December 

30, 2010). New Hampshire submitted a 

SIP revision to its program to address 

this deficiency on February 7, 2011. 

EPA is reviewing this submittal. On 

March 8, 2011, New Hampshire 

submitted a letter to EPA stating that in 

evaluating its section 110 infrastructure 

submittal, EPA should consider the 

revised rules. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to fully approve this element 

for New Hampshire for the purposes of 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address 

how the state’s newly adopted PSD 

rules implement GHG requirements in a 

separate action. 

The Rhode Island submittal cites 

sections 23–23–10, 23–23–11 and 23– 

23–14 of the RIGL, which provide DEM 

with civil and criminal enforcement 

authorities, including the authority to 

assess penalties. In addition, RI APCR 

No. 9 Air Pollution Control Permits, 

which has been approved into the RI 

SIP, includes the requirements to 

implement the PSD permitting program 

and includes the minor source NSR 

provisions. Rhode Island’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that 

there was a deficiency in Rhode Island’s 

PSD program, because the state does not 

have adequate resources to implement 

the PSD permitting program with 

respect to GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536 

(Dec. 30, 2010). Rhode Island DEM 

submitted a SIP revision to its program 

to address this deficiency on January 18, 

2011. On March 3, 2011, Rhode Island 

submitted a letter to EPA stating that in 

evaluating its section 110 infrastructure 

submittal, EPA should consider the 

revised rules. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to fully approve this element 

for Rhode Island for the purposes of 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address 

how the state’s newly adopted PSD 

rules implement GHG requirements in a 

separate action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16362 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

D. Interstate Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state, or from interfering with measures 

required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility in another state. This action 

does not address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which have been 

addressed by a separate finding issued 

by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with the applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). Specifically, 

section 126(a) requires new or modified 

major sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source 

Connecticut’s PSD regulations 

provide for notice to most of the parties 

consistent with the requirements in the 

EPA PSD program, although there is no 

specific mandate that affected states 

receive notice. Connecticut in fact 

issues extensive notice of its draft 

permits, and neighboring states 

consistently get copied on those drafts. 

Connecticut has no pending obligations 

under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. 

The CT DEP procedures meet the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Maine is required to give notice of 

draft PSD permits that meet the 

requirements in our regulations. Maine’s 

SIP-approved Chapter 115 requires the 

state to provide a ‘‘copy of the public 

notification and a copy of the draft order 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region I, the chief executives of 

the municipality and county where the 

source proposes to locate, any 

comprehensive land use planning 

agency, and any State, Federal Land 

Manager, or Indian Governing Body 

whose lands may be affected by 

emissions from the source or 

modification.’’ Maine also has no 

pending obligations under section 115 

or 126(b) of the Act. Maine’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

New Hampshire is required to give 

notice of draft PSD permits that meet 

the requirements in our regulations. 

New Hampshire specifically defers to 40 

CFR part 52 for the process by which 

PSD permits are issued. Env-A 205.03. 

40 CFR part 52 effectively incorporates 

the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124— 

which include affected state notice. 40 

CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) & (x). New 

Hampshire has no pending obligations 

under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. 

New Hampshire SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Rhode Island’s Air Pollution Control 

Regulation No. 9, ‘‘Air Pollution Control 

Permits,’’ which has been approved into 

the RI SIP provides for notice to nearby 

States. (See 9.12.3.) Rhode Island has no 

pending obligations under section 115 

or 126(b) of the Act. Rhode Island’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

E. Adequate Resources 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP and related 

issues. 

As further explained in each state’s 

TSD and respective submittal, each state 

cites specific sections of their rules and 

regulations that show how the state 

meets the requirements for this element. 

Connecticut cites its state law (see 

CGS Section 22a–171) and its SIP, 

Chapter 11, Parts A–E which describe 

the (A) existing organizations, (B) 

manpower, (C) funding, (D) physical 

resources and (E) local agencies. It 

states, in part, ‘‘The Department of 

Environmental Protection will secure 

appropriations sufficient, in conjunction 

with federal assistance, to maintain the 

projected state funding levels.’’ 

Maine cites its state law (see 38 

MRSA § 341–A. 38 MRSA § 341–D 38 

MRSA § 342 and 38 MRSA § 581) and 

its original 1972 SIP Chapter 8, 

documenting the existence of adequate 

resources. For FY 2007 (the year cited 

in its submittal), the Maine Bureau of 

Air Quality had a staff of 59, and a 

budget of $5.5 million. 

New Hampshire cites the RSA 125 

C:6, which authorizes the NHDES 

Commissioner to enforce the state’s air 

laws, establish a permit program, accept 

and administer grants, and exercise all 

incidental powers necessary to carry out 

the law, and RSA 125 C:12, which 

authorizes the Commissioner to collect 

fees to recover the costs of reviewing 

and acting upon permit applications. In 

addition New Hampshire cites its 

original 1972 SIP which describes the 

(A) existing organizations; (B) 

manpower; (C) funding; and (D) 

physical resources. 

Rhode Island cites § 23–23–5 of the 

RIGL which provides the Director of 

DEM with the legal authority to enforce 

air pollution control requirement, and 

§ 23–23–5 of the RIGL which provides 

for the assessment of operating permit 

fees from air emissions sources, allows 

for DEM to assess preconstruction 

permit fees and establishes a general 

revenue reserve account within the 

general fund to finance the state clean 

air programs. In addition, RI DEM 

referred to its regulations implementing 

its operating permit program pursuant 

to 40 CFR part 70. RI APCR No. 28, 

‘‘Operating Permit Fees,’’ requires major 

sources to pay annual operating permit 

fees. Finally, Section III of the 1972 RI 

SIP specifies the RI DEM’s legal 

authority to implement SIP measures 

and Section VII of the 1972 SIP 

describes the resources and manpower 

estimates for the RI DEM. 

As discussed above, EPA has 

previously determined that Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Rhode Island would not 

have adequate resources to implement 

the PSD permitting program with 

respect to GHG emissions without 

adopting rules to limit the number of 

GHG sources that require PSD permits. 

A complete discussion of this issue is 

provided above in Section III.C. of this 

rule. All three state environmental 

agencies adopted programs to address 

this deficiency. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to fully approve this element. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(E) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA 

requires states to establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and to submit periodic emission 

reports. Connecticut’s, Maine’s, New 

Hampshire’s, and Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure submittals reference the 

specific regulations that were previously 

adopted by the state and approved by 

EPA which require sources to monitor 

emissions and submit reports. The 

specific rules, along with a citation to 

EPA’s approval of each rule, is included 

in the TSD for each state. For example, 

Rhode Island’s submittal references the 

following: (1) APCR No. 9, ‘‘Air 

Pollution Control Permits,’’ which 

requires emissions testing of permitted 

processes within 60 days of full 

operation and specifies that 

preconstruction permits issued contain 

an emissions testing section; (2) APCR 

No. 14, ‘‘Record Keeping and 

Reporting,’’ which requires emission 

sources to report annually emissions 

and other data to RI DEM; and (3) APCR 

No. 27, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions,’’ which requires annual 

emissions testing of subject sources and 

includes specifications for continuous 

emissions monitors. As detailed in the 

TSD’s, similar rules and regulations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16363 

have been adopted by Connecticut, 

Maine, and New Hampshire. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

G. Emergency Power 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA 

requires states to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. Connecticut’s, 

Maine’s, New Hampshire’s, and Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure submittals 

reference the specific state legislation 

that gives each state authority to order 

a source to cease operations if it is 

determined that emissions from the 

source pose an immediate danger to 

public health or safety. In addition, 

Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island 

have adopted emergency episode 

regulations, consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H, sections 51.150 through 51.153, 

which have been previously approved 

by EPA. (See TSDs for state regulation 

and EPA approval citations.) 

New Hampshire has broad statutory 

authority (see RSA 125–C:9 Authority of 

the Commissioner in Cases of 

Emergency) to address activities causing 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

to public health; however, New 

Hampshire does not have regulations 

that specifically address all the 40 CFR 

part 51 subpart H requirements. But 

New Hampshire, as a matter of practice, 

does the following in response to 

elevated ozone levels. Through the EPA 

AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH 

systems, the New Hampshire DES posts 

on the internet forecasted ozone levels 

statewide for each day. Notices are sent 

out to ENVIROFLASH participants 

when levels are forecast to exceed the 

current 8-hour ozone standard. In 

addition, when levels are expected to 

exceed the ozone standard in New 

Hampshire, the media are alerted, 

through a press release, and the 

National Weather Service is alerted to 

issue an Air Quality Advisory through 

the normal National Weather Service 

weather alert system. This is similar to 

the notification and communication 

requirements of 40 CFR 151.152. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully 

approve this element for New 

Hampshire. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

H. Future SIP Revisions 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA 

requires states to have the authority to 

revise their SIPs in response to changes 

in the NAAQS, availability of improved 

methods for attaining NAAQS, or in 

response to an EPA finding that the SIP 

is substantially inadequate. 

Connecticut’s infrastructure submittal 

references the SIP and CGS which 

requires the SIP to be a dynamic and not 

static document that is to be revised as 

necessary. Maine’s infrastructure 

submittal references the MRSA, which 

requires, the adoption, amendment or 

repeal of reasonable rules and 

emergency rules necessary for the 

interpretation, implementation and 

enforcement of any provision of law that 

the environmental department is 

charged with administering. New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure submittal 

references, RSA 125–C:6 Powers and 

Duties of the Commissioner, which 

requires the commissioner to develop ‘‘a 

comprehensive program and provide 

services for the study, prevention and 

abatement of air pollution.’’ Rhode 

Island’s infrastructure submittal 

references, § 23–23–5 of the RIGL, 

which allows the Director of RI DEM to 

‘‘make, issue, and amend rules and 

regulations * * * for the prevention, 

control, abatement, and limitation of air 

pollution.’’ In addition, it should be 

noted that all four states have made 

numerous SIP revisions for both the 

previous 1-hour ozone standard and the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(H) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part 

D 

Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA 

requires that each such plan shall ‘‘in 

the case of a plan or plan revision for 

an area designated as a nonattainment 

area, meet the applicable requirements 

of part D of this subchapter (relating to 

nonattainment areas).’’ EPA is not 

evaluating nonattainment-related 

provisions, such as the NSR program 

required by part D in section 

110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs because these submittals are 

required beyond the date (3 years from 

NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure submittals are required. 

J. Consultation With Government 

Officials; Public Notification; PSD; and 

Visibility Protection 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA 

requires states to provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements 

pursuant to Section 121 relating to 

consultation. 

Connecticut’s infrastructure submittal 

references CGS Section 22a–171, Duties 

of Commissioner of Environmental 

Protection, which requires the 

commissioner to ‘‘advise and consult 

with agencies of the United States, 

agencies of the state, political 

subdivisions and industries and any 

other affected groups in furtherance of 

the purposes of this chapter.’’ In 

addition Connecticut has a State 

Implementation Plan Revision Advisory 

Committee (SIPRAC) which was 

established in 1972, and generally meets 

each month in Hartford. The meeting 

notices are posted on the CT DEP Web 

site and the agenda is also available on 

the Web site. The SIPRAC committee 

discusses relevant air quality issues, 

such as air quality permits, state and 

national regulation revisions and SIP 

changes. 

Maine’s infrastructure submittal 

references the MRSA and CMR. 

Specifically 06–096 CMR Chapter 115 

Major and Minor Source Air Emission 

License Regulations, Section 4A(d) 

establishes consultation requirements 

with Federal Land Managers for NSR 

and PSD, which requires, ‘‘The 

applicant and/or the Department shall 

notify and provide a copy of the 

application to all Federal Land 

Managers listed in Chapter 100 of the 

Department’s regulations, and the 

Indian governing body of any 

reservation located within 50 km of any 

Major Modification or new Major source 

on or before the date the applicant 

provides Notice of Intent to File to the 

public, and provide at least a thirty (30) 

days public comment period.’’ 

New Hampshire’s infrastructure 

submittal references state laws and 

regulations, specifically, RSA 125–C:6 

Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, 

which requires: Consulting, and 

cooperating with the cities and towns 

and other agencies of the state, federal 

government, interstate agencies, and 

other affected agencies or groups in 

matters relating to air quality; 

encouraging local units to promote 

cooperation by the people, political 

subdivisions, industries, and others in 

preventing and controlling air pollution 

and coordinating and regulating the air 

pollution control programs of political 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16364 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

subdivisions of the state and entering 

agreements with said subdivisions to 

plan or implement programs for the 

control and abatement of air pollution. 

Rhode Island’s submittal references 

§ 23–23–5 of the RIGL which specifies 

that the RI DEM Director shall ‘‘advise 

and consult with agencies of the United 

States, agencies of the state, political 

subdivisions and industries and any 

other affected groups in furtherance of 

the purposes of this chapter.’’ 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA further 

requires states to notify the public if 

NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to 

enhance public awareness of measures 

that can be taken to prevent 

exceedances. Connecticut, Maine, New 

Hampshire, and Rhode Island are all 

state partners participating in EPA’s 

AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality 

Alert programs. See http:// 

www.airnow.gov. Through this program, 

states provide near real-time air quality 

data, as well as next day forecasts, to the 

public. Individuals and organizations 

may also sign up to receive e-mail alerts 

when poor air quality is predicted in 

their area. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA also 

requires states to meet applicable 

requirements of Part C related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection. With regard to 

the applicable requirements for 

visibility protection, EPA recognizes 

that states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the Act (which includes 

CAA sections 169A and 169B). In the 

event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. We are, however, 

evaluating the infrastructure submittals 

with respect to the applicable PSD 

program requirements under 

110(a)(2)(C). A complete discussion of 

this issue is provided above in Section 

III.C. of this rule. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs provide for 

performing air quality modeling for 

predicting effects on air quality of 

emissions from any NAAQS pollutant 

and submission of such data to EPA 

upon request. 

As further explained in each state’s 

TSD, all four states reference the relative 

portions of their laws, regulations and 

SIPs that require modeling from new or 

modified sources of air pollution, and 

the general authority for the state to 

conduct air quality analyses. 

Connecticut, New Hampshire and 

Rhode Island have submitted 8-hour 

ozone attainment demonstrations to 

EPA as required under the CAA for 

ozone nonattainment areas classified 

moderate and above. Maine was not 

required to submit an 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, because the 

nonattainment areas in Maine were not 

classified as moderate or higher. In 

addition, all four states are members of 

and participate in the ozone attainment 

demonstration modeling efforts 

conducted by the Ozone Transport 

Commission. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(K) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

L. Permitting Fees 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to require each major 

stationary source to pay permitting fees 

to cover the cost of reviewing, 

approving, implementing and enforcing 

a permit until such fee requirements are 

superseded by EPA’s approval of a title 

V operating permit program with a fee 

program consistent with the Act. None 

of these states’ title V operating permit 

programs is formally approved into the 

state’s SIP. However, the operating 

permit program is a legal mechanism 

the state can use to ensure that it has 

sufficient resources to support the air 

program, consistent with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L). 

EPA’s full approval of Connecticut’s 

title V program became effective on May 

31, 2002. Before EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. 

Connecticut’s title V program included 

a demonstration the state will collect a 

fee from title V sources above the 

presumptive minimum in accordance 

with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Connecticut 

collects sufficient fees to administer the 

title V permit program. 

EPA’s full approval of Maine’s title V 

program became effective on December 

17, 2001. Before EPA can grant full 

approval, the state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. On 

October 23, 1995, Maine submitted a 

detailed fee demonstration in 

accordance with 40 CFR 70.9. The 

detailed fee demonstration was part of 

EPA’s full approval. Maine collects 

adequate fees for Title V sources. The 

statute also allows the state to collect 

fees from new Title V sources, which 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L). 

EPA’s full approval of New 

Hampshire’s title V program became 

effective on November 23, 2001. Before 

EPA can grant full approval, a state 

must demonstrate the ability to collect 

adequate fees. New Hampshire’s title V 

program included a demonstration the 

state will collect a fee from title V 

sources above the presumptive 

minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.9(b)(2)(i). New Hampshire collects 

sufficient fees to administer the title V 

permit program. 

EPA’s full approval of Rhode Island’s 

title V program became effective on 

November 30, 2001. Before EPA can 

grant full approval, a state must 

demonstrate the ability to collect 

adequate fees. Rhode Island’s title V 

program included a demonstration the 

state will collect a fee from title V 

sources above the presumptive 

minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 

70.9(b)(2)(i). Rhode Island collects 

sufficient fees to administer the title V 

permit program. 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(L) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

M. Consultation/Participation by 

Affected Local Entities 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA 

requires states to provide for 

consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. The 

Connecticut infrastructure submittal 

references state law (see CGS Section 4– 

168) and Chapter 12 of the original 1972 

Connecticut SIP, which require 

consultation and coordination with 

local entities. In addition, the 

Connecticut State Implementation Plan 

Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) 

established in 1972 generally meets 

each month in Hartford. The meeting 

notices are posted on the Connecticut 

DEP Web site and the agenda is also 

available on the Web site. SIPRAC 

discusses relevant air pollution issues 

and regulations with all interested 

parties, including EPA. Maine’s 

infrastructure submittal references state 

law (see 5 MRSA Chapter 375, 

Subchapter 2 and 38 MRSA § 597) and 

Chapter 9 of the original 1972 SIP, 

which requires consultation and 

coordination with local entities. New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure submittal 

references state regulations (see RSA 

125–C:6 Powers and Duties of the 

Commissioner), which requires 

consultation and coordination with 

local entities. Rhode Island’s 

infrastructure submittal references 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16365 

section 23–23–5 of the RIGL which 

provides for the RI DEM Director ‘‘to 

advise, consult, and cooperate with the 

cities and towns and other agencies of 

the State, Federal government, and other 

states and interstate agencies * * *’’ 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(M) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

current SIPs for the States of 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island meet the 

infrastructure elements and the 

corresponding subsection of the CAA 

listed below for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (110(a)(2)(A)); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B)); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C)); 

Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E)); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F)); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G)); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H)); 

Consultation with government 

officials (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(110(a)(2)(J)); 

Air quality modeling data 

(110(a)(2)(K)); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities (110(a)(2)(M)). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this action and 

if that provision may be severed from 

the remainder of the action, EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

In addition, EPA may take final action 

on one or more of these state’s 

submittals separately, depending on the 

circumstances involved with each 

state’s submittal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6870 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0315, FRL–9285–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct 

errors in the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for the State of Washington 

regarding the scope of certain 

regulations incorporated by reference 

into the SIP. This correction would limit 

the applicability of certain regulations 

to pollutants for which National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) have been established and 

precursors to those NAAQS pollutants. 

It would thus ensure that these 

regulations are reasonably related to 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS in Washington. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0315, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS