### 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


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

1 As 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.


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

Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 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 CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), 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 CO 2 emissions and accounts for 80 percent of the total GHG emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO 2 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 CO 2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation, perturb the atmospheric

concentration of CO 2 , 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 (CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, 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 CO 2 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 (CO 2 e) basis. For example, CH 4 has a GWP of 21, meaning each ton of CH 4 emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming over a 100-year time

horizon as 1 ton of CO 2 emissions. Thus, on the basis of heat-trapping capability,

1 ton of CH 4 would equal 21 tons of

CO 2 e. The GWPs of the non-CO 2 GHGs range from 21 (for CH 4 ) up to 23,900 (for

SF 6 ). Aggregating all GHGs on a CO 2 e 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 CO 2 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


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

2 EPA 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 permittingauthority. Connecticut has a SIPapproved PSD program.

D. What actions has EPA takenconcerning 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—CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6—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 CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 . 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


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

4 The 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 CO 2 e, 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 CO 2 e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO 2 e and

that undertake a modification that increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO 2 e will also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA

notes that if sources or modifications

exceed these CO 2 e-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 CO 2 e, and no modification resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy

CO 2 e, 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 CO 2 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


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

5 Narrowing 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. 6 The 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.

7 The 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. 8 As 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 adoptedregulatory 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 CO 2 e 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:

CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6

. 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 CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e 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 haveauthority 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 hasauthority 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


### 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