Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43023 

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. 

approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. With regard to South 

Carolina, EPA notes that, pursuant to 

the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, the 

Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, 

which is located within the State of 

South Carolina, is subject to all state 

and local environmental laws and that 

South Carolina regulations apply to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and authorities. 

Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to 

the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

today’s proposed rule determining that 

the South Carolina SIP meets the State’s 

obligation under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its 

reliance upon CAIR does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249). EPA has 

also preliminarily determined that these 

revisions will not impose any 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law in 

South Carolina. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 12, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17885 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 and EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0321 (CT); EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322 

(ME); EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 and EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0323 (MA); EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 (NH); A–1–FRL–9704–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

most elements of submittals from the 

States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We 

are also proposing to conditionally 

approve certain elements of these 

submittals, as well as disapprove a few 

elements of Massachusetts’ submittals. 

The submittals outline how each state’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets 

the requirements of section 110(a) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 

and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. This 

SIP is commonly referred to as an 

infrastructure SIP. These actions are 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0322 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for Maine, EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0459 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0323 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0460 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for New Hampshire by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317; 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0318; EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0322; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459; 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0460; or EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0324,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0321 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Connecticut, EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0322 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 or 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Massachusetts, and EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0460 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0324 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

New Hampshire. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, dated October 2, 2007. 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittals and EPA’s technical support 

documents are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: the Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630; the Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, First Floor of the Tyson 

Building, Augusta Mental Health 

Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333– 

0017; Division of Air Quality Control, 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources 

Division, Department of Environmental 

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

Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1684, fax number 

(617) 918–0684, email 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. The following outline is provided 

to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

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

submittals? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing action on 

infrastructure SIPs submitted by the 

States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. 

Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA 

guidance 2 for addressing the SIP 

infrastructure elements required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2), there are 

fourteen section 110(a)(2) components 

that must be included in the SIPs that 

the States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. These fourteen section 

110(a)(2) components are as follows: 

(A) Emission limits and other control 

measures. 

(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system. 

(C) Program for enforcement of 

control measures. 

(D) Interstate transport. 

(E) Adequate resources. 

(F) Stationary source monitoring 

system. 

(G) Emergency power. 

(H) Future SIP revisions. 

(I) Nonattainment area plan under 

Part D 

(J) Consultation with government 

officials, Public notification, Prevention 

of significant deterioriation (PSD), and 

Visibility protection. 

(K) Air quality modeling/Data. 

(L) Permitting fees. 

(M) Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

submittals from all four states as fully 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

for the following 110(a)(2) elements and 

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

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

(consultation), (J) (public notification), 

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

EPA also is proposing to approve the 

submittals from Maine and New 

Hampshire as fully meeting the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two 

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

These two prongs are (1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary NAAQS, 

and (2) interfere with maintenance by 

any other state with respect to the same 

NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve the submittals from Maine 

for the prong of section 

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

with visibility protection, and the 

submittals from New Hampshire for 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the submittals from all four 

states for the following 110(a)(2) 

elements and sub-elements: (A) and E(ii) 

(state boards and conflict of interest 

provisions). We are proposing to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from three states (Connecticut, Maine, 

and New Hampshire) for section 

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

(J) as they relate to the states’ PSD 

programs. We are also proposing to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from Connecticut and Maine for 

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

For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the state’s submittals for 

section110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), 

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

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

which relates to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Notwithstanding our conclusion that the 

Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions do 

not meet these PSD requirements, the 

state is already subject to a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and 

so EPA has no additional FIP 

obligations under section 110(c). 

Furthermore, the state will not be 

subject to mandatory sanctions as a 

result of this disapproval. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA published new 

NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) (62 

FR 38652). This included a new annual 

and a new 24-hour NAAQS for particles 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers 

(denoted PM2.5). The annual PM2.5

standard was set at 15 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2.5

standard was set at 65 mg/m3 based on 

a 3-year average of the 98th percentile 

of 24-hour concentrations. 

Thus, states were required to submit 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 

However, intervening litigation over the 

1997 PM2.5 (and 1997 8-hour ozone) 

NAAQS created uncertainty about how 

to proceed, and many states did not 

provide the required ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIP submissions for these newly 

promulgated NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 (and 8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With 

regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice, which required EPA to 

complete a Federal Register notice 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43025 

announcing EPA’s determinations 

pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the 

Act as to whether each state had made 

complete submissions to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. 

On October 17, 2006, EPA published 

revised standards for PM (71 FR 61144). 

For PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 mg/ 

m3 was retained, and the 24-hour 

standard was revised to 35 mg/m3. For 

PM10, the annual standard was revoked, 

and the 24-hour standard (150 mg/m3) 

was retained. As required by section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) 

(‘‘infrastructure’’) submittals were due 

within three years of promulgation of 

the revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard (i.e., 

by September 21, 2009). 

For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire submitted certification 

letters to EPA on September 4, 2008; 

September 10, 2008; April 4, 2008; and 

April 3, 2008, respectively. On October 

22, 2008, EPA published findings 

concerning whether states had made the 

110(a)(2) submissions for the 1997 PM2.5

standards (73 FR 62902). In the October 

2008 action, we found that Connecticut, 

Maine and New Hampshire had made 

complete submissions. Massachusetts 

received a ‘‘finding of failure to submit’’ 

a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) 

and (J) pertaining to the Part C PSD 

permit program. However, this 

requirement has already been addressed 

by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

that remains in place, and therefore, the 

finding-of-failure action did not trigger 

any additional FIP obligations. 

For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire submitted certification 

letters to EPA on September 18, 2009; 

July 27, 2009; September 21, 2009; and 

September 18, 2009, respectively. On 

September 8, 2011, EPA published 

findings concerning whether states had 

made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the 

2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 55577). 

None of these four states received a 

finding for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to fully approve 

most elements of the 110(a) submittals 

from Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We 

are also proposing to conditionally 

approve certain elements of these 

submittals, as well as proposing 

disapproval of a few elements of 

Massachusetts’ submittals. Elements for 

which we are proposing approval, 

conditional approval, and disapproval 

are listed in section I and IV of this 

notice. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

States’ submittals? 

EPA has reviewed the submittals for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

listed above and has determined that 

most, but not all, of each state’s SIPs 

meet the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA and are 

consistent with the relevant EPA 

guidance. Each state’s submittals and 

EPA’s evaluation of those submittals are 

detailed in the following technical 

support documents (TSDs). These TSDs 

(one per state) are available on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov: Docket 

numbers EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 

and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321 

(Connecticut), EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322 

(Maine), EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 

and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 

(Massachusetts), and EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 (New Hampshire). 

In their submittals, each state 

references items in their state laws, 

statutes, regulations and SIPs that 

address the elements detailed in section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically, 

Connecticut references the Connecticut 

Air Quality SIP, the Connecticut 

General Statutes (CGS) and the 

Regulations of the Connecticut State Air 

Agency (RCSA); Maine references the 

Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of 

Maine Regulations (CMR) and the Maine 

Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA); 

Massachusetts references the 

Massachusetts Air Quality SIP, the 

Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) and 

the Code of Massachusetts Regulations 

(CMR); and New Hampshire references 

the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes 

Annotated (RSA) as well as the New 

Hampshire Rules Governing the Control 

of Air Pollution, and New Hampshire 

Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq. 

The discussion below summarizes 

how each state meets each relevant CAA 

infrastructure requirement. As noted 

above, Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire 

provided infrastructure submittals for 

both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

However, the demonstrations submitted 

by each State for how it is meeting many 

of the section 110(a)(2) elements are 

substantively identical for both of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless 

otherwise noted, the following 

evaluation of each element pertains to 

both standards. For more information, 

please refer to the TSDs referenced 

above. 

A. Emission Limits and Other Control 

Measures 

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

include enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, schedules for compliance 

and other related matters. The rules 

approved in the EPA-approved SIPs for 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire apply a substantial 

level of control on PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors. 

In January 2011, Connecticut revised 

Section 22a–174–3a. However, to be 

sure that references to NAAQS in 

Section 22a–174 incorporate by 

reference the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, Connecticut submitted a letter 

to EPA, dated July 11, 2012, committing 

to provide a statement of legal authority 

or to take any necessary actions to meet 

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

a date no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Connecticut’s 

PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

submissions for infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(A). 

Maine’s Ambient Air Quality 

Standards in Chapter 110 currently do 

not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. However, the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(ME DEP) has recently proposed 

revisions to Chapter 110 to address the 

more recent NAAQS. On June 30, 2012, 

Maine submitted a letter to EPA 

committing to adopt and submit the 

necessary regulation revisions to EPA by 

a date that is no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5

infrastructure submissions. Therefore, 

we propose to conditionally approve 

Maine’s 110(a) submissions for 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A). 

Regarding Massachusetts, the current 

SIP-approved 310 CMR 6.00 (Ambient 

Air Quality Standards) does not reflect 

the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Massachusetts has submitted a letter to 

EPA on July 12, 2012, committing to 

take action to meet requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later 

than one year from conditional approval 

of Massachusetts’ PM2.5 infrastructure 

submissions. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions for 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A). 

For New Hampshire, the current SIPapproved Env-A 300 (Ambient Air 

Quality Standards) does not reflect the 

1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

in March 2012, New Hampshire 

proposed the necessary revisions to 

Env-A 300, and has submitted a letter 

dated June 29, 2012, committing to 

adopt and submit the necessary 

regulation revisions to EPA by a date 

that is no later than one year from 

conditional approval of New 

Hampshire’s PM2.5 infrastructure 

submissions. We propose to 

conditionally approve New Hampshire’s 

110(a) submissions for infrastructure 

element 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data 

System 

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

include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air-quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air-quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

have all established and currently 

operate ambient air-quality monitors 

and submit the data collected to EPA. 

All four states have submitted annual 

air monitoring network plans which 

have been approved by EPA. We 

conclude that all four states’ 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the 

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

C. Program for Enforcement of Control 

Measures 

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

have a plan that includes a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures and the regulation of 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) requirements. 

Recent PM2.5 PSD rules that require 

updates to state regulations and 

subsequent submittal to EPA for 

approval include ‘‘Implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008) and ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864, October 20, 

2010). States were also required to 

update their regulations to meet PSD 

rules related to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. These are the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (75 FR 

31514, June 3, 2010), as modified by the 

‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans’’ 

or ‘‘Narrowing Rule’’ (75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010). The effect of EPA 

narrowing its approval in this manner is 

that the provisions of previously 

approved SIPs that apply PSD to 

increases in GHG emissions from 

sources that emit GHGs below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds have the 

status of having been submitted by the 

state, but not yet acted upon by EPA. 

In this action, we are not evaluating 

nonattainment-related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D in 110(a)(2)(C) and 

measures for attainment required by 

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

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because these 

submittals are required beyond the date 

(3 years from NAAQS promulgation) 

that section 110 infrastructure 

submittals are required. 

The Connecticut PSD program is 

established in RCSA section 22a–174–3a 

(k). This PSD program was approved 

into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 FR 

26933). Connecticut has authority to 

issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 

recently approved changes to 

Connecticut’s PSD program on May 10, 

2011, to reflect changes in the federal 

PSD program related to the permitting of 

greenhouse gas emission (76 FR 26933). 

This PSD program takes advantage of 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD 

applicability. 

New Hampshire’s PSD provisions for 

air-quality permits are established in 

Env-A 619. The most recent version of 

the state’s Statewide Permit System 

(Env-A 600) was approved into the New 

Hampshire SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 

FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority 

to issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 

recently approved changes to New 

Hampshire’s PSD program that reflect 

changes in the federal PSD program 

related to the permitting of greenhouse 

gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 

2012). This PSD program takes 

advantage of the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds for PSD applicability by 

relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing 

Rule. 

For Connecticut and New Hampshire, 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the state 110(a) 

submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS do not meet the portions of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the 

state’s need to have a federally 

enforceable PSD program that meets 

requirements of the two major source 

PM2.5 PSD rules, ‘‘Implementation of the 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008), and ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)––Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864, October 20, 

2010). However, Connecticut and New 

Hampshire are making progress. On 

June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted a 

letter to EPA committing to adopt and 

submit the necessary regulation 

revisions to EPA by a date no later than 

one year from conditional approval of 

Connecticut’s PM2.5 infrastructure 

submissions. On June 28, 2012, New 

Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA 

committing to adopt and submit the 

necessary regulation revisions to EPA by 

a date no later than one year from 

conditional approval of New 

Hampshire’s PM2.5 infrastructure 

submissions. Therefore, we propose to 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

and New Hampshire’s 110(a) 

submissions for infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C) as it relates to the states’ 

need to have a PSD program that meets 

all federal requirements. As discussed 

below, for these states, we are also 

proposing to conditionally approve 

related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

The Maine PSD program is 

established in CMR (Maine Regulations) 

Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for 

minor sources) and 140 (licensing for 

major sources). Maine implements its 

PSD program requirements under CMR 

Chapter 115. This PSD program was 

approved into the SIP on February 14, 

1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority 

to issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. Maine has 

adopted revisions to its PSD permitting 

program to address GHG emissions, but 

has not yet submitted these rules to 

EPA. 

For Maine, EPA is proposing to make 

a determination that the state 110(a) 

submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS do not meet the portions of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the 

state’s need to have a federally 

enforceable PSD program that meets 

requirements of the two major source 

PM2.5 PSD rules listed above (73 FR 

28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, 

October 20, 2010). In addition, Maine’s 

current PSD regulations do not properly 

account for NOX as a precursor to ozone 

as required by the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005). However, ME DEP 

is in the process of adopting rules to 

meet its obligations for PSD under the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43027 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 

and, on June 13, 2012, Maine submitted 

a letter to EPA committing to adopt and 

submit regulation revisions to EPA to 

meet requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) by a date that is no later 

than one year from conditional approval 

of the state’s PM2.5 110(a) submissions. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve Maine’s 110(a) 

submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As discussed below, we are 

also proposing to conditionally approve 

related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

Massachusetts does not have an 

approved PSD SIP, and has long been 

subject to a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP). Between 1982 and 2003, 

Massachusetts implemented that FIP 

through a delegation agreement. 

Massachusetts rescinded the delegation 

agreement in 2003. However, effective 

April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted 

the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

full delegation authority to implement 

and enforce the Federal PSD program 

(76 FR 31241). Because the state is 

subject to a PSD FIP, its infrastructure 

submissions are not approvable with 

respect to this element. However, the 

state is not subject to mandatory 

sanctions solely as a result of this type 

of infrastructure SIP disapproval, for the 

reason that the SIP deficiencies are 

neither with respect to a submittal that 

is required under part D nor in response 

to a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of 

the CAA. Moreover, the requirements 

for which the state is subject to the FIP 

are already satisfied by the FIP, and so 

EPA has no additional FIP obligations 

under section 110(c). 

For these reasons, we conclude that 

Massachusetts’ infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet 

the enforcement and minor NSR 

requirements, but not the PSD 

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

Therefore, we are proposing to 

disapprove Massachusetts’ 110(a) 

submittals with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Notwithstanding our 

conclusion that the Massachusetts’ 

110(a) submissions do not meet the PSD 

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

state is not subject to mandatory 

sanctions as a result of this disapproval. 

As discussed below, we are also 

proposing to disapprove related 

elements (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

D. Interstate Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into 

two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, EPA has 

subdivided section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into 

four ‘‘prongs,’’ two under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary NAAQS, 

and (prong 2) interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect to the same NAAQS. The two 

prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are 

(prong 3) interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

(prong 4) to protect visibility. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement, and requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

Connecticut 

In this action for Connecticut, we are 

only addressing prong 3 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with PSD) 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As discussed above under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures), Connecticut’s PSD program 

does not yet meet requirements of the 

most recent federal PSD rules (73 FR 

28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, 

October 20, 2010), but Connecticut has 

committed to revising its PSD 

regulations to meet current 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in 

Connecticut’s 110(a) submittal for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

Connecticut’s PSD regulations provide 

for notice to most of the parties 

consistent with the requirements in the 

EPA PSD program. There is, however, a 

flaw in Connecticut’s SIP-approved PSD 

program regarding notice to other states. 

Compare CAA section 126 (a)(1) and 40 

CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv) (requiring notice to, 

among others, ‘‘any State * * * or 

Indian Governing body whose lands 

may be affected by emissions from the 

source or modification’’) with RCSA 

22a–174–2a(b)(6) (specifically excluding 

other states from the list of parties to 

receive copies of draft PSD permits). 

Although there is no specific mandate 

in Connecticut’s regulations that 

affected states receive notice, 

Connecticut issues extensive notice of 

its draft permits, and neighboring states 

consistently get copied on those drafts. 

On January 12, 2012, Connecticut 

proposed revisions to their permit 

program notification requirements in 

22a–174–2a(b)(5) and (6). On June 15, 

2012, Connecticut sent a letter to EPA 

committing to submit the adopted 

provision to EPA by a date that is no 

later than one year from conditional 

approval of Connecticut’s PM2.5

infrastructure submissions. Also, the 

State also has no pending obligations 

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

Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

submissions for infrastructure element 

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

Maine 

In this action for Maine, we are 

addressing all four prongs of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). On June 30, 2012, Maine 

submitted a letter to EPA certifying that 

it is not contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. EPA agrees 

and has conducted modeling for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 

25162, May 12, 2005) and for the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011) that shows that 

Maine does not contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in any other state. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

Maine’s submissions with respect to 

prongs 1 and 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Regarding prong 3 under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures), Maine’s SIP-approved PSD 

program does not yet meet requirements 

of the most recent federal PSD rules for 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS or the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 

but Maine has committed to revising its 

PSD regulations to meet current 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in Maine’s 

110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Regarding prong 4 under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with 

visibility protection), EPA proposes to 

approve Maine’s 110(a) submissions. 

Specifically, Maine submitted a 

Regional Haze SIP to EPA on December 

9, 2010, with supplemental submittals 

on September 14, 2011 and November 9, 

2011. On April 24, 2012, EPA approved 

Maine’s Regional Haze SIP for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018 (77 FR 24385). 

Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

Maine’s currently approved SIP, which 

EPA approved on February 14, 1996 (61 

FR 5690), provides for notice to various 

parties consistent with the requirements 

in the EPA PSD program at 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(iv). (Maine has since revised 

its notice regulation for PSD permits, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and since the approved SIP’s notice 

regulation is adequate, we are not 

presently reviewing the revised 

regulation.) In its 110(a) submissions, 

the state certified that it has no pending 

obligations under section 115 or 126(b) 

of the CAA. As noted in the June 2011 

addendum to their 110(a) submittals, 

Maine notifies affected states regarding 

new source and modifications under its 

Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emission 

License Regulations. However, this 

regulation has not been approved into 

the Maine SIP. On June 13, 2012, Maine 

submitted a letter to EPA committing to 

adopt and submit the necessary 

regulation revisions to EPA by a date 

that is no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5

infrastructure submissions. Therefore, 

we are proposing to conditionally 

approve Maine’s submissions for 

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

Massachusetts 

In this action for Massachusetts, we 

are only addressing prong 3 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i.e., interference with 

PSD). As discussed under (C) (program 

for enforcement of control measures), 

Massachusetts is currently subject to a 

PSD FIP. A state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal cannot be considered for 

approvability with respect to prong 3 

until EPA has issued final approval of 

that state’s PSD SIP or, alternatively, has 

issued final approval of a SIP that EPA 

has otherwise found adequate to 

prohibit interference with other states’ 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. Therefore, 

we are proposing to disapprove 

Massachusetts’ 110(a) submissions for 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, this 

disapproval will not trigger any 

sanctions or additional FIP obligation. 

Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

which relates to interstate and 

international pollution abatement, as 

noted above, Massachusetts is subject to 

a PSD FIP. States relying on the federal 

PSD program requirements of 40 CFR 

52.21(q), which provide for notification 

of affected state and local air agencies, 

to satisfy this requirement have 

programs that are considered 

technically deficient and not 

approvable. Therefore, we are proposing 

to disapprove Massachusetts’ 

submissions for infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, this 

disapproval will not trigger any 

sanctions or additional FIP obligation. 

New Hampshire 

In this action for New Hampshire, we 

are addressing prongs 1, 2 and 3 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. On July 3, 2012, New 

Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA 

certifying that it is not contributing 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state. EPA agrees and has conducted 

modeling for the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and 

for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) that 

shows that New Hampshire does not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance in any other state. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

New Hampshire’s submissions with 

respect to prongs 1 and 2 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Regarding prong 3 under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures), New Hampshire’s SIPapproved PSD program does not yet 

meet requirements of the most recent 

federal PSD rules for implementing the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but New Hampshire has 

committed to revising its PSD 

regulations to meet current 

requirements. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in New 

Hampshire’s 110(a) submittals for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

New Hampshire is required to give 

notice of draft PSD permits that meet 

the requirements in our regulations. In 

the currently approved SIP, former EnvA 205.03 provides that New Hampshire 

specifically defers to 40 CFR Part 52 for 

the process by which PSD permits are 

issued. Forty CFR Part 52 effectively 

incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR 

Part 124, which include affected state 

notice. (See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), 

(vii) & (x).) (New Hampshire has since 

revised its notice regulation for PSD 

permits, Env-A 621.03–04, and it does 

not reference 40 CR Part 52. However, 

since the approved SIP’s notice 

regulation is adequate, we are not 

presently reviewing the revised 

regulation.) The State also has no 

pending obligations under section 115 

or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve New Hampshire’s 

submissions for infrastructure element 

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

E. Adequate Resources 

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

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out the SIP (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of federal or 

state law from carrying out the SIP or 

portion thereof), (ii) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under section 

128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, 

where the state has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such SIP provision. 

Congress added section 128 in the 

1977 amendments as the result of a 

conference agreement. Titled ‘‘State 

boards,’’ section 128 provides in 

relevant part: (a) Not later than the date 

one year after August 7, 1977, each 

applicable implementation plan shall 

contain requirements that: 

(1) Any board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under [this Act] shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under [this Act], 

and (2) Any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire have SIP-approved 

regulations that provide adequate 

authority for each of the states to carry 

out their SIP obligations with respect to 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Each 

of the four states receives sections 103 

and 105 grant funds through their 

Performance Partnership Grants along 

with required state-matching funds to 

provide funding necessary to carry out 

their SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to find that Connecticut, 

Maine, Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire have sufficient resources to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i). 

With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

Maine and New Hampshire have state 

boards, Maine Board of Environmental 

Protection and New Hampshire Air 

Resources Council, that approve permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Therefore, both states are subject to the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(1), as 

well as to the requirements of section 

128(a)(2). However, although both states 

have conflict-of-interest provisions in 

their general statutes, they have not 

been approved by EPA into either the 

Maine or New Hampshire SIP. These 

items were not addressed in Maine and 

New Hampshire’s original PM2.5

infrastructure SIP submittals. In a letter 

dated June 29, 2012, New Hampshire 

submitted its statute addressing conflict 

of interest for SIP approval. EPA has not 

yet acted on this submittal. Also, in a 

letter dated June 13, 2012, Maine 

committed to submitting the statutory 

provisions pertaining to conflict of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43029 

3See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, dated September 

25, 2009. 

interest to EPA within one year of our 

final action on its PM2.5 infrastructure 

SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve the infrastructure 

submittals for both Maine and New 

Hampshire with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Connecticut and Massachusetts do not 

have state boards that approve permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Instead, permits and enforcement orders 

are approved by each state’s 

Commissioner of Environmental 

Protection. Thus, Connecticut and 

Massachusetts are not subject to the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(1). 

However, they are subject to the 

requirements of section 128(a)(2), but 

neither state demonstrated in their 

infrastructure submittals that they have 

met these requirements. Subsequently, 

on June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted 

a letter to EPA committing to address 

this issue by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of 

Connecticut’s PM2.5 Infrastructure 

submittals. Massachusetts submitted a 

similar commitment letter to EPA on 

July 12, 2012. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve 

Connecticut’s and Massachusetts’ 

submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

With respect to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii), none of the four states 

has assigned responsibility for carrying 

out portions of the SIP to any local 

government, agency, or other 

instrumentality. Therefore, the 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire 110(a) submittals meet 

the requirements for this element. 

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System 

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

requires states to establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and to submit periodic emission 

reports. The infrastructure submittals 

for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire reference specific 

regulations that require sources to 

monitor emissions and submit reports to 

EPA. The specific rules are referenced 

in the TSD for each state. 

EPA has reviewed the laws and 

regulations that been approved into the 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire SIPs and has 

determined that all four states’ 

infrastructure submittals for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the 

requirements for section 110(a)(2)(F). 

G. Emergency Power 

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

requires states to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

For PM2.5, EPA’s guidance dated 

September 25, 2009 3 provides 

clarification that states that have air 

quality control regions identified as 

either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority 

II by the ‘‘Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes’’ rules at 40 CFR 

51.150 must develop emergency episode 

contingency plans. The guidance 

recommends that until EPA establishes 

significant harm levels (SHL) for PM2.5, 

states should establish their own SHL 

levels based on EPA’s February 12, 2007 

issue paper on setting priority and 

emergency action levels and also 

consider the recommended levels set 

forth in Attachment B of the September 

25, 2009 guidance. States would be 

required to develop emergency episode 

plans for any area that has monitored 

and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels 

greater than 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006. A 

state that has never exceeded this level 

since 2006 is considered to be Priority 

III in accordance with the guidance, 

may certify that it has appropriate 

general emergency powers to address 

PM2.5 -related episodes, and is not 

required to adopt specific emergency 

episode plans at this time, given the 

existing monitored levels. 

Air-quality monitors in all four states 

show that PM2.5 levels for the past three 

years are below the 140.5 mg/m3

threshold. Connecticut and 

Massachusetts certified in their 

infrastructure submittals that they 

expect to be classified as Priority III 

regions and, therefore, emergency 

episode plans for PM2.5 are not required. 

Maine and New Hampshire submitted 

letters to EPA, dated June 13, 2012, and 

July 3, 2012, respectively, certifying that 

they expect to be classified as Priority 

III regions. Therefore, all four states 

have met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards. 

H. Future SIP Revisions 

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

requires states to have the authority to 

revise their SIPs in response to changes 

in the NAAQS, availability of improved 

methods for attaining NAAQS, or in 

response to an EPA finding that the SIP 

is substantially inadequate. 

Infrastructure submittals for 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire for both the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards certify that SIPs 

for each state may be revised should 

EPA find that a plan is substantially 

inadequate to attain a standard or to 

comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. Therefore, 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire have met the 

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

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part 

D 

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

requires that each such plan shall ‘‘in 

the case of a plan or plan revision for 

an area designated as a nonattainment 

area, meet the applicable requirements 

of part D of this subchapter (relating to 

nonattainment areas).’’ EPA is not 

evaluating nonattainment-related 

provisions, such as the NSR program 

required by part D in section 

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

attainment required by section 

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

SIPs because these submittals are 

required beyond the date (3 years from 

NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 

infrastructure submittals are required. 

J. Consultation With Government 

Official, Public Notification, PSD, and 

Visibility Protection 

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

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to Section 121 relating to consultation. 

Section 127 requires that the state notify 

the public of any NAAQS exceedences, 

advise the public of health hazards 

associated with such pollution, and 

include measures to enhance public 

awareness of measures that can be taken 

to prevent exceedances. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to meet applicable requirements 

of Part C related to prevention of 

significant deterioration and visibility 

protection. EPA interprets this section 

110 provision on visibility as not being 

‘‘triggered’’ by a new NAAQS because 

the visibility requirements in part C are 

not changed by a new NAAQS. 

Consultation With Government Officials 

EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals 

from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

consultation with government officials. 

Public Notification 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire are all state 

partners participating in EPA’s 

AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Alert programs. (See www.airnow.gov.) 

We are proposing to approve the 

infrastructure submittals for 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J) for public notification. 

PSD 

Regarding the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) that the infrastructure 

submittals meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of title I of the 

CAA, EPA evaluated this requirement in 

the context of section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to permitting (see discussion 

under (C) (program for enforcement of 

control measures)). 

The Connecticut PSD program is 

established in RCSA section 22a–174–3a 

(k). This PSD program was approved 

into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 FR 

26933). Connecticut has authority to 

issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 

recently approved changes to 

Connecticut’s PSD program on May 10, 

2011, to reflect changes in the federal 

PSD program related to the permitting of 

greenhouse gas emission (76 FR 26933, 

May 10, 2011). This PSD program takes 

advantage of the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds for PSD applicability. 

However, as discussed under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures), Connecticut’s EPA-approved 

PSD program does not yet meet 

requirements of the two major source 

PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 

2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 

2010). The State has, however, 

committed to address this issue. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve the state’s 110(a) 

submittals for the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD. 

The Maine PSD program is 

established in CMR (Maine Regulations) 

Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for 

minor sources) and 140 (licensing for 

major sources). Maine implements its 

PSD program requirements under CMR 

Chapter 115. This PSD program was 

approved into the SIP on February 14, 

1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority 

to issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. However, 

as discussed under (C) (program for 

enforcement of control measures), 

Maine has adopted revisions to its PSD 

permitting program to address GHG 

emissions, but has not yet submitted 

these rules to EPA. In addition, Maine 

has not completed rulemaking to meet 

requirements of the two PM2.5 PSD rules 

(73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 

64864, October 20, 2010) discussed 

above, nor of the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule. However, Maine 

is making progress and, on June 13, 

2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA 

committing to adopt and submit the 

necessary regulation revisions to EPA by 

a date that is no later than one year from 

conditional approval of Maine’s PM2.5

infrastructure submissions. Therefore, 

we are proposing to conditionally 

approve the state’s 110(a) submittals for 

the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) that 

relates to PSD. 

Massachusetts is currently subject to 

a PSD FIP, as discussed under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures). The approvability of a state’s 

PSD program in its entirety is essential 

to the approvability of the infrastructure 

SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Until the state provides such a program, 

the Massachusetts infrastructure SIP is 

not approvable with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, we propose to 

disapprove Massachusetts’ 

infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J). 

However, as noted above, this 

disapproval does not impose any 

sanctions or new FIP obligations. 

New Hampshire’s PSD provisions for 

air-quality permits are established in 

Env-A 619. The most recent version of 

the state’s Statewide Permit System 

(Env-A 600) was approved into the New 

Hampshire SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 

FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority 

to issue PSD permits and enforce them 

under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 

recently approved changes to New 

Hampshire’s PSD program that reflect 

changes in the federal PSD program 

related to the permitting of greenhouse 

gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 

2012). This PSD program takes 

advantage of the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds for PSD applicability by 

relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing 

Rule. However, as discussed under (C) 

(program for enforcement of control 

measures), New Hampshire’s EPAapproved PSD program does not yet 

meet requirements of the two major 

source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, 

May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 

20, 2010), or implement the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS itself. The State has, however, 

committed to address these issues. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve the state’s 110(a) 

submittals for the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD. 

Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the CAA. 

In the event of the establishment of a 

new NAAQS, however, the visibility 

and regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation triggered under section 

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

becomes effective. 

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data 

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

requires that SIPs provide for 

performing air-quality modeling for 

predicting effects on air quality of 

emissions from any NAAQS pollutant 

and submission of such data to EPA 

upon request. The infrastructure 

submittals for Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

reference regulations that have 

provisions for performing air-quality 

modeling, including modeling for 

attainment plans, permits, and 

redesignation requests. The specific 

rules are referenced in the TSD for each 

state. 

EPA has reviewed the laws and 

regulations that been approved into the 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 

New Hampshire SIPs and has 

determined that all four states 

infrastructure submittals for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the 

requirements for section 110(a)(2)(K). 

L. Permitting Fees 

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

requires SIPs to require each major 

stationary source to pay permitting fees 

to cover the cost of reviewing, 

approving, implementing and enforcing 

a permit, until such time as the SIP fee 

requirement is superseded by EPA’s 

approval of the State’s Title V operating 

permit program. 

EPA’s full approval of Title V 

programs for Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

became effective on May 31, 2002 (CT), 

December 17, 2001 (ME), November 27, 

2001 (MA), and November 23, 2001 

(NH). Before EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. Each of 

the four states’ title V programs 

included a demonstration that the state 

will collect a fee from title V sources 

above the presumptive minimum in 

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

The states collect sufficient fees to 

administer their title V permit programs. 

Therefore, Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire all 

meet the requirements for section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards. 

M. Consultation/Participation by 

Affected Local Entities 

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

requires states to provide for 

consultation and participation in SIP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43031 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

EPA reviewed the laws and 

regulations that been approved into the 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire SIPs, and proposes to 

find that all four states’ 110(a) 

submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards meet the requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(M). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

submittals from all four states as fully 

meeting the infrastructure requirements 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 

for the following 110(a)(2) elements and 

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

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

(consultation), (J) (public notification), 

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

EPA also is proposing to approve the 

submittals from Maine and New 

Hampshire as fully meeting the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two 

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

These two prongs are (1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in any 

other state with respect to any such 

national primary or secondary NAAQS, 

and (2) interfere with maintenance by 

any other state with respect to the same 

NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve the submittals from Maine 

for the prong of section 

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

with visibility protection, and the 

submittals from New Hampshire for 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve the submittals from all four 

states for the following 110(a)(2) 

elements and sub-elements: (A) and E(ii) 

(state boards and conflict of interest 

provisions). We are proposing to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from three states (Connecticut, Maine, 

and New Hampshire) for section 

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

(J) as they relate to the states’ PSD 

programs. We are also proposing to 

conditionally approve the submittals 

from Connecticut and Maine for 

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

For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the state’s submittals for 

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

prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J) as they relate 

to the state’s PSD program, as well as 

(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

However, this disapproval will not 

trigger any sanctions or additional FIP 

obligation. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, 

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

based on a commitment from a State to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by 

a date certain, but not later than one 

year from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to complete 

requirements of each section 110(a)(2) 

element listed above. If Connecticut, 

Maine, Massachusetts or New 

Hampshire fails to do so for any section 

110(a)(2) element, our conditional 

approval of that element will, by 

operation of law, become a disapproval 

for the applicable State or States one 

year from the date of final approval. 

EPA will notify the State or States by 

letter that this action has occurred. At 

that time, this commitment will no 

longer be a part of the approved SIP for 

the applicable State or States. EPA 

subsequently will publish a document 

in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the conditional approval 

automatically converted to a 

disapproval. If Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire 

meet their commitments within the 

applicable time frame, the conditionally 

approved submission will remain a part 

of the SIP or SIPs until EPA takes final 

action approving or disapproving the 

element in question. If EPA disapproves 

a State’s new submittal, the 

conditionally approved section 110(a)(2) 

element will also be disapproved at that 

time. If EPA approves the submittal, the 

section 110(a)(2) element will be fully 

approved in its entirety and replace the 

conditionally approved 110(a)(2) 

element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on 

information received before EPA takes 

final action on this proposal, EPA 

determines that it cannot issue a final 

conditional approval for one or more 

elements for which EPA has proposed a 

conditional approval, then EPA will 

instead issue a disapproval for such 

elements. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2012. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17902 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0081; FRL–9702–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi: 

New Source Review-Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration; Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Mississippi State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) through 

the Division of Air Pollution Control to 

EPA on May 12, 2011. The SIP revision 

modifies Mississippi’s New Source 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. The May 

12, 2011, SIP revision incorporates by 

reference the federal NSR PSD 

requirements for the fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) as amended 

in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) and the 

2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment, Significant 

Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant 

Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule 

(hereafter referred to the ‘‘PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule’’) into the 

Mississippi SIP. EPA is proposing to 

approve portions of Mississippi’s SIP 

revision because the Agency has 

preliminarily determined that the 

provisions proposed for approval are 

consistent with section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0081 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0081, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0081.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Mississippi 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9241; 

email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the PM2.5

NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104; 

email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the NSR implementation 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Mississippi’s 

SIP revision? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On May 12, 2011, MDEQ submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA for approval into 

the Mississippi SIP to incorporate by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS