Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54471 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 28, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–22863 Filed 9–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0198; FRL–9933–38– 

Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions from Connecticut 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8-hr 

ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 

2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

convert conditional approvals for 

several infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and for 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) 

NAAQS to full approval under the CAA. 

Furthermore, we are proposing to newly 

conditionally approve elements of 

Connecticut’s infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

regarding prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements to treat 

nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone 

and to establish a minor source baseline 

date for PM2.5 emissions. Lastly, EPA is 

proposing to approve three statutes 

submitted by Connecticut in support of 

their demonstration that the 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

have been met. 

The infrastructure requirements are 

designed to ensure that the structural 

components of each state’s air quality 

management program are adequate to 

meet the state’s responsibilities under 

the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by the appropriate Docket ID 

number as indicated in the instructions 

section below, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs 

Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

Massachusetts 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air 

Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05–2, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

Massachusetts 02109–3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID. EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0198. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post 

Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. 

This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison Simcox, Environmental 

Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air 

Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05– 

02), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 

02109–3912; (617) 918–1684; 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these State 

Implementation Plan submissions? 

A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does 

this rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

measures 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program for Major Sources 

and Major Modifications 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

i. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 

2) 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)— 

International Pollution Abatement 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area 

Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with 

Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Public notification 

iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion into 

the Connecticut SIP 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, 

Federal Register date, and page 

number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you 

to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested 

changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of 

profanity or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. What is the background of these 

State Implementation Plan 

submissions? 

A. What Connecticut SIP submissions 

does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). 

The state submitted its infrastructure 

SIP for each NAAQS on the following 

dates: 2008 Pb—October 13, 2011; 2008 

ozone—December 28, 2012; 2010 NO2— 

January 2, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—May 

30, 2013. This rulemaking also 

addresses certain infrastructure SIP 

elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.51

NAAQS for which EPA previously 

issued a conditional approval. See 77 

FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). The state 

submitted these infrastructure SIPs on 

September 4, 2008, and September 18, 

2009, respectively. Lastly, this 

rulemaking addresses one infrastructure 

SIP element for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for which EPA previously 

issued a conditional approval. See 76 

FR 40248 (July 8, 2011). The state 

submitted this infrastructure SIP on 

December 28, 2007. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

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

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

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

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, and to elements of 

Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS which we previously 

conditionally approved. See 77 FR 

63228 (October 16, 2012). To the extent 

that the PSD program is comprehensive 

and non-NAAQS specific, a narrow 

evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, will be 

included in the appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Connecticut that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, we 

are proposing to convert conditional 

approvals for several infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (see 76 FR 40248 (July 8, 2011)) 

and for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 

2012)) to full approval, proposing 

approval of three statutes submitted by 

Connecticut that support the 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

proposing to conditionally approve 

certain aspects of the infrastructure SIP 

which pertain to the State’s PSD 

program. 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54473 

2See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964, 

67034 (Nov. 12, 2008). 

Pursuant to these sections, each state 

must submit a SIP that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. States must make 

such SIP submission ‘‘within 3 years (or 

such shorter period as the Administrator 

may prescribe) after the promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS.’’ This 

requirement is triggered by the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS and is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any other action. Section 

110(a)(2) includes the specific elements 

that ‘‘each such plan’’ must address. 

EPA commonly refers to such SIP 

submissions made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (‘‘SSM’’ 

emissions) that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas separately. A 

detailed history, interpretation, and 

rationale for EPA’s approach to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ See 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245 (May 13, 2014). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

non-binding guidance documents to 

make recommendations for states’ 

development and EPA review of 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements. EPA guidance 

applicable to these infrastructure SIP 

submissions is embodied in several 

documents. Specifically, attachment A 

of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 

110 SIP Elements) identifies the 

statutory elements that states need to 

submit in order to satisfy the 

requirements for an infrastructure SIP 

submission. The 2009 Memo provides 

additional guidance for certain elements 

regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2011 Memo provides guidance 

specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, 

the 2013 Memo identifies and further 

clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs 

that are not NAAQS specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

Pursuant to section 110(a), and as 

noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013 

Memo, states must provide reasonable 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. CT DEEP held public 

hearings for each infrastructure SIP on 

the following dates: 2008 Pb— 

September 20, 2011; 2008 ozone— 

December 20, 2012; 2010 NO2— 

December 20, 2012; and, 2010 SO2— 

May 1, 2013. Connecticut received 

comments from EPA on each of its 

proposed infrastructure SIPs, and also 

received comments from a U.S. Army 

Regulatory Affairs Specialist on its 

proposed ozone and NO2 infrastructure 

SIPs, and from a consultant with Enhesa 

in Washington, DC on its proposed SO2

infrastructure SIP. EPA is also soliciting 

comment on our evaluation of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Connecticut provided detailed synopses 

of how various components of its SIP 

meet each of the requirements in section 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as 

applicable. The following review 

evaluates the state’s submissions in light 

of section 110(a)(2) requirements and 

relevant EPA guidance. The review also 

evaluates certain infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for which EPA previously 

issued conditional approvals. See 76 FR 

40248 (July 8, 2011) and 77 FR 63228 

(October 16, 2012.) 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. However, EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.2 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

Connecticut Public Act No. 11–80 

established the Connecticut Department 

of Energy and Environmental Protection 

(CT DEEP), and Connecticut General 

Statutes (CGS) Section 22a–6(a)(1) 

provides the Commissioner of CT DEEP 

authority to adopt, amend or repeal 

environmental standards, criteria and 

regulations. It is under this general grant 

of authority that the Commissioner has 

adopted emissions standards and 

control measures for a variety of sources 

and pollutants. Connecticut also has 

SIP-approved provisions for specific 

pollutants. For example, CT DEEP has 

adopted primary and secondary ambient 

air quality standards for each of these 

pollutants in Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a– 

174–24 as follows: For SO2, Section 

22a–174–24(d); for PM2.5, Section 22a– 

174–24(f); for ozone, Section 22a–174– 

24(i); for NO2, 22a–174–24(k); and for 

lead, Section 22a–174–24(l). As noted in 

EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s Section 

22a–174–24, Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 

36242), Connecticut’s standards are 

consistent with the current federal 

NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Connecticut meets the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In addition, we previously issued a 

conditional approval for Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal made for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

because portions of Connecticut’s 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb, 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or 

the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a 

suitable PSD permitting program must be 

considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS 

that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

section 22a–174–24, Ambient Air 

Quality Standards were outdated. See 

77 FR 63228 (October 16, 2012). 

However, as noted in our June 24, 2014 

action mentioned above, Connecticut 

has revised their standards and they are 

now consistent with the federal 

NAAQS. In light of this, we propose to 

convert the conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 

63228 (October 16, 2012)) to full 

approval. As previously noted, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state provisions or rules 

related to SSM or director’s discretion 

in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. Each year, states submit annual 

air monitoring network plans to EPA for 

review and approval. EPA’s review of 

these annual monitoring plans includes 

our evaluation of whether the state: (i) 

Monitors air quality at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and, (iii) provides EPA 

Regional Offices with prior notification 

of any planned changes to monitoring 

sites or the network plan. 

CT DEEP continues to operate a 

monitoring network, and EPA approved 

the state’s 2015 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan for PM2.5, Pb, ozone, NO2, 

and SO2 on July 10, 2015. Furthermore, 

CT DEEP populates AQS with air 

quality monitoring data in a timely 

manner, and provides EPA with prior 

notification when considering a change 

to its monitoring network or plan. EPA 

proposes that CT DEEP has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA 

(sections 160–169B) addresses PSD, 

while part D of the CAA (sections 171– 

193) addresses NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the 

following: (i) Enforcement of SIP 

measures; (ii) PSD program for major 

sources and major modifications; and, 

(iii) permitting program for minor 

sources and minor modifications. A 

discussion of GHG permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 3 is included within 

our evaluation of the PSD provisions of 

Connecticut’s submittals. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

CT DEEP staffs and implements an 

enforcement program pursuant to CGS 

section 22a. Specifically, CGS section 

22a–6 authorizes the Commissioner of 

CT DEEP to inspect and investigate to 

ascertain whether violations of any 

statute, regulation, or permit may have 

occurred and to impose civil penalties. 

CGS section 22a–171 requires the 

Commissioner to ‘‘adopt, amend, repeal, 

and enforce regulations . . . and do any 

other act necessary to enforce the 

provisions of’’ CGS sections 22a–170 

through 22a–206, which provide CT 

DEEP with the authority to, among other 

things, enforce its regulations, issue 

orders to correct violations of 

regulations or permits, impose state 

administrative penalties, and seek 

judicial relief. EPA proposes that 

Connecticut has met the enforcement of 

SIP measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program for 

Major Sources and Major Modifications 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting requirements apply to 

new major sources or major 

modifications made to major sources, 

for pollutants where the area in which 

the source is located is in attainment 

with, or unclassifiable with regard to, 

the relevant NAAQS. CT DEEP’s EPAapproved PSD rules in RCSA sections 

22a–174–1, 22a–174–2a, and 22a–174– 

3a contain provisions that address the 

majority of the applicable infrastructure 

SIP requirements related to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (see 70 FR 71612 

at 71679, 71699–71700 (November 29, 

2005)). This requirement was codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires that 

states submit SIP revisions 

incorporating the requirements of the 

rule, including provisions that would 

treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a 

precursor to ozone. These SIP revisions 

were to have been submitted to EPA by 

states by June 15, 2007. See 70 FR 71612 

at 71683 (November 29, 2005). 

Connecticut’s PSD rules do not 

currently contain the provisions needed 

to ensure that NOX be treated as a 

precursor to ozone, and the State’s PSD 

rules must be changed in the future to 

meet this requirement. To correct this 

deficiency, the CT DEEP has committed, 

by letter dated August 5, 2015, to submit 

for EPA approval into the SIP provisions 

that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(1) and (b)(2) relating to the 

requirement to treat NOX as a precursor 

pollutant to ozone. Accordingly, as we 

articulate further on in our discussion of 

this sub-element, while the majority of 

Connecticut’s submittals pertaining to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 

SO2, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS are consistent with the federal 

requirements, we are proposing to 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

PSD regulations as to those specific 

regulatory provisions that will need to 

be amended by Connecticut in order to 

treat NOX emissions as precursor 

emissions to ozone formation. 

On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864), 

EPA issued a final rule entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54475 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including adding the required 

elements for PM2.5 into a state’s existing 

system of ‘‘increment analysis,’’ which 

is the mechanism used in the PSD 

permitting program to estimate 

significant deterioration of ambient air 

quality for a pollutant in relation to new 

source construction or modification. 

The maximum allowable increment 

increases for different pollutants are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c). 

The 2010 NSR Rule described in the 

preceding paragraph revised the existing 

system for determining increment 

consumption by establishing a new 

‘‘major source baseline date’’ for PM2.5

of October 20, 2010, and by establishing 

a trigger date for PM2.5 in relation to the 

definition of ‘‘minor source baseline 

date.’’ These revisions to the federal 

PSD rules are codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 

52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). 

Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ to include 

a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms 

per cubic meter, annual average, for 

PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

States were required to revise their SIPs 

consistent with these changes to the 

federal regulations. 

On October 9, 2012, Connecticut 

submitted revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating two of the four changes 

addressed by the 2010 NSR Rule. The 

two changes were 1) a revised definition 

of ‘‘Major source baseline date’’ that 

included a date for PM2.5 specifically; 

and 2) the addition of the maximum 

allowable increment for PM2.5. EPA 

approved Connecticut’s October 9, 2012 

SIP revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 

43960). Therefore, we propose to 

convert to a full approval the earlier 

conditional approval as it applies to 

these two elements of the EPA’s 2010 

rulemaking in the context of the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 

63228 (October 16, 2012). 

CT DEEP’s October 9, 2012 SIP 

revision did not specifically address the 

two other changes EPA made to the PSD 

rules in 2010, and for the following 

reasons EPA did not intend for those 

two issues to be part of the conditional 

approval described in our October 16, 

2012 notice. One of those changes is the 

requirement that a State’s definition of 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ be 

amended to include a trigger date for 

PM2.5 emissions (see EPA’s definition 

for ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)). Instead of using a 

specific date, EPA’s definition for minor 

source baseline date provides that the 

minor source baseline date is triggered 

by a state’s receipt of its first complete 

PSD application. At the time CT DEEP 

made its October 9, 2012 SIP revision, 

it would not have been possible for the 

State to have amended its regulation to 

include a specific minor source baseline 

date because no source had submitted a 

complete PSD application for PM2.5.

This is also true for CT DEEP’s other 

infrastructure SIPs addressed in this 

action. This is so because CT DEEP’s 

PSD regulations are structured in a way 

that uses actual specific dates based on 

submission of a first complete PSD 

application for a particular pollutant. 

(The approach contained in EPA’s 

regulations is somewhat different in the 

sense that instead of using actual 

specific dates, EPA articulates the 

concept of a first complete PSD 

application as the minor source baseline 

date trigger.) EPA understands that CT 

DEEP did not receive a complete PSD 

application for a source subject to PSD 

for PM2.5 emissions until September 24, 

2014. Consequently, the State could not 

have included an actual date in its 

definition of ‘‘minor source baseline 

date’’ within its October 9, 2012 SIP 

revision. 

Although Connecticut could not 

establish an actual date for PM2.5 in its 

definition of ‘‘minor source baseline 

date,’’ at the time of its October 9, 2012 

SIP revision, Connecticut is now able to 

revise this definition to include a 

specific date that is consistent with 

EPA’s definition because a complete 

PSD application has been submitted to 

CT DEEP for a major new source of 

PM2.5 emissions. Accordingly, the CT 

DEEP has committed by letter dated 

August 5, 2015, to submit for EPA 

approval into the SIP a minor source 

baseline date for PM2.5 that meets the 

requirements at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c). Consequently, we 

propose to conditionally approve 

Connecticut’s submittals for this subelement pertaining to section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Consistent with our reasoning 

above, we are also proposing to newly 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

submittals for this sub-element with 

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The fourth change to the PSD 

regulations that EPA made in 2010 was 

to add ‘‘equal or greater than 0.3 mg/m3

(annual average) for PM2.5’’ to the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area.’’ This 

requires states to determine whether 

another baseline area, other than the 

baseline area where the PSD subject 

source is locating, needs to be analyzed 

based on the air quality impact 

predicted from the new PSD source. The 

impact on another baseline area is 

limited to any impacts above the 

defined thresholds contained within the 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ on another 

area within Connecticut. In other words, 

under EPA’s PSD requirements the 

baseline area evaluation does not 

include within it analysis of a new 

source’s impacts in another state. 

Connecticut’s current SIP and State 

PSD rules do not contain a definition of 

‘‘baseline area.’’ EPA has confirmed in 

communications with CT DEEP that it 

treats the entire state as a single baseline 

area, which obviates the need to have a 

definition for this term. EPA agrees that 

the language EPA added to the federal 

definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ in the 

federal PSD requirements is not 

necessary in Connecticut because there 

is no other baseline area within the 

State. 

Moreover, EPA has concluded that the 

lack of such a specific definition of 

‘‘baseline area’’ does not in theory, and 

has not in fact over many years, 

preclude CT DEEP from ensuring that 

emissions from a major new source or 

major modification will not consume 

more increment than would be available 

or allowable even had CT DEEP adopted 

a definition that was exactly the same as 

EPA’s definition of baseline area. In 

other words, CT DEEP has a regulatory 

structure that it has used over many 

years to ensure that increment 

consumption arising from new 

construction comports as a practical 

matter with federal PSD requirements 

and is functionally equivalent. EPA last 

approved CT DEEP’s increment 

calculation methodology on February 

27, 2003 (68 FR 9009). 

Based on actual emissions data from 

the most recent National Emission 

Inventory emissions data base (2011), 

there are only 15 existing major 

stationary sources in Connecticut, all of 

which are major due to NOX emissions. 

None of these sources emitted 100 tons 

per year or more of PM10, PM2.5, or VOC 

emissions. Further, 10 of these NOX

sources are the only such source in their 

city or town, two are located in 

Middletown, and three are located in 

Bridgeport. Typically, the determination 

of whether a new or modified source’s 

emissions could potentially consume 

more than the available increment in an 

area depends on whether other 

significant sources of air emissions 

impact the same area. The facts 

described above show how unlikely this 

would be, even if theoretically possible. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, the EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with 

respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 

2008 implementation rule does not conflict with the 

court’s opinion. 

The Court’s decision with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present infrastructure action. 

EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment 

area requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 

from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years 

after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, 

these elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, 

which would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following designations 

for some elements. 

EPA has determined that the differences 

between Connecticut’s mechanism for 

determining if emissions from the new 

or modified source will exceed the 

available increment and EPA’s 

mechanism is negligible, if different at 

all, in terms of emissions. Connecticut’s 

and EPAs mechanisms both take into 

account, in a manner sufficiently 

protective of air quality, consumption of 

available increment from nearby 

sources. 

In addition to the above, once CT 

DEEP addresses the conditional 

approval discussed earlier regarding the 

State’s definition of ‘‘minor source 

baseline date,’’ the impact of 

Connecticut’s approved mechanism for 

determining available increment most 

likely will result in a more conservative 

or protective approach than EPA’s 

increment structure. This is because all 

growth within Connecticut after 

September 24, 2014, that would result 

in any increase in PM2.5 emissions will 

be consuming the available increment 

for a new or modified source required 

to obtain a PSD permit for PM2.5

emissions anywhere within the State. 

Under EPA’s mechanism for 

determining available increment, 

because there has, to date, only been a 

PSD application submitted for a new 

source that constructed in New Haven 

County, changes to the available 

increment would only be evaluated 

from sources in New Haven County. Put 

differently, EPA’s mechanism would 

allow some of the future growth in PM2.5

emissions outside of New Haven County 

to be considered part of the baseline 

concentration and, therefore, would not 

consume increment elsewhere in 

Connecticut. 

On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA 

issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that directly emit PM2.5 emissions and 

sources that emit other pollutants that 

contribute to secondary PM2.5

formation. One of these requirements is 

for NSR permits to address pollutants 

responsible for the secondary formation 

of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursor 

pollutants. In the 2008 rule, EPA 

identified precursors to PM2.5 for the 

PSD program to be SO2 and NOX (unless 

the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) are not considered 

to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD 

program unless the state demonstrates 

to the Administrator’s satisfaction or 

EPA demonstrates that emissions of 

VOCs in an area are significant 

contributors to that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, 

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(b)(23)(i) 

define ‘‘significant’’ for PM2.5 to mean 

the following emissions rates: 10 tons 

per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of 

SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

deadline for states to submit SIP 

revisions to their PSD programs 

incorporating these changes was May 

16, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 at 28341 

(May 16, 2008).4

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as ‘‘condensables’’, in 

PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 

at 28334. This requirement is codified 

in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states’ 

PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

On October 9, 2012, Connecticut 

submitted revisions to its PSD program 

incorporating the necessary changes 

required by the 2008 NSR Rule with 

respect to provisions that explicitly 

identify precursors to PM2.5. EPA 

approved Connecticut’s October 9, 2012 

SIP revision on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 

43960). 

Connecticut’s SIP-approved PSD 

program does not contain a specific 

provision that explicitly contains the 

language in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i) 

addressing the inclusion of the gaseous, 

condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10

for the purpose of PSD applicability or 

establishing permit emissions limits 

conditions. 

However, by letter submitted to EPA 

Region 1 and dated August 5, 2015 

Connecticut explained that its major 

stationary source preconstruction 

permitting program does, in fact, require 

inclusion of the condensable portion of 

PM10 and PM2.5 for PSD applicable 

purposes and establishing permit 

emissions limits and conditions, 

because Section 22a–174–1 of the 

State’s regulations defines those two 

pollutants in terms of an amount 

measured at ambient air conditions. 

Consequently, because the gaseous, 

condensable portions of PM10 and PM2.5

are, in fact, condensed at ambient air 

conditions, Connecticut’s requirements 

meet the corresponding federal 

requirements. 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

Connecticut has met this set of 

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

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the 

requirements of EPA’s 2008 NSR Rule. 

Additionally, we are also proposing to 

convert our prior conditional approval 

for this infrastructure requirement for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 

FR 63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full 

approval. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54477 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

issued an amended judgment vacating 

the regulations that implemented Step 2 

of the EPA’s PSD and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not 

the regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule 

covers sources that are required to 

obtain a PSD permit based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 

applied to sources that emitted only 

GHGs above the thresholds triggering 

the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by the EPA, the application 

of the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment 

vacated the regulations at issue in the 

litigation, including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emission increase from a modification.’’ 

The EPA is planning to take 

additional steps to revise federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court 

opinion and subsequent D.C. Circuit 

judgment. Some states have begun to 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of these court 

decisions, and some states may prefer 

not to initiate this process until they 

have more information about the 

planned revisions to EPA’s PSD 

regulations. The EPA is not expecting 

states to have revised their PSD 

programs in anticipation of the EPA’s 

planned actions to revise its PSD 

program rules in response to the court 

decisions. For purposes of infrastructure 

SIP submissions, the EPA is only 

evaluating such submissions to assure 

that the state’s program addresses GHGs 

consistent with both court decisions. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

that Connecticut’s SIP is sufficient to 

satisfy this sub-element of section 

110(a)(2)(C) (as well as sub-elements 

(D)(i)(II) and (J)(iii)) with respect to 

GHGs. This is because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by the EPA into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. 

The approved Connecticut PSD 

permitting program still contains some 

provisions regarding Step 2 sources that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision and D.C. 

Circuit amended judgment. 

Nevertheless, the presence of these 

provisions in the previously-approved 

plan does not render the infrastructure 

SIP submission inadequate to satisfy 

Elements C, D (sub-element (i)(II)), and 

J. The SIP contains the PSD 

requirements for applying the BACT 

requirement to greenhouse gas 

emissions from ‘‘anyway sources’’ that 

are necessary at this time. The 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of Step 2 

sources. Accordingly, the Supreme 

Court decision and subsequent D.C. 

Circuit judgment do not prevent the 

EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of Element C (as well as sub-elements 

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

For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that 

NSR Reform is not in the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR Reform 

regulations for Connecticut. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve the majority of Connecticut’s 

submittals for this sub-element 

pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NOX, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but to 

conditionally approve the aspects 

pertaining to treating NOX as a 

precursor to ozone and to establishing a 

minor source baseline date for PM2.5. 

We are also proposing to newly 

conditionally approve Connecticut’s 

submittals for this sub-element with 

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for these same PSD 

requirements. 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction 

Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor 

Modifications 

To address the pre-construction 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of minor stationary sources 

and minor modifications of major 

stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP 

submission should identify the existing 

EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or 

include new provisions that govern the 

minor source pre-construction program 

that regulates emissions of the relevant 

NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved 

Connecticut’s minor NSR program, as 

well as updates to that program, with 

the most recent approval occurring on 

February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9009). Since 

this date, Connecticut and EPA have 

relied on the existing minor NSR 

program to ensure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to find that 

Connecticut has met the requirement to 

have a SIP approved minor new source 

review permit program as required 

under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

This section contains a 

comprehensive set of air quality 

management elements pertaining to the 

transport of air pollution that states 

must comply with. It covers the 

following 5 topics, categorized as subelements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to 

nonattainment, and interference with 

maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 

2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility 

protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate 

pollution abatement; and Sub-element 

5, International pollution abatement. 

Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the Act, and these items are further 

categorized into the 4 prongs discussed 

below, 2 of which are found within subelement 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are 

found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of 

the Act and include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to 

Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere 

With Maintenance of the NAAQS 

(Prong 2) 

With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 

the 2011 Memo notes that the physical 

properties of Pb prevent it from 

experiencing the same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 or 

ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp 

decrease in Pb concentrations as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. 

Accordingly, although it may be 

possible for a source in a state to emit 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5The highest design value for the 1 hr NO2

standard for a monitor in an adjacent state and is 

located nearby Connecticut is 60 ppb at a monitor 

in Bronx, New York. 

Pb at a location and in such quantities 

that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interference with 

maintenance by, any other state, EPA 

anticipates that this would be a rare 

situation (e.g., sources emitting large 

quantities of Pb in close proximity to 

state boundaries). The 2011 Memo 

suggests that the applicable interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to Pb can 

be met through a state’s assessment as 

to whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to its 

borders have emissions that impact a 

neighboring state such that they 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state. 

Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 

notes that there are no sources of Pb 

emissions located in close proximity to 

any of the state’s borders with 

neighboring states. Additionally, 

Connecticut’s submittal and the 

emissions data the state collects from its 

sources indicate that there is no single 

source of Pb, or group of sources, 

anywhere within the state that emits 

enough Pb to cause ambient 

concentrations to approach the Pb 

NAAQS. Our review of data within our 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

database confirms this, and, therefore, 

we propose that Connecticut has met 

this set of requirements related to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

With respect to the 2010 NO2

NAAQS, on February 17, 2012, EPA 

designated the entire country as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for this 

standard, explaining that this 

designation means that ‘‘available 

information does not indicate that the 

air quality in these areas exceeds the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS.’’ See 77 FR 9532 

(February 17, 2012). In other words, 

Connecticut and all neighboring states 

are currently designated as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. 

NOX emissions in Fairfield and New 

Haven Counties in Connecticut are 

projected to decrease by more than 50 

percent between 2007 and 2025, further 

reducing any impacts from Connecticut 

on other states. Similar reductions are 

expected throughout the rest of the state 

(see Connecticut’s PM2.5 Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan, 

Technical Support Document, June 22, 

2012 included in the docket for this 

notice). Furthermore, EPA examined the 

design values from NO2 monitors in 

Connecticut and neighboring states 

based on data collected between 2011 

and 2013. In Connecticut, the highest 

design value was 55 parts per billion 

(ppb) (versus the NO2 standard of 100 

ppb) at a monitor in New Haven. The 

highest design values in neighboring 

states were 60 ppb in New York (Bronx 

site 360050133), 52 ppb in 

Massachusetts (Worcester site 

250270023), and 43 ppb in Rhode Island 

(Providence site 440070012). EPA 

believes that, with the continued 

implementation of Connecticut’s SIPapproved PSD and NNSR regulations 

found in RCSA section 22a–174–3a, the 

state’s low monitored values of NO2 will 

continue. In other words, the NO2

emissions from Connecticut are not 

expected to cause or contribute to a 

violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in 

another state,5 and these emissions are 

not likely to interfere with the 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Connecticut has met this 

set of requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

In summary, we are proposing that 

Connecticut has met section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. Connecticut made a 

SIP submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS on June 15, 2015 and the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS on May 30, 2013. EPA is 

reviewing these SIP submissions and 

will take actions on this infrastructure 

requirement for both the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at a 

later date. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3) 

One aspect of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state. One way for a state to 

meet this requirement is through a 

comprehensive PSD permitting program 

that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rules. As has already 

been discussed in the paragraphs 

addressing the PSD sub-element of 

Element C, Connecticut has satisfied the 

majority, though not all, of the 

applicable PSD implementation rule 

requirements. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. EPA approved Connecticut’s 

NNSR regulations on February 27, 2003 

(68 FR 9009). These regulations contain 

provisions for how the state must treat 

and control sources in nonattainment 

areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or 

appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. 

As noted above and in Element C, 

Connecticut’s PSD program does not 

fully satisfy the requirements of EPA’s 

PSD implementation rules, although 

Connecticut has committed to submit 

the required provisions for EPA 

approval by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of 

Connecticut’s infrastructure 

submissions. Consequently, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve this 

sub-element for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing 

to convert our prior conditional 

approval of this sub-element as it relates 

to certain PSD implementation rules 

described under Element C above for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 

63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full 

approval. We are also proposing to 

newly conditionally approve this subelement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for certain other 

implementation rule requirements for 

the reasons discussed under Element C 

above. 

iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection 

(Prong 4) 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011 

Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these 

requirements can be satisfied by an 

approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. 

Connecticut’s Regional Haze SIP was 

approved by EPA on July, 10, 2014 (79 

FR 39322). Accordingly, EPA proposes 

that Connecticut has met the visibility 

protection requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54479 

6CT DEEP also requested approval into the SIP 

of CGS section 1–85 in its January 2, 2013 

infrastructure SIP for the 2002 NO2 NAAQS. 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution 

Abatement 

One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

126 relating to interstate pollution 

abatement. 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

EPA approved revisions to 

Connecticut’s PSD program on July 24, 

2015 (80 FR 43960), including the 

element pertaining to notification to 

neighboring states of the issuance of 

PSD permits. Therefore, we propose to 

approve Connecticut’s compliance with 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 

Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. EPA also proposes to 

convert the previous conditional 

approvals for this infrastructure 

requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 

2012)) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see 

76 FR 40255 (July 8, 2011)) to full 

approval. Connecticut has no 

obligations under any other provision of 

section 126. 

v. Sub-Element 5: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution 

Abatement 

One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires each SIP to contain adequate 

provisions requiring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of section 

115 relating to international pollution 

abatement. Connecticut does not have 

any pending obligations under section 

115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing that Connecticut has 

met the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

related to section 115 of the CAA 

(international pollution abatement) for 

the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP and related 

issues. Additionally, Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to 

comply with the requirements with 

respect to state boards under section 

128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) 

requires that, where a state relies upon 

local or regional governments or 

agencies for the implementation of its 

SIP provisions, the state retain 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of SIP obligations with 

respect to relevant NAAQS. This subelement, however, is inapplicable to this 

action, because Connecticut does not 

rely upon local or regional governments 

or agencies for the implementation of its 

SIP provisions. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

Connecticut, through its infrastructure 

SIP submittals, has documented that its 

air agency has the requisite authority 

and resources to carry out its SIP 

obligations. CGS section 22a–171 

authorizes the Commissioner of the CT 

DEEP to enforce the state’s air laws, 

accept and administer grants, and 

exercise incidental powers necessary to 

carry out the law. The Connecticut SIP, 

as originally submitted on March 3, 

1972, and subsequently amended, 

provides additional descriptions of the 

organizations, staffing, funding and 

physical resources necessary to carry 

out the plan. EPA proposes that 

Connecticut has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (i) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (ii) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

In Connecticut, no board or body 

approves permits or enforcement orders; 

these are approved by the Commissioner 

of CT DEEP. Thus, Connecticut is 

subject only to the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(2) of section 128 of the 

CAA. Infrastructure SIPs submitted by 

Connecticut include descriptions of 

conflict-of-interest provisions in CGS 

section 1–85, which applies to all state 

employees and public officials. Section 

1–85 prevents the Commissioner from 

acting on a matter in which the 

Commissioner has an interest that is ‘‘in 

substantial conflict with the proper 

discharge of his duties or employment 

in the public interest and of his 

responsibilities as prescribed in the 

laws of’’ Connecticut. Connecticut 

submitted CGS section 1–85 for 

incorporation into the SIP on December 

28, 2012 with its infrastructure SIP for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS,6 and we are 

herein proposing to approve this statute 

into the Connecticut SIP. 

Upon approval of CGS section 1–85 

into the SIP, EPA proposes that 

Connecticut has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for this 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. In addition, EPA previously 

issued a conditional approval to 

Connecticut for this infrastructure 

requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228 (October 16, 

2012). Given that Connecticut has now 

addressed this issue, we are also 

proposing to convert the prior 

conditional approval for this 

infrastructure requirement for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to full approval. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

CGS section 22a–6(a)(5) authorizes 

the Commissioner to enter at all 

reasonable times, any public or private 

property (except a private residence) to 

investigate possible violations of any 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

statute, regulation, order or permit. 

Additionally, CGS section 22a–174 

authorizes the Commissioner to require 

periodic inspection of sources of air 

pollution and to require any person to 

maintain, and to submit to CT DEEP, 

certain records relating to air pollution 

or to the operation of facilities designed 

to abate air pollution. For monitoring 

possible air violations, CT DEEP 

implements RCSA section 22a–174–4, 

‘‘Source monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting,’’ to require the installation, 

maintenance, and use of emissions 

monitoring devices and to require 

periodic reporting to the Commissioner 

of the nature and extent of the 

emissions. Section 22a–174–4 has been 

approved into the SIP (see 79 FR 41427 

(July 16, 2014). Additionally, CT DEEP 

implements RCSA section 22a–175–5, 

‘‘Methods for sampling, emissions 

testing, sample analysis, and reporting,’’ 

which provides, among other things, 

specific test methods to be used to 

demonstrate compliance with various 

aspects of Connecticut’s air regulations, 

and this rule has also been approved 

into the SIP (see 46 FR 43418 (December 

19, 1980)). Furthermore, under RCSA 

section 22a–174–10, emissions data are 

to be available to the public and are not 

entitled to protection as a trade secret 

(see 37 FR 23085 (October 28, 1972)). 

EPA recognizes that Connecticut 

routinely collects information on air 

emissions from its industrial sources 

and makes this information available to 

the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that 

Connecticut has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) 

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. Section 

303 of the CAA provides authority to 

the EPA Administrator to seek a court 

order to restrain any source from 

causing or contributing to emissions 

that present an ‘‘imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

Section 303 further authorizes the 

Administrator to issue ‘‘such orders as 

may be necessary to protect public 

health or welfare or the environment’’ in 

the event that ‘‘it is not practicable to 

assure prompt protection . . . by 

commencement of such civil action.’’ 

We propose to find that Connecticut’s 

submittals and certain state statutes 

provide for authority comparable to that 

in section 303. Connecticut’s submittals 

specify that CGS section 22a–181, 

Emergency Action, authorizes the 

Commissioner of the CT DEEP to issue 

an order requiring any person to 

immediately reduce or discontinue air 

pollution as required to protect the 

public health or safety. In a letter dated 

August 5, 2015, Connecticut also 

specified that CGS section 22a–7 grants 

the Commissioner the authority, 

whenever he finds ‘‘that any person is 

causing, engaging in or maintaining, or 

is about to cause, engage in or maintain, 

any condition or activity which, in his 

judgment, will result in or is likely to 

result in imminent and substantial 

damage to the environment, or to public 

health within the jurisdiction of the 

commissioner under the provisions of 

chapter[ ] . . . 446c [Air Pollution 

Control] . . . [to] issue a cease and 

desist order in writing to such person to 

discontinue, abate or alleviate such 

condition or activity.’’ This section 

further provides the Commissioner with 

the authority to seek a court ‘‘to enjoin 

any person from violating a cease and 

desist order issued pursuant to [sec. 

22a–7] and to compel compliance with 

such order.’’ 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, 

for any NAAQS, except Pb, Connecticut 

have an approved contingency plan for 

any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 

within the state that is classified as 

Priority I, IA, or II. A contingency plan 

is not required if the entire state is 

classified as Priority III for a particular 

pollutant. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart H. 

Classifications for the four AQCRs in 

Connecticut can be found at 40 CFR 

52.371. Connecticut’s portion of the 

New Jersey–New York–Connecticut 

Interstate AQCR is classified as a 

Priority I area for SOX, NO2, and ozone. 

In addition, Connecticut’s portion of the 

Hartford–New Haven–Springfield 

Interstate AQCR is classified as a 

Priority I area for SOX and ozone. 

Consequently, Connecticut’s SIP must 

contain an emergency contingency plan 

meeting the specific requirements of 40 

CFR 51.151 and 51.152, as appropriate, 

with respect to these pollutants. As 

noted in Connecticut’s infrastructure 

SIP submittals for ozone, NO2, and SO2, 

Connecticut has adopted ‘‘Air pollution 

emergency episode procedures’’ at 

RCSA section 22a–174–6. This 

regulation, originally numbered RCSA 

19–508–6, was initially approved into 

the Connecticut SIP on May 31, 1972 

(37 FR 23085), with amendments to the 

rule approved on December 23, 1980 (45 

FR 84769). 

As stated in Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals under the 

discussion of public notification 

(Element J), Connecticut also, as a 

matter of practice, posts on the internet 

daily forecasted ozone and fine particle 

levels through the EPA AirNow and 

EPA EnviroFlash systems. Information 

regarding these two systems is available 

on EPA’s Web site at www.airnow.gov. 

Notices are sent out to EnviroFlash 

participants when levels are forecast to 

exceed the current 8-hour ozone or 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. In addition, when 

levels are expected to exceed the ozone 

or PM2.5 standard in Connecticut, the 

media are alerted via a press release, 

and the National Weather Service 

(NWS) is alerted to issue an Air Quality 

Advisory through the normal NWS 

weather alert system. 

Connecticut’s participation in the 

AirNow and EnviroFlash programs 

addresses several of the public 

announcement and communications 

procedures and coordination with the 

National Weather Service included in 

the discussion of contingency plans in 

subpart H. See 40 CFR 51.152(a)(2), 

(b)(1), and (b)(3). 

In addition, Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals reference 

CGS section 22a–174(c) under Element 

F, regarding the inspection of sources. 

This statute, which provides the 

Commissioner of CT DEEP with the 

authority to require periodic inspection 

of sources of air pollution, is also 

relevant under Element G, since 40 CFR 

51.152(b)(2) requires each contingency 

plan to provide for the inspection of 

sources to be sure they are complying 

with any required emergency control 

actions. 

Finally, with respect to Pb, we note 

that Pb is not explicitly included in the 

contingency plan requirements of 

subpart H. In addition, we note that 

there are no large sources of Pb in 

Connecticut. Specifically, a review of 

the National Emission Inventory shows 

that there are no sources of Pb in 

Connecticut that exceed EPA’s reporting 

threshold of 0.5 tons per year. Although 

not expected, if that situation were to 

change, as noted previously, 

Connecticut does have general authority 

(e.g., CGS sections 22a–7 and 22a–181) 

to restrain any source from causing 

imminent and substantial 

endangerment. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Connecticut through the combination of 

statutes, regulations, and participation 

in EPA’s AirNow program discussed 

above, has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 

2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54481 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to: changes in the NAAQS; 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS; or an EPA finding 

that the SIP is substantially inadequate. 

Connecticut certifies that its SIP may 

be revised should EPA find that it is 

substantially inadequate to attain a 

standard or to comply with any 

additional requirements under the CAA 

and notes that CGS section 22a–174(d) 

grants the Commissioner all incidental 

powers necessary to control and 

prohibit air pollution. EPA proposes 

that Connecticut has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under 

Part D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Connecticut with respect to the 

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

are described below. 

i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

CGS section 22a–171, Duties of 

Commissioner of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, directs the 

Commissioner to consult with agencies 

of the United States, agencies of the 

state, political subdivisions and 

industries and any other affected groups 

in matters relating to air quality. 

Additionally, CGS section 22a–171 

directs the Commissioner to initiate and 

supervise state-wide programs of air 

pollution control education and to 

adopt, amend, repeal and enforce air 

regulations. Furthermore, RCSA section 

22a–174–2a, which has been approved 

into Connecticut’s SIP (see 80 FR 43960 

(July 24, 2015)), directs CT DEEP to 

notify relevant municipal officials and 

FLMs, among others, of tentative 

determinations by CT DEEP with 

respect to certain permits. In its SO2

infrastructure SIP submittal, CT DEEP 

submits CGS section 22a–171 for 

inclusion into the SIP. EPA proposes to 

approve this statute into the SIP and 

proposes that Connecticut has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

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

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

As part of the fulfillment of CGS 

section 22a–171, Duties of 

Commissioner of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, Connecticut 

issues press releases and posts warnings 

on its Web site advising people what 

they can do to help prevent NAAQS 

exceedances and avoid adverse health 

effects on poor air quality days. 

Connecticut is also an active partner in 

EPA’s AirNow and Enviroflash air 

quality alert programs. EPA proposes 

that Connecticut has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. Connecticut’s PSD 

program in the context of infrastructure 

SIPs has already been discussed in the 

paragraphs above addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C), and EPA notes that the 

proposed actions for those sections are 

consistent with the proposed actions for 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our 

proposed actions are reiterated below. 

As noted above in Element C, 

Connecticut’s PSD program does not 

fully satisfy the requirements of EPA’s 

PSD implementation rules, although 

Connecticut has committed to submit 

the required provisions for EPA 

approval by a date no later than one 

year from conditional approval of 

Connecticut’s infrastructure 

submissions. Consequently, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve this 

sub-element for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing 

to convert our prior conditional 

approval of this sub-element as it relates 

to certain PSD implementation rules 

described under Element C above for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 

63228 (October 16, 2012)) to a full 

approval. We are also proposing to 

newly conditionally approve this subelement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for certain other 

implementation rule requirements for 

the reasons discussed under Element C 

above. 

iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

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

becomes effective. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

To satisfy element K, the state air 

agency must demonstrate that it has the 

authority to perform air quality 

modeling to predict effects on air 

quality of emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant and submission of such data 

to EPA upon request. 

Connecticut reviews the potential 

impact of major sources consistent with 

40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 

‘‘Guidelines on Air Quality Models.’’ 

The modeling data are sent to EPA along 

with the draft major permit. Pursuant to 

CGS section 22a–5, the Commissioner is 

directed to ‘‘promote and coordinate 

management of . . . air resources to 

assure their protection, enhancement 

and proper allocation and utilization’’ 

and to ‘‘provide for the prevention and 

abatement of all . . . air pollution 

including, but not limited to, that 

related to particulates, gases, dust, 

vapors, [and] odors.’’ Under RCSA 

section 22a–174–3a(i), Ambient Air 

Quality Analysis, which has been 

approved into the Connecticut SIP on 

February 27, 2003 (68 FR 3009), the 

Commissioner is authorized to request 

any owner or operator to submit an 

ambient air quality impact analysis 

using CT DEEP approved air quality 

models and modeling protocols. The 

state also collaborates with the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC), and the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 

Association and EPA in order to 

perform large-scale urban airshed 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

modeling. EPA proposes that 

Connecticut has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) 

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

that each major stationary source pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

EPA’s full approval of Connecticut’s 

Title V program became effective on 

May 31, 2002. See 67 FR 31966 (May 13, 

2002). Before EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. CGS 

section 22a–174(g) directs the 

Commissioner of CT DEEP to require the 

payment of a fee sufficient to cover the 

reasonable cost of reviewing and acting 

upon an application for, and monitoring 

compliance with, any state or federal 

permit, license, registration, order, or 

certificate. CT DEEP implements this 

directive through state regulations at 

RCSA sections 22a–174–26 and 22a– 

174–33, which contain specific 

requirements related to permit fees, 

including fees for Title V sources. EPA 

proposes that Connecticut has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb, 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

Pursuant to element M, states must 

consult with, and allow participation 

from, local political subdivisions 

affected by the SIP. 

CGS section 4–168, Notice prior to 

action on regulations, provides a public 

participation process for all 

stakeholders that includes a minimum 

of a 30-day comment period and an 

opportunity for public hearing for all 

SIP-related actions. EPA proposes that 

Connecticut has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) 

with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

N. Connecticut Statutes for Inclusion 

Into the Connecticut SIP 

As noted above in the discussion of 

elements E and J, Connecticut 

submitted, and EPA is proposing to 

approve, CGS sections 1–85 and 22a– 

171 for approval into the SIP. In 

addition, in its May 30, 2013 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, Connecticut submitted CGS 

section 16a–21a ‘‘Sulfur content of 

home heating oil and off-road diesel 

fuel. Suspension of requirements for 

emergency,’’ effective July 1, 2011. EPA 

previously approved a prior version of 

this statute, which had been included as 

a component of Connecticut’s Regional 

Haze SIP, into the Connecticut SIP on 

July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322). The 

updated version of the statute includes 

an additional provision limiting the 

sulfur content of number two heating 

oil. The sulfur content restrictions in the 

updated statute are more stringent than 

those in the previously approved 

version, thus meeting the antibacksliding requirements of CAA 

section 110(l). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the updated 

statute into the Connecticut SIP. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve SIP 

submissions from Connecticut certifying 

that its current SIP is sufficient to meet 

the required infrastructure elements 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of 

certain aspects relating to PSD which 

we are proposing to conditionally 

approve. EPA’s proposed actions 

regarding these infrastructure SIP 

requirements are contained in Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED ACTION ON CT INFRASTRUCTURE SIP SUBMITTALS FOR VARIOUS NAAQS 

Element 2008 

Pb 

2008 

Ozone 

2010 

NO2

2010 

SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ............................................................ A A A A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ...................................................... A A A A 

(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures .............................................................................. A A A A 

(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications ................................... A* A* A* A* 

(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications ......................... A A A A 

(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 

and 2) ........................................................................................................................... A No action A No action 

(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) ................................................................................................... A* A* A* A* 

(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) ............................................................................ A A A A 

(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement ............................................................................. A A A A 

(D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement ........................................................................ A A A A 

(E)(i): Adequate resources .............................................................................................. A A A A

(E)(ii): State boards ......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies ........................................ NA NA NA NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ....................................................................... A A A A 

(G): Emergency power .................................................................................................... A A A A

(H): Future SIP revisions ................................................................................................. A A A A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .......................................... + + + + 

(J)(i): Consultation with government officials .................................................................. A A A A 

(J)(ii): Public notification .................................................................................................. A A A A 

(J)(iii): PSD ...................................................................................................................... A* A* A* A* 

(J)(iv): Visibility protection ................................................................................................ + + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ................................................................................... A A A A 

(L): Permitting fees .......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ......................................... A A A A 

Key to Table 1: Proposed action on CT infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS: 

A—Approve. 

A*—Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to NOX as a precursor to ozone and minor source baseline date for 

PM2.5. 

+—Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

No action—EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirement.7

NA—Not applicable. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 175 / Thursday, September 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 54483 

With respect to the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to 

convert conditional approvals for 

infrastructure requirements pertaining 

to Elements A, D(ii) (interstate pollution 

abatement), and E(ii) (state boards) to 

full approval. Also with respect to the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is 

proposing to newly conditionally 

approve Connecticut’s submittals 

pertaining to Elements C(ii), D(i)(II), and 

J(iii) for the requirements to treat NOX

as a precursor to ozone and to establish 

a minor source baseline date for PM2.5

in the PSD program. 

With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, EPA is proposing to convert 

the conditional approval for the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) pertaining to interstate 

pollution abatement to a full approval. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

approve, and incorporate into the 

Connecticut SIP, the following 

Connecticut statutes which were 

included for approval in Connecticut’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals: 

CGS Section 1–85 (Formerly Sec. 1– 

68), Interest in conflict with discharge of 

duties, effective in 1979. 

CGS Section 22a–171, Duties of 

Commissioner of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, effective in 

1971; and 

CGS Section 16a–21a, Sulfur content 

of home heating oil and off-road diesel 

fuel, effective July 1, 2011. 

As noted in Table 1, we are proposing 

to conditionally approve portions of 

Connecticut’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals pertaining to the state’s PSD 

program. The outstanding issues with 

the PSD program concern properly 

treating NOX as a precursor to ozone 

and establishing a minor source baseline 

date for PM2.5 emissions. 

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

EPA may conditionally approve a plan 

based on a commitment from the State 

to adopt specific enforceable measures 

by a date certain, but not later than 1 

year from the date of approval. If EPA 

conditionally approves the commitment 

in a final rulemaking action, the State 

must meet its commitment to submit an 

update to its PSD program that fully 

remedies the requirements mentioned 

above. If the State fails to do so, this 

action will become a disapproval one 

year from the date of final approval. 

EPA will notify the State by letter that 

this action has occurred. At that time, 

this commitment will no longer be a 

part of the approved Connecticut SIP. 

EPA subsequently will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

notifying the public that the conditional 

approval converted to a disapproval. If 

the State meets its commitment, within 

the applicable time frame, the 

conditionally approved submission will 

remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes 

final action approving or disapproving 

the new submittal. If EPA disapproves 

the new submittal, the conditionally 

approved infrastructure SIP elements 

will also be disapproved at that time. In 

addition, a final disapproval would 

trigger the Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 

If EPA approves the new submittal, the 

PSD program and relevant infrastructure 

SIP elements will be fully approved and 

replace the conditionally approved 

program in the SIP. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference into the 

Connecticut SIP the three Connecticut 

statutes referenced in Section V above. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov and at the 

appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VII. 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (see 

65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 13, 2015. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–22027 Filed 9–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS