63228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1For each State, the first docket number refers to 

the docket for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure 

submittal and the second docket number refers to 

the docket for the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

submittal. 

on State, local, and tribal governments, 

or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers and Titles 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program number and title for 

this rule is 64.109, Veterans 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, approved this 

document on October 4, 2012, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: October 10, 2012. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 38 CFR part 3 that was 

published at 76 FR 81834 on December 

29, 2011, is adopted as a final rule with 

the following change: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 3.317, revise the section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 3.317 Compensation for certain 

disabilities occurring in Persian Gulf 

veterans. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–25353 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 and EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0321 (CT); EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322 

(ME); EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 and EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0323 (MA); EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 (NH); A–1–FRL–9740–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving most 

elements of submittals from the States of 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire. We are also 

conditionally approving certain 

elements of these submittals, as well as 

disapproving a few elements of 

Massachusetts’ submittals. The 

submittals outline how each state’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

requirements of section 110(a) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 

and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). These actions are being taken 

under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets 

for these actions under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0317 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0321 for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0322 for Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0459 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 

for Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 for New Hampshire. All 

documents in the dockets are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630; the Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, First Floor of the Tyson 

Building, Augusta Mental Health 

Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333– 

0017; Division of Air Quality Control, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources 

Division, Department of Environmental 

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

Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1684, fax number 

(617) 918–0684, email 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

Under CAA section 110(a)(1), states 

are required to submit plans called state 

implementation plans (SIPs) that 

provide for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, in turn, 

specifically requires SIPs to contain 

provisions adequate to prohibit 

emissions activity within the state that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63229 

contributes significantly to 

nonattainment or interferes with 

maintenance in another state. 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On July 23, 2012, EPA published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) 

for the States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. 

See 77 FR 43023. The NPR proposed 

action on submittals from these four 

states that outlined how each state’s SIP 

meets the requirements of section 110(a) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

The States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

submitted SIPs to meet infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

SIPs addressed the following section 

110(a)(2) components: 

(A) Emission limits and other control 

measures. 

(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system. 

(C) Program for enforcement of 

control measures. 

(D) Interstate transport. 

(E) Adequate resources. 

(F) Stationary source monitoring 

system. 

(G) Emergency power. 

(H) Future SIP revisions. 

(J) Consultation with government 

officials, Public notification, Prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) and 

Visibility protection. 

(K) Air quality modeling/Data 

(L) Permitting fees. 

(M) Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities. 

EPA proposed to approve the 

submittals from all four states as fully 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

for the following section 110(a)(2) 

elements and sub-elements: (B), (C) 

(enforcement program only), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) 

(public notification), (K), (L), and (M). 

EPA also proposed to approve the 

submittals from Maine and New 

Hampshire as fully meeting the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two 

prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

These two prongs are (1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary NAAQS, 

and (2) interfere with maintenance by 

any other state with respect to the same 

NAAQS. EPA proposed to determine 

that their existing SIPs satisfy these 

prongs because emissions from these 

states do not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 annual or the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any 

other state. See 77 FR 43207. In 

addition, EPA proposed to approve the 

submittals from Maine for the prong of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to 

interference with visibility protection, 

and the submittals from New Hampshire 

for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

EPA proposed to conditionally 

approve the submittals from all four 

states for the following section 110(a)(2) 

elements and sub-elements: (A) and 

(E)(ii) (state boards and conflict of 

interest provisions). We proposed to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from three states (Connecticut, Maine, 

and New Hampshire) for section 

110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J) as they relate to the states’ PSD 

programs. We also proposed to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from Connecticut and Maine for section 

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

For Massachusetts, EPA proposed to 

disapprove the state’s submittals for 

section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the 

state’s PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), 

which relates to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Notwithstanding our conclusion that 

Massachusetts’ section 110(a) 

submissions do not meet these PSD 

requirements, the state is already subject 

to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

for PSD, and so EPA has no additional 

FIP obligations under section 110(c). 

Furthermore, the state will not be 

subject to mandatory sanctions as a 

result of this disapproval. 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIPs, as well as EPA’s analysis of the 

submittals from Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, 

was provided in the NPR and is not 

restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received comments on our 

proposed action from an anonymous 

commenter and from the Sierra Club. 

The anonymous commenter noted that 

EPA’s action on the four states’ 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is a good move to 

alleviate air pollution, thus reducing 

poor air quality days. EPA agrees with 

this commenter. The Sierra Club’s 

comments focused on the states’ airquality standards and PSD programs, 

and a recent judicial decision vacating 

the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). The comments are provided in 

the dockets for today’s final actions. A 

summary of the comments and EPA’s 

responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Sierra Club noted 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emission limits. 

The Sierra Club argued that any 

infrastructure SIP submissions 

ultimately approved by EPA must 

include emissions limitations on direct 

PM2.5 emissions, PM precursors, and 

condensable PM. It also asserted that the 

state infrastructure SIP submissions 

needed to impose specific PM2.5

emissions limitations on major sources 

such as the Schiller and Merrimack 

coal-fired power plants in New 

Hampshire, the Mount Tom and Brayton 

Point plants in Massachusetts, and the 

Bridgeport plant in Connecticut. 

Response 1: In this action, EPA is 

conditionally approving the states’ 

PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(A) pending each state’s 

timely submission (i.e., within one year 

of conditional approval) of specific 

enforceable measures to fulfill specific 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) as 

explained in the proposal. We will 

review each state’s submission as it is 

received, and will propose to approve or 

disapprove that submission based on 

our evaluation of whether the 

submission meets the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

relevant to infrastructure SIP 

requirements. At that time, it will be 

appropriate for commenters to raise any 

questions regarding whether the 

submission has met applicable 

requirements. 

Comment 2: The Sierra Club noted 

that sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) 

require infrastructure submittals to 

include, among other things, a SIPapproved PSD program that meets all 

federal requirements. The Sierra Club 

argued that any infrastructure SIP 

submission approved by EPA must 

include PM2.5 increments under the PSD 

Program. 

Response 2: In this action, EPA is 

conditionally approving the 

infrastructure SIPs submitted by 

Connecticut, Maine, and New 

Hampshire with respect to sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J) pending each 

state’s timely submission (i.e., within 

one year of conditional approval) of 

specific enforceable measures to fulfill 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D), and (J) as explained in the proposal. 

EPA proposed conditional approval 

consistent with EPA’s authority under 

section 110(k)(4), and based upon a 

commitment by each State to address 

these deficiencies within one year. We 

will review each state’s submission as it 

is received, and will propose to approve 

or disapprove that submission based on 

our evaluation of whether the 

submission meets the applicable 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2Although the notice was published by the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2012, the notice was 

signed by the Regional Administrator on July 16, 

2012, before the statutory deadline for submission 

of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments. 

3To the contrary, the Court looked favorably 

upon EPA’s determination to exclude certain states 

from the CSAPR based on the amount of the 

upwind State’s contribution to nonattainment and 

maintenance areas in downwind states. See EME 

Homer City, slip op. at 34. 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

D(i)(II), and (J), relevant to infrastructure 

SIP requirements. At that time, it will be 

appropriate for commenters to raise any 

questions regarding whether the 

submission has met applicable 

requirements. As described in section 

110(k)(4), should the States fail to meet 

their commitments to address these 

deficiencies, a final conditional 

approval for these elements would 

become a disapproval. The Commenter 

does not argue that this proposed action 

is inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA. 

However, EPA disagrees with 

Commenter’s suggestion that EPA must 

generally approve the PM2.5 increments 

prior to fully approving sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). Pursuant to the 

2010 PSD for PM2.5 Rule (75 FR 64864, 

October 20, 2010) and CAA section 

166(b), States were not required to 

submit a revised SIP addressing the 

PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012. 

The Agency proposed action on 

Connecticut, Maine, and New 

Hampshire’s infrastructure SIPs in a 

notice signed on July 16, 2012.2

Therefore, on the date that the proposed 

rule was signed by the Agency, the 

PM2.5 increments were not required to 

be included in the States’ SIPs in order 

for the States to meet the PSD 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D), and (J) of the Act. However, 

Connecticut, Maine, and New 

Hampshire each submitted to EPA a 

request for a conditional approval of 

these infrastructure elements based, in 

part, on its commitment to adopt the 

PM2.5 increments into the State rules 

and submit revisions including the 

PM2.5 increments to EPA within one 

year of EPA’s conditional approval. 

Accordingly, although EPA would not 

generally have been required to address 

the PM2.5 increments prior to the 

deadline for submission of such 

revisions on July 20, 2012, because the 

States requested conditional approval 

contingent on their commitments to 

address the increments, EPA’s proposed 

conditional approval was also made 

contingent on those commitments. EPA 

will review the sufficiency of any future 

submissions made by the States in order 

to satisfy the conditional approvals 

consistent with its commitments and in 

accordance with the CAA. 

Furthermore, we are disapproving the 

Massachusetts submittals with respect 

to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J). 

Massachusetts does not have an 

approved PSD SIP, and has long been 

subject to a FIP. Because the state is 

subject to a PSD FIP, PM2.5 increments 

are applied consistent with the federal 

program. Although Massachusetts’ 

infrastructure submissions are not 

approvable with respect to sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D), and (J), the state is not 

subject to mandatory sanctions because 

the SIP deficiencies are not associated 

with a submittal required under part D 

or in response to a SIP call. In addition, 

because state requirements are satisfied 

by the FIP, this disapproval action will 

not trigger additional FIP obligations. 

Comment 3: The Sierra Club noted 

that on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued an opinion vacating the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which is also known as the Transport 

Rule and was promulgated by EPA in 

2011 to address interstate pollution 

issues. See EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. 

August 21, 2012). The Sierra Club 

asserted that EPA can no longer approve 

any submission in which compliance 

with interstate transport (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or visibility (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) requirements are 

based on the CSAPR. 

Response 3: We discuss sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

separately. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): In this 

action, EPA is approving infrastructure 

SIP submissions for Maine and New 

Hampshire with respect to both prongs 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS; and (2) interfere 

with maintenance by any other state 

with respect to that NAAQS. The 

CSAPR also addressed and quantified 

certain states’ requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 76 FR 

48208. Neither Maine nor New 

Hampshire were subject to any 

requirements under the CSAPR, see 76 

FR 48208, 48236–45 (Aug. 8, 2011), and 

neither state’s compliance with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

is based on CSAPR. As such, this action 

does not rely on any requirements of the 

CSAPR or emission reductions 

associated with that rule to support its 

conclusion that these two states have 

met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations 

with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA’s decision to approve the 

infrastructure SIPs for Maine and New 

Hampshire for this element is based on 

our conclusion that the existing SIPs for 

both states have adequate provisions to 

satisfy the obligation under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address 

these requirements with respect to the 

1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained in section III of 

this notice, this conclusion is based on 

air quality modeling originally 

conducted to quantify each individual 

state’s contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

during the rulemaking process for the 

CSAPR. 

The recent D.C. Circuit opinion in the 

CSAPR litigation, EME Homer City 

Generation v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. 

Cir., August 21, 2012), does not alter our 

conclusion that the existing SIPs for 

Maine and New Hampshire adequately 

address this requirement. Nothing in the 

Homer City opinion disturbs or calls 

into question that conclusion or the 

validity of the air quality modeling on 

which the conclusion is based. In 

addition, nothing in that opinion 

undermines our conclusion that Maine 

and New Hampshire do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in another 

state because emissions from neither 

state contributes more than one percent 

of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to 

any downwind area with nonattainment 

or maintenance problems.3

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): For New 

Hampshire, we will take separate action 

on PM2.5 infrastructure SIP visibility 

requirements. Notably, we recently 

approved the New Hampshire Regional 

Haze SIP. See 77 FR 50602, August 22, 

2012. However, we are not taking action 

on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility 

requirements for New Hampshire today. 

For Maine, in this action, we are 

approving Maine’s PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP as meeting the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This approval is based 

on the fact that EPA has approved 

Maine’s Regional Haze SIP for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018 (77 FR 24385). 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP submittals from Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire as 

fully meeting the infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards for the following 

110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: 

(B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) 

(public notification), (K), (L), and (M). 

EPA is also approving the submittals 

from Maine and New Hampshire as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63231 

fully meeting the infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two 

prongs are (1) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere 

with maintenance by any other state 

with respect to the same NAAQS. EPA’s 

decision to approve the infrastructure 

SIPs for Maine and New Hampshire for 

this element is based on our conclusion 

that the existing SIPs for both states 

have adequate provisions to satisfy the 

obligation under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address 

these requirements with respect to the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

conclusion is based on air quality 

modeling originally conducted to 

quantify each individual state’s 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

during the rulemaking process for the 

CSAPR. A technical support document 

describing that modeling is available in 

the dockets for the Maine and New 

Hampshire portions of this rulemaking. 

This air quality modeling demonstrates 

that emissions from the states of Maine 

and New Hampshire do not contribute 

more than one percent of the NAAQS to 

any downwind areas with 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems with respect to the 1997 and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. For this reason, 

EPA concludes that these states do not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. 

In addition, EPA is approving the 

submittals from Maine for the prong of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to 

interference with visibility protection. 

EPA is also approving the submittals 

from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

related to interstate and international 

pollution abatement. 

EPA is conditionally approving the 

submittals from all four states for the 

following 110(a)(2) elements and subelements: (A) and (E)(ii) (state boards 

and conflict of interest provisions). We 

are conditionally approving the 

submittals from three states 

(Connecticut, Maine, and New 

Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) subelements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they 

relate to the states’ PSD programs. We 

are also conditionally approving the 

submittals from Connecticut and Maine 

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

For Massachusetts, EPA is 

disapproving the state’s submittals for 

section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the 

state’s PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), 

which relates to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Notwithstanding our conclusion that the 

Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions do 

not meet these PSD requirements, the 

state is already subject to a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and 

so EPA has no additional FIP 

obligations under section 110(c). 

Furthermore, the state will not be 

subject to mandatory sanctions as a 

result of this disapproval. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

either is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state or does not 

alter the requirements of any state law 

that may already apply in Indian 

country. EPA notes that this approval 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 17, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.379 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.379 Control strategy: PM2.5. 

* * * * * 

(c) Approval—Submittal from the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 4, 2008, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This submittal is approved as 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(consultation and public notification 

only), (K), (L), and (M). 

(d) Conditional Approval—Submittal 

from the Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 4, 2008, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is conditionally 

approving Connecticut’s submittal with 

respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C) 

only as it related to the PSD program, 

(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates 

to the PSD program. This conditional 

approval is contingent upon 

Connecticut taking actions to meet 

requirements of these elements within 

one year of conditional approval, as 

committed to in letters from the state to 

EPA Region 1 dated June 15, 2012, and 

July 11, 2012. 

(e) Approval—Submittal from the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 18, 2009, with supplements 

submitted on January 7, 2011, and 

August 19, 2011, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This submittal is approved as 

meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(consultation and public notification 

only), (K), (L), and (M). 

(f) Conditional Approval—Submittal 

from the Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 18, 2009, with supplements 

submitted on January 7, 2011, and 

August 19, 2011, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is conditionally 

approving Connecticut’s submittal with 

respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (C) 

only as it related to the PSD program, 

(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates 

to the PSD program. This conditional 

approval is contingent upon 

Connecticut taking actions to meet 

requirements of these elements within 

one year of conditional approval, as 

committed to in letters from the state to 

EPA Region 1 dated June 15, 2012, and 

July 11, 2012. 

Subpart U—Maine 

■ 3. Section 52.1019 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1019 Identification of plan— 

conditional approval. 

(a) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP 

submitted September 10, 2008, with a 

supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, 

is conditionally approved for Clean Air 

Act (CAA) elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) 

only as it relates to the PSD program, 

(D)(i)(II) only as it relates to the PSD 

program, (D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as 

it relates to the PSD program. This 

conditional approval is contingent upon 

Maine taking actions to meet 

requirements of these elements within 

one year of conditional approval, as 

committed to in letters from the state to 

EPA Region 1 dated June 13, 2012, and 

June 30, 2012. 

(b) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The SIP 

submitted July 27, 2009, with a 

supplement submitted on June 1, 2011, 

is conditionally approved for CAA 

elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it 

relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) 

only as it relates to the PSD program, 

(D)(ii), (E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates 

to the PSD program. This conditional 

approval is contingent upon Maine 

taking actions to meet requirements of 

these elements within one year of 

conditional approval, as committed to 

in letters from the state to EPA Region 

1 dated June 13, 2012, and June 30, 

2012. 

■ 4. In § 52.1020, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding two entries to 

the end to read as follows: 

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

MAINE NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ................... 9/10/2008; supplement submitted 6/1/ 

2011.

10/16/2012 [Insert 

Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

This submittal is approved with respect to 

the following CAA elements or portions 

thereof: 110(a)(2) (B), (C) (enforcement 

program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (visibility 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), 

(L), and (M). 

Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ................... 7/27/2009; supplement submitted 6/1/ 

2011.

10/16/2012 [Insert 

Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

This submittal is approved with respect to 

the following CAA elements or portions 

thereof: 110(a)(2) (B), (C) (enforcement 

program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) (visibility 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), 

(L), and (M). 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63233 

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 5. Section 52.1131 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) 

and (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1131 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(b) Approval—Submittal from the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated April 

4, 2008 to address the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal 

satisfies requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(consultation and public notification 

only), (K), (L), and (M). 

(c) Conditional Approval—Submittal 

from the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated April 

4, 2008, to address the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is conditionally 

approved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(A) 

and (E)(ii). This conditional approval is 

contingent upon Massachusetts taking 

actions to meet requirements of these 

elements within one year of conditional 

approval, as committed to in a letter 

from the state to EPA Region 1 dated 

July 12, 2012. 

(d) Disapproval—Submittal from the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated April 

4, 2008, to address the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal 

does not satisfy requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program 

only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only), 

(D)(ii), and (J) (PSD program only). 

(e) Approval—Submittal from the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 21, 2009, with supplements 

submitted on January 13, 2011, and 

August 19, 2011, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. This submittal satisfies 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement program 

only), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) 

(consultation and public notification 

only), (K), (L), and (M). 

(f) Conditional Approval—Submittal 

from the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 21, 2009, with supplements 

submitted on January 13, 2011, and 

August 19, 2011, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

is conditionally approved for CAA 

elements 110(a)(2)(A) and (E)(ii). This 

conditional approval is contingent upon 

Massachusetts taking actions to meet 

requirements of these elements within 

one year of conditional approval, as 

committed to in a letter from the state 

to EPA Region 1 dated July 12, 2012. 

(g) Disapproval—Submittal from the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated 

September 21, 2009, with supplements 

submitted on January 13, 2011, and 

August 19, 2011, to address the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. This submittal does not satisfy 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), 

(D)(i)(II) (PSD program only), (D)(ii), and 

(J) (PSD program only). 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 6. Section 52.1519 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1519 Identification of plan— 

conditional approval. 

(a) * * * 

(3) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on April 3, 

2008, with a supplement submitted on 

July 3, 2012, is conditionally approved 

for Clean Air Act (CAA) elements 

110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it relates to the 

PSD program, (D)(i)(II) only as it relates 

to the PSD program, (E)(ii), and (J) only 

as it relates to the PSD program. This 

conditional approval is contingent upon 

New Hampshire taking actions to meet 

requirements of these elements within 

one year of conditional approval, as 

committed to in a letter from the state 

to EPA Region 1 dated June 29, 2012. 

(4) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP submitted on 

September 18, 2009, with a supplement 

submitted on July 3, 2012, is 

conditionally approved for CAA 

elements 110(a)(2)(A), (C) only as it 

relates to the PSD program, (D)(i)(II) 

only as it relates to the PSD program, 

(E)(ii), and (J) only as it relates to the 

PSD program. This conditional approval 

is contingent upon New Hampshire 

taking actions to meet requirements of 

these elements within one year of 

conditional approval, as committed to 

in a letter from the state to EPA Region 

1 dated June 29, 2012. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 52.1520 is amended to read 

as follows: 

In § 52.1520, the table in paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding two entries to the 

end to read as follows: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective date 

EPA approved 

date 3 Explanations 

*******

Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ................... 4/3/2008; supplement 

submitted 7/3/2012.

10/16/2012 [Insert 

Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

This submittal is approved with respect to 

the following CAA elements or portions 

thereof: 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement 

program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and 

public notification only), (K), (L), and (M). 

Submittal to meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ................... 9/18/2009; supplement submitted 7/3/ 

2012.

10/16/2012 [Insert 

Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

This submittal is approved with respect to 

the following CAA elements or portions 

thereof: 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (enforcement 

program only), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and 

public notification only), (K), (L), and (M). 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time 

the nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s final 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment plan requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

[FR Doc. 2012–25300 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015; FRL–9739–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve in part and conditionally 

approve in part portions of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of North 

Carolina, through the Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), 

as demonstrating that the State meets 

the SIP requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. North Carolina 

certified in two separate submissions 

that its SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in North 

Carolina (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure submissions’’). With the 

exception of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(J), North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on April 1, 2008, and September 

21, 2009, address all the required 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is 

conditionally approving these 

requirements. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–1015. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@ 

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 24, 2012, EPA 

proposed to approve North Carolina’s 

April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 77 FR 43196. A summary of the 

background for today’s final action is 

provided below. See EPA’s July 24, 

2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 

43196 for more detail. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. The data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affect the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

already mentioned, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this final rulemaking are 

listed below1 and in EPA’s October 2, 

2007, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ and 

September 25, 2009, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES