752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0996, FRL–9248–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Connecticut: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by Connecticut on December 9, 2010, for 

parallel processing. The proposed SIP 

revision makes two changes impacting 

Connecticut’s New Source Review 

(NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the 

proposed revision provides the State of 

Connecticut with authority to regulate 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) under its PSD 

program. Second, the proposed SIP 

revision establishes appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

Connecticut’s PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions. 

The first component of the proposed 

revision is necessary because the State 

of Connecticut is required to apply its 

PSD program to GHG-emitting sources, 

and unless it does so (or unless EPA 

promulgates a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) to do so), such sources will 

be unable to receive preconstruction 

permits and therefore may not be able 

to construct or modify. The second 

component is necessary because 

without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD 

requirements would apply at the 100 or 

250 tons per year (tpy) levels provided 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

which would overwhelm Connecticut’s 

permitting resources. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2010–0996, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: dahl.donald@epa. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0657. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0996’’, 

Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 

100 (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 

02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Donald Dahl, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Air Programs Unit, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail 

code OEP05–2), 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 No. ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

0996.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail, information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected. The 

http://www.regulations.gov 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 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 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Air Programs Unit, 

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 federal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency; The Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Connecticut 

SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxics, and Indoor Air Programs Unit, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. Mr. Dahl’s telephone number is 

(617) 918–1657; e-mail address: 

dahl.donald@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. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

II. What is the background for the action 

proposed by EPA in today’s notice 

regarding PSD permitting requirements 

for GHG-emitting sources? 

III. What is the relationship between today’s 

proposed action and EPA’s proposed 

GHG SIP call and GHG FIP? 

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

proposed SIP revision? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

On December 9, 2010, the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) submitted a draft revision to EPA 

for approval into Connecticut’s SIP to: 

(1) Provide the State with the authority 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 753 

1As part of the same state comment process, 

Connecticut also proposed revisions to its operating 

permit program under Title V of the Clean Air Act. 

Connecticut has not requested that EPA approve 

these revisions under Title V and EPA is not 

proposing to approve them in today’s action. 

to regulate GHGs under its PSD 

program; and (2) establish appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new or modified stationary 

sources become subject to Connecticut’s 

PSD permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. Final approval of 

Connecticut’s December 9, 2010 SIP 

revision will make Connecticut’s SIP 

adequate with respect to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources, 

thereby negating the need for a GHG 

FIP. Furthermore, final approval of 

Connecticut’s December 9, 2010, SIP 

revision will put in place the GHG 

emission thresholds for PSD 

applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule, ensuring that smaller GHG sources 

emitting less than these thresholds will 

not be subject to the permitting 

requirements that will begin applying to 

GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision into 

the Connecticut SIP. 

Because this draft SIP revision is not 

yet state-effective, Connecticut 

requested that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ 

the SIP revision in a letter dated 

December 9, 2010. Under this 

procedure, the EPA Regional Office 

works closely with the state while 

developing new or revised regulations, 

and may propose approval of the SIP 

revision before it has become fully 

effective as state law. 

Connecticut conducted a public 

comment period on its proposed 

regulations from September 1, 2010 to 

October 18, 2010.1 On October 14, 2010, 

EPA submitted comments to 

Connecticut on the state’s proposed 

regulations. On December 9, 2010, 

Connecticut submitted a letter to EPA 

explaining that Connecticut had 

considered all the submitted comments 

and made revisions to the proposed 

regulation, and that a revised ‘‘final 

draft’’ regulation was now available that 

responded to all of EPA’s comments. 

Connecticut requested that EPA propose 

to approve this final draft regulation, 

rather than the original proposed 

regulation, as the SIP revision. 

As Connecticut explained, however, 

pursuant to Connecticut’s regulatory 

adoption laws, this final draft regulation 

must be reviewed by Connecticut’s 

Office of Attorney General and then the 

Legislative Regulations Review 

Committee before it can be finalized and 

made effective under state law. 

Therefore, as of today, Connecticut has 

not yet issued final regulations. 

However, pursuant to the ‘‘parallel 

processing’’ mechanism, EPA is 

proposing approval of the SIP revision, 

based on the proposed state action. 

After Connecticut submits the formal 

state-effective SIP revision request 

(including a response to all public 

comments raised during the State’s 

public participation process), EPA will 

prepare a final rulemaking notice for the 

SIP revision, provided Connecticut’s 

final promulgated regulation adequately 

addresses EPA’s comments. If changes 

are made to the SIP revision after EPA’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking, such 

changes must be acknowledged in EPA’s 

final rulemaking action. If the changes 

are significant, then EPA may be obliged 

to re-propose action. In addition, if the 

changes render the SIP revision not 

approvable, EPA’s re-proposal of the 

action would be a disapproval of the 

revision. 

II. What is the background for the 

action proposed by EPA in today’s 

notice regarding PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG-emitting 

sources? 

Today’s proposed action on the 

Connecticut SIP relates to three federal 

rulemaking actions. The first 

rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,’’ Final 

Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514 

(June 3, 2010). The second rulemaking 

is EPA’s ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to 

Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to 

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and 

SIP Call,’’ Proposed Rule, (GHG SIP 

Call). 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). 

The third rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action 

to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal 

Implementation Plan,’’ Proposed Rule, 

75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010) (GHG 

FIP), which serves as a companion 

rulemaking to EPA’s proposed GHG SIP 

Call. A summary of each of these 

rulemakings is described below. 

In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA establishes appropriate GHG 

emission thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. In the second 

rulemaking, the GHG SIP Call, EPA is 

proposing to find that the EPA-approved 

PSD programs in 13 States (including 

Connecticut) are substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements 

because they do not appear to apply 

PSD requirements to GHG-emitting 

sources. For each of these States, EPA 

proposes to require the State (through a 

‘‘SIP Call’’) to revise its SIP as necessary 

to correct such inadequacies. EPA is 

proposing an expedited schedule for 

these States to submit their SIP revision, 

in light of the fact that as of January 2, 

2011, certain GHG-emitting sources will 

become subject to the PSD requirements 

and may not be able to obtain a PSD 

permit in order to construct or modify. 

In the third rulemaking, the GHG FIP 

(which is not yet final), EPA is 

proposing a FIP to apply in any state 

that is unable to submit, by its deadline, 

a SIP revision to ensure that the state 

has authority to issue PSD permits for 

GHG-emitting sources. Connecticut is 

now seeking to revise its SIP to make it 

adequate with respect to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources, 

thereby negating the need for a GHG 

FIP. Furthermore, Connecticut is 

seeking to revise its SIP to put in place 

the GHG emission thresholds for PSD 

applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG 

sources emitting less than these 

thresholds will not be subject to 

permitting requirements. 

Below is a brief overview of GHGs 

and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA 

PSD program, minimum SIP elements 

for a PSD program, and EPA’s recent 

actions regarding GHG permitting. 

Following this section, EPA discusses, 

in sections III and IV, the relationship 

between the proposed Connecticut SIP 

revision and EPA’s other national 

rulemakings as well as EPA’s analysis of 

Connecticut’s SIP revision. 

A. What are GHGs and their sources? 

A detailed explanation of GHGs, 

climate change and the impact on 

health, society, and the environment is 

included in EPA’s technical support 

document for EPA’s GHG endangerment 

finding final rule (Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11292 at 

http://www.regulations.gov). The 

endangerment finding rulemaking is 

discussed later in this rulemaking. A 

summary of the nature and sources of 

GHGs is provided below. 

GHGs trap the Earth’s heat that would 

otherwise escape from the atmosphere 

into space and form the greenhouse 

effect that helps keep the Earth warm 

enough for life. GHGs are naturally 

present in the atmosphere and are also 

emitted by human activities. Human 

activities are intensifying the naturally 

occurring greenhouse effect by 

increasing the amount of GHGs in the 

atmosphere, which is changing the 

climate in a way that endangers human 

health, society, and the natural 

environment. 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere 

through natural processes as well as 

human activities. Other gases, such as 

fluorinated gases, are created and 

emitted solely through human activities. 

The well-mixed GHGs of concern 

directly emitted by human activities 

include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the six wellmixed GHGs,’’ or, simply, GHGs. 

Together these six well-mixed GHGs 

constitute the ‘‘air pollutant’’ upon 

which the GHG thresholds in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule are based. These six 

gases remain in the atmosphere for 

decades to centuries where they become 

well-mixed globally in the atmosphere. 

When they are emitted more quickly 

than natural processes can remove them 

from the atmosphere, their 

concentrations increase, thus increasing 

the greenhouse effect. 

In the U.S., the combustion of fossil 

fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest 

source of CO2 emissions and accounts 

for 80 percent of the total GHG 

emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2

emissions released from a variety of 

sources, including through the use of 

fossil fuel combustion and cement 

production from geologically stored 

carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) 

that is hundreds of millions of years old, 

as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

from land-use changes such as 

deforestation, perturb the atmospheric 

concentration of CO2, and the 

distribution of carbon within different 

reservoirs readjusts. More than half of 

the energy-related emissions come from 

large stationary sources such as power 

plants, while about a third come from 

transportation. Of the six well-mixed 

GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs) 

are emitted by motor vehicles. In the 

U.S., industrial processes (such as the 

production of cement, steel, and 

aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other 

land use, and waste management are 

also important sources of GHGs. 

Different GHGs have different heattrapping capacities. The concept of 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) was 

developed to compare the heat-trapping 

capacity and atmospheric lifetime of 

one GHG to another. The definition of 

a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio 

of heat trapped by one unit mass of the 

GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2

over a specified time period. When 

quantities of the different GHGs are 

multiplied by their GWPs, the different 

GHGs can be summed and compared on 

a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 

21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions 

would have 21 times as much impact on 

global warming over a 100-year time 

horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, 

on the basis of heat-trapping capability, 

1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of 

CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHGs 

range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for 

SF6). Aggregating all GHGs on a CO2e 

basis at the source level allows a facility 

to evaluate its total GHG emissions 

contribution based on a single metric. 

B. What are the general requirements of 

the PSD program? 

1. Overview of the PSD Program 

The PSD program is a preconstruction 

review and permitting program 

applicable to new major stationary 

sources and major modifications at 

existing stationary sources. The PSD 

program applies in areas that are 

designated ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for a national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD 

program is contained in part C of title 

I of the CAA. The ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ 

program applies in areas not in 

attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone 

Transport Region, and it is implemented 

under the requirements of part D of title 

I of the CAA. Collectively, EPA 

commonly refers to these two programs 

as the major NSR program. The 

governing EPA rules are contained in 40 

CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and 

part 51, Appendices S and W. There is 

no NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other 

well-mixed GHGs, nor has EPA 

proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, 

unless and until EPA takes further such 

action, the nonattainment NSR program 

does not apply to GHGs. 

The applicability of PSD to a 

particular source must be determined in 

advance of construction or modification 

and is pollutant-specific. The primary 

criterion in determining PSD 

applicability for a proposed new or 

modified source is whether the source is 

a ‘‘major emitting facility,’’ based on its 

predicted potential emissions of 

regulated pollutants, within the 

meaning of CAA section 169(1) that 

either constructs or undertakes a 

modification. EPA has implemented 

these requirements in its regulations, 

which use somewhat different 

terminology than the CAA does, for 

determining PSD applicability. 

a. Major Stationary Source 

Under PSD, a ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ is any source belonging to a 

specified list of 28 source categories that 

emits or has the potential to emit 100 

tpy or more of any air pollutant subject 

to regulation under the CAA, or any 

other source type that emits or has the 

potential to emit such pollutants in 

amounts equal to or greater than 250 

tpy. We refer to these levels as the 100/ 

250-tpy thresholds. A new source with 

a potential to emit (PTE) at or above the 

applicable ‘‘major stationary source 

threshold’’ is subject to major NSR. 

These limits originate from section 169 

of the CAA, which applies PSD to any 

‘‘major emitting facility’’ and defines the 

term to include any source that emits or 

has a PTE of 100 or 250 tpy, depending 

on the source category. Note that the 

major source definition incorporates the 

phrase ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ which, as 

described later, will begin to include 

GHGs on January 2, 2011, under our 

interpretation of that phrase as 

discussed in the recent memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of 

Regulations that Determine Pollutants 

Covered by Federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

b. Major Modifications 

PSD also applies to existing sources 

that undertake a ‘‘major modification,’’ 

which occurs when: (1) There is a 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a ‘‘major 

stationary source;’’ (2) the change results 

in a ‘‘significant’’ emissions increase of 

a pollutant subject to regulation (equal 

to or above the significance level that 

EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a 

‘‘significant net emissions increase’’ of a 

pollutant subject to regulation that is 

equal to or above the significance level 

(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). 

Significance levels, which EPA has 

promulgated for criteria pollutants and 

certain other pollutants, represent a de 

minimis contribution to air quality 

problems. When EPA has not set a 

significance level for a regulated NSR 

pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of 

the pollutant in any amount (that is, in 

effect, the significance level is treated as 

zero). 

2. General Requirements for PSD 

This section provides a very brief 

summary of the main requirements of 

the PSD program. One principal 

requirement is that a new major source 

or major modification must apply best 

available control technology (BACT), 

which is determined on a case-by-case 

basis taking into account, among other 

factors, the cost effectiveness of the 

control and energy and environmental 

impacts. EPA has developed a ‘‘topdown’’ approach for BACT review, 

which involves a decision process that 

includes identification of all available 

control technologies, elimination of 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 755 

2EPA notes that the PSD program has historically 

operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when 

new sources or modifications are ‘‘major,’’ PSD 

applies to all pollutants that are emitted in 

significant quantities from the source or project. 

This rule does not alter that for sources or 

modifications that are major due to their GHG 

emissions. 

3 In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that 

commenters argued, with some variations, that the 

PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants, 

and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD 

provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR 31560–62 

(June 3, 2010). EPA maintains its position that the 

PSD provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, and the Agency incorporates by 

reference the discussion of this issue in the 

Tailoring Rule. 

technically infeasible options, ranking 

of remaining options by control and cost 

effectiveness, and then selection of 

BACT. Under PSD, once a source is 

determined to be major for any 

regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review 

is performed for each attainment 

pollutant that exceeds its PSD 

significance level as part of new 

construction or for modification projects 

at the source, where there is a 

significant increase and a significant net 

emissions increase of such pollutant.2

In addition to performing BACT, the 

source must analyze impacts on ambient 

air quality to assure that sources do not 

cause or contribute to violation of any 

NAAQS or PSD increments and must 

analyze impacts on soil, vegetation, and 

visibility. In addition, sources or 

modifications that would impact Class I 

areas (e.g., national parks) may be 

subject to additional requirements to 

protect air quality related values 

(AQRVs) that have been identified for 

such areas. Under PSD, if a source’s 

proposed project may impact a Class I 

area, the Federal Land Manager is 

notified and is responsible for 

evaluating a source’s projected impact 

on the AQRVs and recommending either 

approval or disapproval of the source’s 

permit application based on anticipated 

impacts. There are currently no NAAQS 

or PSD increments established for 

GHGs, and therefore these PSD 

requirements would not apply for 

GHGs, even when PSD is triggered for 

GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for 

a GHG-emitting source, all regulated 

NSR pollutants that the new source 

emits in significant amounts would be 

subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, 

if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG 

pollutants for which there are 

established NAAQS or increments, the 

air quality, additional impacts, and 

Class I requirements would apply to 

those pollutants. 

Pursuant to existing PSD 

requirements, the permitting authority 

must provide notice of its preliminary 

decision on a source’s application for a 

PSD permit and must provide an 

opportunity for comment by the public, 

industry, and other interested persons. 

After considering and responding to 

comments, the permitting authority 

must issue a final determination on the 

construction permit. Usually NSR 

permits are issued by a state or local air 

pollution control agency that has its 

own authority to issue PSD permits 

under a permit program that has been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in its 

SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated 

its authority to issue PSD permits under 

federal regulations to the state or local 

agency. In other areas, EPA issues the 

permits under its own authority. 

C. What are the CAA requirements for 

a PSD program? 

The CAA contemplates that the PSD 

program be implemented in the first 

instance by the states and requires that 

states include PSD requirements in their 

SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * include a program to provide for 

* * * regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source within 

the areas covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit 

program as required in part[] C * * * of this 

subchapter. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * meet the applicable requirements of 

* * * part C of this subchapter (relating to 

significant deterioration of air quality and 

visibility protection). 

CAA section 161 provides that— 

Each applicable implementation plan shall 

contain emission limitations and such other 

measures as may be necessary, as determined 

under regulations promulgated under this 

part [C], to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality for such region * * * 

designated * * * as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

These provisions, read in conjunction 

with the PSD applicability provisions— 

which, as noted above, applies, by its 

terms, to ‘‘any air pollutant,’’ and which 

EPA has, through regulation, interpreted 

more narrowly as any ‘‘NSR regulated 

pollutant’’—and read in conjunction 

with other provisions, such as the BACT 

provision under CAA section 165(a)(4), 

mandate that SIPs include PSD 

programs that are applicable to, among 

other things, any air pollutant that is 

subject to regulation, including, as 

discussed below, GHGs on and after 

January 2, 2011.3

A number of states do not have PSD 

programs approved into their SIPs. In 

those states, EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 govern, and either EPA or the 

state as EPA’s delegatee acts as the 

permitting authority. On the other hand, 

most states have PSD programs that 

have been approved into their SIPs, and 

these states implement their PSD 

programs and act as the permitting 

authority. Connecticut has a SIPapproved PSD program. 

D. What actions has EPA taken 

concerning PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources? 

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, 

the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the 

Johnson Memo Reconsideration? 

By notice dated December 15, 2009, 

pursuant to CAA section 202(a), EPA 

issued, in a single final action, two 

findings regarding GHGs that are 

commonly referred to as the 

‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and the ‘‘Cause 

or Contribute Finding.’’ ‘‘Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 FR 66496. In 

the Endangerment Finding, the 

Administrator found that six long-lived 

and directly emitted GHGs—CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare. In the Cause 

or Contribute Finding, the 

Administrator ‘‘define[d] the air 

pollutant as the aggregate group of the 

same six * * * greenhouse gases,’’ 74 

FR 66536, and found that the combined 

emissions of this air pollutant from new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines contribute to the GHG air 

pollution that endangers public health 

and welfare. 

By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA 

published what is commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule’’ 

(LDVR), which for the first time 

established federal controls on GHGs 

emitted from light-duty vehicles. ‘‘LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 

25324. In its applicability provisions, 

the LDVR specifies that it ‘‘contains 

standards and other regulations 

applicable to the emissions of six 

greenhouse gases,’’ including CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR 25686 

(40 CFR 86.1818–12(a)). Shortly before 

finalizing the LDVR, by notice dated 

April 2, 2010, EPA published a notice 

commonly referred to as the Johnson 

Memo Reconsideration. On December 

18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, 

‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
756 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V 

program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Connecticut’s title V program. 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’’ 

(known as the ‘‘Johnson Memo’’ or the 

‘‘PSD Interpretive Memo,’’ and referred 

to in this preamble as the ‘‘Interpretive 

Memo’’), that set forth EPA’s 

interpretation regarding which EPA and 

state actions, with respect to a 

previously unregulated pollutant, cause 

that pollutant to become ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under the Act. Whether a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ is 

important for the purposes of 

determining whether it is covered under 

the federal PSD permitting program. The 

Interpretive Memo established that a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ only 

if it is subject to either a provision in the 

CAA or regulation adopted by EPA 

under the CAA that requires actual 

control of emissions of that pollutant 

(referred to as the ‘‘actual control 

interpretation’’). On February 17, 2009, 

EPA granted a petition for 

reconsideration on the Interpretive 

Memo and announced its intent to 

conduct a rulemaking to allow for 

public comment on the issues raised in 

the memorandum and on related issues. 

EPA also clarified that the Interpretive 

Memo would remain in effect pending 

reconsideration. 

On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a 

notice conveying its decision to 

continue applying (with one limited 

refinement) the Interpretive Memo’s 

interpretation of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

(‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean 

Air Act Permitting Programs’’). 75 FR 

17004. EPA concluded that the ‘‘actual 

control interpretation’’ is the most 

appropriate interpretation to apply 

given the policy implications. However, 

EPA refined the Agency’s interpretation 

in one respect: EPA established that 

PSD permitting requirements apply to a 

newly regulated pollutant at the time a 

regulatory requirement to control 

emissions of that pollutant ‘‘takes effect’’ 

(rather than upon promulgation or the 

legal effective date of the regulation 

containing such a requirement). In 

addition, based on the anticipated 

promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated 

that the GHG requirements of the 

vehicle rule would take effect on 

January 2, 2011, because that is the 

earliest date that a 2012 model year 

vehicle may be introduced into 

commerce. In other words, the 

compliance obligation under the LDVR 

does not occur until a manufacturer may 

introduce into commerce vehicles that 

are required to comply with GHG 

standards, which will begin with model 

year 2012 and will not occur before 

January 2, 2011. 

2. What is EPA’s Tailoring Rule? 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking for the purpose of relieving 

overwhelming permitting burdens that 

would, in the absence of the rule, fall on 

permitting authorities and sources, the 

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514. EPA 

accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program 4 of the 

CAA. In particular, EPA established in 

the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach 

for PSD applicability and established 

the first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA 

committed to certain follow-up actions 

regarding future steps beyond the first 

two, discussed in more detail later. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which will begin on January 2, 2011, 

PSD requirements will apply to major 

stationary source GHG emissions only if 

the sources are subject to PSD anyway 

due to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA will not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most notably, the 

BACT requirement, will apply to 

projects that increase net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, 

but only if the project also significantly 

increases emissions of at least one nonGHG pollutant. 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the potential to emit, at least 

100,000 tpy CO2e will become subject to 

the PSD requirements. In addition, 

sources that emit or have the potential 

to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and 

that undertake a modification that 

increases net GHG emissions by at least 

75,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to 

PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA 

notes that if sources or modifications 

exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG 

triggers, they are not covered by 

permitting requirements unless their 

GHG emissions also exceed the 

corresponding mass-based triggers in 

tpy. 

EPA believes that the costs to the 

sources and the administrative burdens 

to the permitting authorities of PSD 

permitting will be manageable at the 

levels in these initial two steps and that 

it would be administratively infeasible 

to subject additional sources to PSD 

requirements at those times. However, 

EPA also intends to issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking in 2011, in which the 

Agency will propose or solicit comment 

on a third step of the phase-in that 

would include more sources, beginning 

on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule, 

EPA established an enforceable 

commitment that the Agency will 

complete this rulemaking by July 1, 

2012, which will allow for 1 year’s 

notice before Step 3 would take effect. 

In addition, EPA committed to 

explore streamlining techniques that 

may well make the permitting programs 

much more efficient to administer for 

GHG, and that therefore may allow their 

expansion to smaller sources. EPA 

expects that the initial streamlining 

techniques will take several years to 

develop and implement. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also 

included a provision, that no source 

with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, 

and no modification resulting in net 

GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy 

CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting 

before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30, 

2016). This is because EPA has 

concluded that at the present time the 

administrative burdens that would 

accompany permitting sources below 

this level would be so great that even 

with the streamlining actions that EPA 

may be able to develop and implement 

in the next several years, and even with 

the increases in permitting resources 

that EPA can reasonably expect the 

permitting authorities to acquire, it 

would be impossible to administer the 

permit programs for these sources until 

at least 2016. 

As EPA explained in the Tailoring 

Rule, the threshold limitations are 

necessary because without it, PSD 

would apply to all stationary sources 

that emit or have the potential to emit 

more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per 

year beginning on January 2, 2011. This 

is the date when EPA’s recently 

promulgated LDVR takes effect, 

imposing control requirements for the 

first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this 

January 2, 2011, date were to pass 

without the Tailoring Rule being in 

effect, PSD requirements would apply to 

GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy 

applicability levels provided under a 

literal reading of the CAA as of that 

date. From that point forward, a source 

owner proposing to construct any new 

major source that emits at or higher than 

the applicability levels (and which 

therefore may be referred to as a ‘‘major’’ 

source) or modify any existing major 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 757 

5Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure that for 

federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that 

are less than the Tailoring Rule’s emission 

thresholds will not be obligated under federal law 

to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when 

GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 

2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP 

revision adopting EPA’s tailoring approach, or (2) 

if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting 

sources, the state demonstrates to EPA that it has 

adequate resources to handle permitting for such 

sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing 

action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with 

respect to those States for which EPA will not have 

approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs 

by that time. 

6The term ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ is commonly used 

to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping 

properties. However, in this notice, unless noted 

otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the 

pollutant regulated in the LDVR. 

7The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, 

and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed 

in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is 

100 tpy. 

8As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its 

finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 

for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA 

requested that the states for which EPA is proposing 

a SIP call identify the deadline—between 3 weeks 

and 12 months from the date of signature of the 

final SIP Call—that they would accept for 

submitting their corrective SIP revision. 

source in a way that would increase 

GHG emissions would need to obtain a 

permit under the PSD program that 

addresses these emissions before 

construction or modification could 

begin. 

Under these circumstances, many 

small sources would be burdened by the 

costs of the individualized PSD control 

technology requirements and permit 

applications that the PSD provisions, 

absent streamlining, require. 

Additionally, state and local permitting 

authorities would be burdened by the 

extraordinary number of these permit 

applications, which are orders of 

magnitude greater than the current 

inventory of permits and would vastly 

exceed the current administrative 

resources of the permitting authorities. 

Permit gridlock would result since the 

permitting authorities would likely be 

able to issue only a tiny fraction of the 

permits requested. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted 

regulatory language codifying the phasein approach. As explained in that 

rulemaking, many state, local and tribal 

area programs will likely be able to 

immediately implement the approach 

without rule or statutory changes by, for 

example, interpreting the term ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ that is part of the 

applicability provisions for PSD 

permitting. EPA has requested 

permitting authorities to confirm that 

they will follow this implementation 

approach for their programs, and if they 

cannot, then EPA has requested that 

they notify the Agency so that we can 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs become subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.5

On July 20, 2010, Connecticut provided 

a letter to EPA with the requested 

notification. See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of 

Connecticut’s letter. 

The thresholds that EPA established 

are based on CO2e for the aggregate sum 

of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant 

that will be subject to regulation, which 

we refer to as GHG.6 These gases are: 

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 

Thus, in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, EPA 

provided that PSD applicability is based 

on the quantity that results when the 

mass emissions of each of these gases is 

multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and 

then summed for all six gases. However, 

EPA further provided that in order for 

a source’s GHG emissions to trigger PSD 

requirements, the quantity of the GHG 

emissions must equal or exceed both the 

applicability thresholds established in 

the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and 

the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 

tpy on a mass basis.7 Similarly, in order 

for a source to be subject to the PSD 

modification requirements, the source’s 

net GHG emissions increase must 

exceed the applicable significance level 

on a CO2e basis and must also result in 

a net mass increase of the constituent 

gases combined. 

EPA adopted the Tailoring Rule after 

careful consideration of numerous 

public comments. On October 27, 2009 

(74 FR 55292), EPA proposed the 

Tailoring Rule. EPA held two public 

hearings on the proposed rule, and 

received over 400,000 written public 

comments. The public comment period 

ended on December 28, 2009. The 

comments provided detailed 

information that helped EPA 

understand better the issues and 

potential impacts of the Tailoring Rule. 

The preamble of EPA’s Tailoring Rule 

describes in detail the comments 

received and how some of these 

comments were incorporated in EPA’s 

final rule. See 75 FR 31514 for more 

detail. 

3. What is the GHG SIP Call? 

By notice dated September 2, 2010, 

EPA proposed the GHG SIP Call. In that 

action, along with the companion GHG 

FIP rulemaking published at the same 

time, EPA took steps to ensure that in 

the 13 States that do not appear to have 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources at present, either the 

State or EPA will have the authority to 

issue such permits by January 2, 2011. 

EPA explained that although for most 

States, either the State or EPA is already 

authorized to issue PSD permits for 

GHG-emitting sources as of that date, 

our preliminary information shows that 

these 13 States have EPA-approved PSD 

programs that do not appear to include 

GHG-emitting sources and therefore do 

not appear to authorize these States to 

issue PSD permits to such sources. 

Therefore, EPA proposed to find that 

these 13 States’ SIPs are substantially 

inadequate to comply with CAA 

requirements and, accordingly, 

proposed to issue a SIP Call to require 

a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD 

programs to GHG-emitting sources. In 

the companion GHG FIP rulemaking, 

EPA proposed a FIP that would give 

EPA authority to apply EPA’s PSD 

program to GHG-emitting sources in any 

State that is unable to submit a 

corrective SIP revision by its deadline. 

Connecticut was one of the States for 

which EPA proposed a SIP Call. 

III. What is the relationship between 

today’s proposed action and EPA’s 

proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP? 

As noted above, by notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA 

proposed a FIP to apply in any state that 

is unable to submit, by its deadline, a 

SIP revision to ensure that the state has 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources.8 As discussed in 

section IV of this rulemaking, 

Connecticut does not interpret its 

current PSD regulations as providing it 

with the authority to regulate GHG, and 

as such, Connecticut is included on the 

list of areas for the proposed SIP call. 

Connecticut’s December 9, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision (the subject of 

this rulemaking) addresses this 

authority. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Connecticut’s proposed SIP revision? 

On December 9, 2010, DEP provided 

a revision to Connecticut’s SIP to EPA 

for parallel processing and eventual 

approval. This revision to Connecticut’s 

SIP is necessary because without it, (1) 

the State would not have authority to 

issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting 

sources, and as a result, absent further 

action, those sources may not be able to 

construct or undertake modifications 

beginning January 2, 2011; and (2) 

assuming that the State attains authority 

to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting 

sources, PSD requirements would apply, 

as of January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250- 

tpy levels provided under the CAA. 

This would greatly increase the number 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of required permits, imposing undue 

costs on small sources; which would 

overwhelm Connecticut’s permitting 

resources and severely impair the 

function of the program. 

The State’s December 9, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision: (1) Provides the 

State with the authority to regulate GHG 

under the PSD program of the CAA, and 

(2) establishes thresholds for 

determining which stationary sources 

and modification projects become 

subject to permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under the PSD program. 

Specifically, Connecticut’s December 9, 

2010, proposed SIP revision includes 

proposed changes to Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies, section 

22a–174–1, by adding definitions for 

‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent emissions’’ 

and ‘‘greenhouse gases.’’ The proposed 

SIP revision also addresses the 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability and implementation 

through changes proposed to 

Connecticut’s PSD regulations at section 

22a–174–3a. 

The State of Connecticut is currently 

a SIP-approved state for the PSD 

program. However, Connecticut does 

not interpret its current rules, which are 

generally consistent with the federal 

rules, to be automatically updating to 

include newly designated regulated air 

pollutants such as GHG. In a letter 

provided to EPA on July 20, 2010, 

Connecticut notified EPA that the State 

does not currently have the authority to 

regulate GHG and thus is in the process 

of revising its regulation (the subject of 

this proposed action) to provide this 

authority. To provide this authority, 

Connecticut is adding definitions of 

‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent emissions’’ 

and ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ to section 22a– 

174–1, and revising PSD applicability 

and BACT requirements in section 22a– 

174–3a, to explicitly regulate GHG 

under the CAA. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that this change to 

Connecticut’s regulation is consistent 

with the CAA and its implementing 

regulations regarding GHG. 

The changes included in 

Connecticut’s PSD program are 

substantively the same as EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. The Connecticut rules 

have been developed to conform to the 

structure of Connecticut’s rule in 

section 22a–174–3a, but in substantive 

content the rules that address the 

Tailoring Rule provisions are the same 

as the federal rules. As part of its review 

of the Connecticut submittal, EPA 

performed a line-by-line review of 

Connecticut’s proposed changes to its 

regulations and concluded the state’s 

proposed regulations are consistent with 

the Tailoring Rule. 

V. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of Connecticut’s December 9, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision, relating to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources. 

Specifically, Connecticut’s December 9, 

2010, proposed SIP revision: (1) 

Provides the State with the authority to 

regulate GHGs under its PSD program, 

and (2) establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability to new and modified 

GHG-emitting sources in accordance 

with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP revision is approvable 

because it is in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the State’s law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the State’s 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 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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0662; FRL–9248–2] 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana—Air 

Quality, Subchapter 7, Subchapter 16 

and Subchapter 17 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove portions of revisions and 

new rules as submitted by the State of 

Montana on October 16, 2006 and 

November 1, 2006. Montana adopted 

these rules on December 2, 2005 and 

March 23, 2006 and these rules became 

State-effective on January 1, 2006. These 

revisions and new rules do not meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s Minor New Source Review (NSR) 

regulations. EPA has concluded that 

none of the identified elements for the 

submitted revisions and new rules are 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1