Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50595 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction because it 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone. A final environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security Measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0765 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0765 Safety Zone; Seafood 

Festival Fireworks Display, Marquette, 

Michigan. 

(a) Location. All U.S. navigable waters 

of Marquette Harbor within a 1000-foot 

radius of the fireworks launch site, 

centered approximately 1250 feet south 

of the Mattson Park Bulkhead Dock and 

450 feet east of Ripley Rock, at position 

46°32′21.7′′ N, 087°23′07.60′′ W 

[DATUM: NAD 83]. 

(b) Effective and enforcement period. 

This rule is effective and will be 

enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. 

on August 25, 2012. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) In accordance with the general 

regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her 

on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her 

on-scene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault 

Sainte Marie, is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, to 

act on his or her behalf. The on-scene 

representative of the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Sault Sainte Marie, will be 

aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast 

Guard Auxiliary vessel. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

the safety zone or operate within the 

safety zone shall contact the Captain of 

the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or 

his or her on-scene representative to 

obtain permission to do so. The Captain 

of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or 

his or her on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

Vessel operators given permission to 

enter or operate in the safety zone must 

comply with all directions given to 

them by the Captain of the Port, Sector 

Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her onscene representative. 

Dated: August 13, 2012. 

J.C. Mcguiness, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sault Sainte Marie. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20698 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0117; EPA–RO1– 

OAR–2008–0107; EPA–RO1–OAR–2008– 

0445; FRL–9672–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island; Reasonable Further 

Progress Plans and 2002 Base Year 

Emission Inventories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the States of Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. These 

revisions establish 2002 base year 

emission inventories and reasonable 

further progress emission reduction 

plans for areas within these states 

designated as nonattainment of EPA’s 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

approve these states’ 2002 Base Year 

Inventories and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) emission reduction 

plans, and to approve the 2008 motor 

vehicle transportation budgets and 

contingency measures associated with 

the RFP plans. EPA also is approving 

three rules adopted by Connecticut that 

will reduce volatile organic compound 

emissions in the state. This action is 

being taken in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets 

for these actions under Docket 

Identification Numbers EPA–RO1– 

OAR–2008–0117 for our action for 

Connecticut, EPA–RO1–OAR–2008– 

0107 for our action for Massachusetts, 

and EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0445 for our 

action for Rhode Island. All documents 

in the dockets are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 1997 8-hour ozone standard itself is 

codified at 40 CFR 50.10. 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630; Division of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108; Office of Air 

Resources, Department of 

Environmental Management, 235 

Promenade Street, Providence, RI 

02908–5767. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. EPA Region 1—New England, 5 

Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, phone number: 617–918–1046; 

eMail: mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. The following outline is provided 

to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. 2002 Base Year Emission Inventories 

A. What is a base year inventory and why 

are these states required to prepare one? 

B. Summary of 2002 Base Year Inventories 

C. What action is EPA taking on these 

inventories? 

III. Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

Contingency Plans, and State VOC Rules 

A. What is a Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP) plan, and why were these states 

required to prepare one? 

B. What action is EPA taking on these RFP 

plans? 

C. Is EPA approving any state control 

measures in this action? 

D. Have these states met their contingency 

measure obligation? 

E. How do these plans affect transportation 

conformity? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On September 20, 2010 (75 FR 57221), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) for the States of 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island. The NPR proposed approval of 

2002 base year emission inventories and 

reasonable further progress emission 

reduction plans for areas within these 

states designated as nonattainment of 

EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Additionally, the NPR proposed 

approval of the 2008 motor vehicle 

transportation budgets and contingency 

measures associated with the RFP plans. 

EPA also proposed approval of three 

rules adopted by Connecticut that will 

reduce volatile organic compound 

emissions in the state. In today’s final 

rule we are approving the items for 

which we proposed approval in the 

NPR. Today’s final rule was originally 

signed on May 2, 2012, but due to a 

clerical error was not published. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

portions of the country as being in 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) (69 FR 23858).1 All parts of 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island were designated as 

nonattainment for ozone, and all were 

classified as moderate. There were five 

nonattainment areas created that 

encompassed the entirety of these states, 

as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS IN CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND

State Area name Geographic area covered (counties) 

CT ........................................ New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (NYNJ-CT area).Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven. 

CT ........................................ Greater Connecticut area ................................................ Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland, Windham. 

MA ........................................ Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area ............................................. Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, Worcester. 

MA ........................................ Springfield (W. MA) area ................................................ Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire. 

RI ......................................... Providence area .............................................................. Statewide. 

As discussed in our September 20, 

2010 NPR, the Act contains air quality 

planning and control requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. For more 

information about these requirements 

and our evaluation of each state’s means 

of addressing them, please refer to the 

more detailed analysis presented within 

the September 20, 2010 NPR. 

II. 2002 Base Year Emission Inventories 

A. What is a base year inventory and 

why are these states required to prepare 

one? 

The Act contains a number of 

requirements for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas. One requirement, 

found at section 182(a)(1) of the Act and 

made applicable to moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas through section 

182(b), compels the preparation and 

submittal of a ‘‘comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources.’’ In August, 

2005, EPA published supplemental 

guidance for states to use in 

development of their base year 

inventories entitled, ‘‘Emission 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulation’’ (EPA–454/R–05–001). This 

guidance describes for states the 

requirements for development of 

comprehensive emission estimates from 

stationary point and area sources, and 

from mobile on-road and non-road 

sources, such that complete emission 

inventories are available to support SIP 

development for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Each state complemented 

these emission estimates from manmade sources with biogenic (naturally 

occurring) emission estimates from 

plants, trees, grasses and crops prepared 

by EPA. The guidance directs states to 

prepare their emission estimates on a 

‘‘typical summer day’’ basis to reflect 

emissions that occur during high ozone 

episodes, which occur predominantly 

during the warm summer months. 

As mentioned above, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all 

contain ozone nonattainment areas 

designated as moderate for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. Therefore, they 

were required to develop 2002 base year 

emission inventories of VOC and NOX, 

as these compounds react in the 

presence of heat and sunlight to form 

ozone. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50597 

B. Summary of 2002 Base Year 

Inventories 

The 2002 VOC and NOX base year 

inventories prepared by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are 

shown below in Tables 2a through 2e. 

EPA has concluded that these states 

have adequately derived and 

documented the 2002 base year VOC 

and NOX emissions for these areas, and 

our intention is to approve these 

inventories into the SIP for each state. 

TABLE 2a—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE NY-NJ-CT AREA

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

NY-NJ-CT area: 

Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 .3 37 .7 

Area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 84 .1 7 .2 

On-road ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 .1 102 .7 

Non-road ............................................................................................................................................................... 66 .0 38 .7 

Biogenics .............................................................................................................................................................. 125 .6 0 .7 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 335 .3 187 .0 

TABLE 2b—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE GREATER CONNECTICUT AREA

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Greater Connecticut area: 

Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 .6 19 .0 

Area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 75 .5 6 .4 

On-road ................................................................................................................................................................. 45 .1 89 .3 

Non-road ............................................................................................................................................................... 56 .2 30 .8 

Biogenics .............................................................................................................................................................. 268 .9 1 .3 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 450 .3 146 .8 

TABLE 2c—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE BOS-LAW-WOR (E. MA) AREA

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area: 

Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13 .6 116 .6 

Area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 282 .0 33 .9 

On-road ................................................................................................................................................................. 127 .4 381 .4 

Non-road ............................................................................................................................................................... 196 .2 122 .1 

Biogenics .............................................................................................................................................................. 535 .7 4 .4 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,154 .9 658 .4 

TABLE 2d—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE SPRINGFIELD (W. MA) AREA

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Springfield (W. MA) area: 

Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 .4 13 .0 

Area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45 .5 5 .2 

On-road ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 .5 71 .7 

Non-road ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 .7 22 .4 

Biogenics .............................................................................................................................................................. 254 .6 1 .1 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 354 .7 113 .4 

TABLE 2e—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE PROVIDENCE AREA

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Providence area: 

Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 .3 7 .0 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2 If the area wishes to use NOX reductions to meet 

part or all of this 15% requirement, the calculation 

is not done by measuring the overall percent of 

combined VOC and NOX reductions, but rather by 

separately calculating the percent of VOC 

reductions and the percent of NOX reductions, and 

adding those percentages together. 

TABLE 2e—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE PROVIDENCE AREA—Continued 

Nonattainment area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Area ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47 .9 3 .4 

On-road ................................................................................................................................................................. 32 .3 42 .4 

Non-road ............................................................................................................................................................... 26 .8 19 .7 

Biogenics .............................................................................................................................................................. 124 .2 0 .7 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 241 .5 73 .2 

C. What action is EPA taking on these 

inventories? 

We are approving the 2002 base year 

inventories listed in Tables 2a through 

2e above. 

III. Reasonable Further Progress Plans, 

Contingency Plans, and State VOC 

Rules 

A. What is a Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) plan and why were these 

states required to prepare one? 

A reasonable further progress (RFP) 

plan illustrates how an ozone 

nonattainment area will make emission 

reductions of a set amount over a given 

time period. EPA’s Phase 2 

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone 

standard interpreted how Section 

182(b)(1) of the CAA would apply to 

areas designated as moderate (or higher) 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart X. 

Of relevance for Connecticut, 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island is what 

the Phase 2 rule required for areas with 

attainment dates greater than 5 years 

from designation that previously 

accomplished a 15% reduction in VOC 

emissions pursuant to one-hour ozone 

nonattainment requirements, as all three 

of these states meet these criteria. For 

such areas, the Phase 2 rule indicates 

that RFP will be met if the area can 

demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions (VOC and/or NOX) 

will occur between 2002 and 2008.2 See 

40 CFR 51.910(b)(2)(ii)(A)–(B). These 

states prepared RFP plans for each of 

the nonattainment areas shown in Table 

1 above, and our September 20, 2010 

notice of proposed rulemaking contains 

a summary of these plans and the 

results of our evaluation of them. 

B. What action is EPA taking on these 

RFP plans? 

We are approving the RFP plans 

submitted by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for the 

moderate ozone nonattainment areas 

shown in Table 1 above, as revisions to 

these states’ SIPs. Note that regarding 

the NY-NJ-CT moderate area, we are 

taking action today only on the 

Connecticut portion of the RFP plan for 

that area. The VOC and NOX emission 

target levels and modeled, controlled 

2008 emissions for each nonattainment 

area are shown within Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—2008 RFP EMISSION TARGET LEVELS AND MODELED, CONTROLLED EMISSIONS

Nonattainment area 

VOC emissions target; 

modeled 2008 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions target; 

modeled 2008 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

NY-NJ-CT area ........................................................................................................................................................ 184.6; 167.6 167.9; 142.6 

Greater Connecticut area ........................................................................................................................................ 159.4; 149.3 130.0; 107.1 

Bos-Law-Wor area ................................................................................................................................................... 588.1; 525.7 562.7; 440.6 

Springfield area ........................................................................................................................................................ 94.4; 84.2 92.0; 66.9 

Providence area ....................................................................................................................................................... 113.7; 115.4 57.8; 55.3 

Note that in Table 3 above, all of the 

modeled 2008 emission levels are lower 

than the corresponding 2008 emission 

target levels with the exception of the 

Providence area’s VOC emissions which 

are 1.5% higher than the 2008 VOC 

target. In light of this, Rhode Island 

allocated an additional 1.5% NOX

reduction (which translates to 1.1 tons) 

to cover this shortfall. Thus, Rhode 

Island has set its 2008 NOX target to 

57.8 tons/day rather than 58.9 tons/day. 

In essence, Rhode Island has selected a 

16.6% reduction in NOX emissions and 

a 1.5% increase in VOC emissions, 

resulting in a combined reduction of 

15.1%. A more detailed discussion of 

this is contained within our September 

20, 2010 proposal. 

Additionally, a typographical error 

within our September 20, 2010 proposal 

occurred within step 6 of Table 3d, 

where the detailed RFP target level 

calculations for the Springfield area are 

shown. The error is that the information 

for step 5 is repeated and appears as 

step 5 and also as step 6, resulting in the 

correct information for step 6 not being 

shown. The correct step 6 information 

that should have been shown within our 

September 20, 2010 action for VOC 

emissions in tons/day is: 100.2 ¥ 5.8 = 

94.4; and for NOX emissions, also in 

tons/day, is: 113.1 ¥ 21.1 = 92.0. 

C. Is EPA approving any state control 

measures in this action? 

We are approving three VOC control 

measures from Connecticut. Two of 

these rules consist of amendments to 

existing rules. The two amended rules 

are a solvent metal cleaning rule, 

located at section 22a–174–20(l) of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies, and the second rule is the 

state’s asphalt paving rule, located at 

22a–174–20(k) of the Connecticut 

regulations. We are approving the 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50599 

amended solvent metal cleaning rule 

and the amended asphalt paving rule as 

they were submitted to EPA, with the 

exception of the bracketed text as that 

language represents regulatory text from 

a prior version of the rule which 

Connecticut has retracted. The third 

rule we are approving is Connecticut’s 

architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, 

located at section 22a–174–41 of the 

Connecticut regulations. The solvent 

metal cleaning and AIM coatings rules 

have compliance dates in May of 2008, 

and so achieve emission reductions that 

help Connecticut demonstrate 

compliance with its RFP obligation. The 

amendment to the asphalt paving rule 

has a May 1, 2009 compliance date and 

was submitted to help the state 

demonstrate that it meets the Clean Air 

Act section 182(b)(2) requirement that 

sources in the state use reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) to 

control air pollution. We are not taking 

action on Connecticut’s overall RACT or 

reasonably available control measure 

(RACM) submittals at this time. 

Additional details regarding our 

approval of these three Connecticut 

rules are available within our September 

20, 2010 proposal. Our approval of these 

rules makes them part of Connecticut’s 

federally enforceable SIP. 

D. Have these states met their 

contingency measure obligation? 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that nonattainment areas 

provide for contingency measures ‘‘to be 

undertaken if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress, or to attain 

the national primary ambient air quality 

standard by the attainment date 

applicable under this part.’’ As noted in 

our September 20, 2010 proposal, for 

Connecticut and Massachusetts we are 

approving each state’s use of the surplus 

emission reductions that are 

documented within their RFP emission 

target level calculations. 

For Rhode Island, we are approving 

use of the emission reductions from two 

stationary source measures as meeting 

the state’s contingency plan 

requirement. In 2009, Rhode Island 

adopted VOC control regulations 

establishing emission limits for 

consumer and commercial products, 

and for architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings. A public hearing 

on these proposed rules was held on 

February 20, 2009, and they were 

promulgated as final state regulations 

May 15, 2009, with an effective date of 

June 4, 2009. Rhode Island submitted 

these regulations to EPA as SIP 

revisions, and we approved them in a 

direct final rule published in the 

Federal Register on March 13, 2012 (77 

FR 14691). 

E. How do these plans affect 

transportation conformity? 

Section 176(c) of the CAA, and EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A, require that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans. States are 

required to establish motor vehicle 

emission budgets in any control strategy 

SIP that is submitted for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The RFP 

plans submitted by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are 

control strategy SIPs, and they contain 

2008 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs 

and NOX by nonattainment area. Table 

4 contains these VOC and NOX

transportation conformity budgets in 

units of tons per summer day: 

TABLE 4—CONFORMITY BUDGETS IN THE CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND RFP PLANS

Area name 

2008 Transportation conformity 

budgets 

(tons/day) 

VOC NOX

NY-NJ-CT area (CT portion) ................................................................................................................................... 29 .7 60 .5 

Greater Connecticut ................................................................................................................................................. 28 .5 54 .3 

Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area ..................................................................................................................................... 68 .30 191 .30 

Springfield (W. MA) area ......................................................................................................................................... 11 .80 31 .30 

Providence ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 .64 28 .26 

In today’s action, we are approving 

the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC 

and NOX for the areas shown in Table 

4 above. 

Other specific requirements of these 

state’s inventories, RFP plans, and 

Connecticut’s VOC control regulations 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. No public 

comments were received on the NPR. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving 2002 emission 

inventories and reasonable further 

progress plans as revisions to the 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island SIP. We are also approving the 

2008 motor vehicle emission budgets 

and contingency measures associated 

with these RFP plans. Additionally, we 

are approving three Connecticut VOC 

control regulations, Sections 22a–174– 

20(k), 22a–174–20(l), and 22a–174–41 as 

revisions to the Connecticut SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 22, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 9, 2012. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(100), to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(100) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on February 

1, 2008 and January 8, 2009. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) State of Connecticut Regulation, 

Section 22a–174–20(k), Restrictions on 

VOC Emissions from Cutback and 

Emulsified Asphalt (excluding the text 

that appears in brackets), effective in the 

state of Connecticut on January 1, 2009. 

(B) A letter from Barbara Sladeck, RLS 

Assistant Coordinator, Office of the 

Secretary of the State, State of 

Connecticut, to Hon. Gina McCarthy, 

Commissioner, Department of 

Environmental Protection, dated July 

26, 2007, stating that the effective date 

of the Amendment of Section 22a–174– 

20(l), Metal Cleaning, and Adoption of 

Section 22a–174–41, pertaining to 

Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Products, is July 26, 2007. 

(C) State of Connecticut Regulation, 

Section 22a–174–20(l), Metal Cleaning, 

effective in the state of Connecticut on 

July 26, 2007, revisions to the following 

provisions (including the text that 

appears in underline and excluding the 

text that appears in brackets): Sections 

22a–174–20(l)(1)(A) through (C) and(J) 

through (L), Sections 22–a–174–20(l)(3), 

(A) through (D), (F) through (H), and (J) 

through (L), Sections 22a–174–20(l)(5) 

introductory text, (B), (E), and (M), and 

Section 22a–174–20(l)(6); and addition 

of Sections 22a–174–20(l)(7) through 

(9). 

(D) State of Connecticut Regulation, 

Section 22a–174–41, Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance Products, 

effective in the state of Connecticut on 

July 26, 2007. 

■ 3. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(k) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on February 

1, 2008. These revisions are for the 

purpose of satisfying the rate of progress 

requirement of section 182(b)(1) from 

2002 through 2008, and the contingency 

measure requirement of sections 

172(c)(9) and of the Clean Air Act, for 

the Greater Connecticut moderate 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area, and the 

Connecticut portion of the New YorkNew Jersey-Long Island moderate 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. These 

revisions establish motor vehicle 

emission budgets for 2008 of 29.7 tons 

per day of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and 60.5 tons per day of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) to be used in 

transportation conformity in the 

Connecticut portion of the New YorkNew Jersey-Long Island moderate 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. These 

revisions also establish motor vehicle 

emission budgets for 2008 for the 

Greater Connecticut moderate 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area of 28.5 tons 

per day for VOCs, and 54.3 tons per day 

for NOX. 

■ 4. Section 52.384 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.384 Emission inventories. 

* * * * * 

(d) The state of Connecticut submitted 

base year emission inventories 

representing emissions for calendar year 

2002 from the Connecticut portion of 

the NY-NJ-CT moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and the Greater 

Connecticut moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area on February 1, 2008 

as revisions to the State’s SIP. The 2002 

base year emission inventory 

requirement of section 182(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, has 

been satisfied for these areas. The 

inventories consist of emission 

estimates of volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides, and cover point, 

area, non-road mobile, on-road mobile 

and biogenic sources. The inventories 

were submitted as revisions to the SIP 

in partial fulfillment of obligations for 

nonattainment areas under EPA’s 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

■ 5. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry with ‘‘Metal 

Cleaning’’ in the ‘‘Title/subject’’ 

column, in the series of rows pertaining 

to Connecticut State citation 22a–174– 

20. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50601 

■ b. Adding an entry with ‘‘Restrictions 

on VOC Emissions from Cutback and 

Emulsified Asphalt’’ in the ‘‘Title/ 

subject’’ column, to the end of the series 

of rows pertaining to Connecticut State 

citation 22a–174–20. 

■ c. Adding a new state citation 22a– 

174–41 in alpha-numeric order. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.385-EPA-approved Connecticut 

regulations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

Connecticut state citation Title/subject 

Dates 

Federal Register 

citation 

Section 

52.370 Date Comment/description 

adopted 

by state 

Date approved by 

EPA 

*******

Metal Cleaning ............... 7/26/07 8/22/12 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

(c)(100) Changes to solvent 

metal cleaning rule. 

Restrictions on VOC 

Emissions from Cutback and Emulsified 

Asphalt.

12/29/08 8/22/12 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

(c)(100) Changes to cutback and 

emulsified asphalt 

paving rule. 

* * * * * * * 

22a–174–41 ..................... Architectural and Industrial Maintenance 

Products.

7/26/07 8/22/12 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where 

the document begins].

(c)(100) New rule limiting VOC 

emissions from architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings. 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart W—Massachusetts 

■ 6. Section 52.1125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1125 Emission inventories. 

* * * * * 

(d) The state of Massachusetts 

submitted base year emission 

inventories representing emissions for 

calendar year 2002 from the BostonLawrence-Worcester moderate 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area and the 

Springfield moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area on January 31, 2008 

as revisions to the State’s SIP. The 2002 

base year emission inventory 

requirement of section 182(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, has 

been satisfied for these areas. The 

inventories consist of emission 

estimates of volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides, and cover point, 

area, non-road mobile, on-road mobile 

and biogenic sources. The inventories 

were submitted as revisions to the SIP 

in partial fulfillment of obligations for 

nonattainment areas under EPA’s 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

■ 7. Section 52.1129 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1129 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(i) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection on January 

31, 2008. These revisions are for the 

purpose of satisfying the rate of progress 

requirement of section 182(b)(1) from 

2002 through 2008, and the contingency 

measure requirement of sections 

172(c)(9) and of the Clean Air Act, for 

the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. MA) 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area, and the Springfield (W. MA) 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. These revisions establish motor 

vehicle emission budgets for 2008 of 

68.30 tons per day of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and 191.30 tons per 

day of nitrogen oxides (NOX) to be used 

in transportation conformity in the 

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. MA) 

moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. These revisions also establish 

motor vehicle emission budgets for 2008 

for the Springfield (W. MA) moderate 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area of 11.80 

tons per day for VOCs, and 31.30 tons 

per day for NOX. 

Subpart OO—Rhode Island 

■ 8. Section 52.2086 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2086 Emission inventories. 

* * * * * 

(e) The state of Rhode Island 

submitted base year emission 

inventories representing emissions for 

calendar year 2002 from the Providence 

moderate ozone nonattainment area on 

April 30, 2008 as revisions to the State’s 

SIP. The 2002 base year emission 

inventory requirement of section 

182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990, has been satisfied for 

this area. The inventory consists of 

emission estimates of volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides, and 

cover point, area, non-road mobile, onroad mobile and biogenic sources. The 

inventory was submitted as a revision to 

the SIP in partial fulfillment of 

obligations for nonattainment areas 

under EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

■ 9. Section 52.2088 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2088 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management on April 

30, 2008. The revision is for the purpose 

of satisfying the rate of progress 

requirement of section 182(b)(1) from 

2002 through 2008, and the contingency 

measure requirement of sections 

172(c)(9) and of the Clean Air Act, for 

the Providence moderate ozone 

nonattainment area. The revision 

establishes motor vehicle emission 

budgets for 2008 of 24.64 tons per day 

of volatile organic compounds and 

28.26 tons per day of nitrogen oxides to 

be used in transportation conformity in 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the Providence moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20390 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0599 ; A–1–FRL– 

9716–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the New Hampshire State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. The revision was submitted by the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) on 

January 29, 2010, with supplemental 

submittals on January 14, 2011, and 

August 26, 2011. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that 

require States to prevent any future, and 

remedy any existing, manmade 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0599. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Air 

Resources Division, Department of 

Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, 

P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On February 28, 2012, EPA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of New Hampshire. See 77 

FR 11809. The NPR proposed approval 

of the New Hampshire State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. It was submitted by the New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES) on 

January 29, 2010, with supplemental 

submittals on January 14, 2011, and 

August 26, 2011. Specifically, EPA 

proposed to approve New Hampshire’s 

January 29, 2010 SIP revision, and its 

supplements, as meeting the applicable 

implementing regulations found in 40 

CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to 

approve, and incorporate into the New 

Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire’s 

regulation Env–A 2300 Mitigation of 

Regional Haze and a permit for Public 

Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) 

Merrimack Station. 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs, as 

well as EPA’s analysis of New 

Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP 

submittal was provided in the NPR and 

is not restated here. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received a number of comments 

on our proposal to approve New 

Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP 

submittal. Comments were received 

from NHDES, the U.S. Forest Service, 

the National Park Service (NPS), and the 

Sierra Club. The following discussion 

summarizes and responds to the 

relevant comments received on EPA’s 

proposed approval of New Hampshire’s 

Regional Haze SIP. 

Comment: The U.S Forest Service 

commented that they are pleased that 

current permit conditions require 

Merrimack Station to submit calendar 

monthly emission rates for the 

preceding twelve months by December 

31, 2014, in order to determine the 

maximum sustainable rate of control for 

the facility. In addition, they 

acknowledged the work that the State of 

New Hampshire has accomplished and 

encouraged the State of New Hampshire 

to continue to reduce regional haze. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

comment from the U.S. Forest Service. 

Comment: NHDES noted that EPA 

incorrectly referred to the New 

Hampshire Air Toxic Control Act, NH 

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125– 

I, and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder as requiring the installation 

of the wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) 

system for mercury removal on the two 

coal-fired boilers at PSNH Merrimack 

Station. The correct citation is NH RSA 

125–O, the Multiple Pollutant 

Reduction Program statute. The sections 

of the law that specifically address 

mercury removal and require a FGD 

system are RSA 125–O:11–18. 

Response: EPA agrees that there was 

an error in the citation of the law 

requiring the FGD system. 

Comment: NPS commented that the 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) modeling and interpretation did 

not follow EPA’s BART modeling 

guidelines or the methods 

recommended by the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) 

States and the Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs). NPS stated that since only one 

year of meteorological data was 

modeled, NHDES should have used the 

20% best natural background visibility 

conditions in the modeling and reported 

the maximum visibility impact at the 

Class I areas due to the source’s baseline 

emissions and emissions control 

options. NPS noted that in NHDES’s 

August 2011 revision, the BART 

modeling was partially corrected to use 

the natural background visibility, but 

still incorrectly reports the visibility 

impact for the 20% worst days and the 

20% best days rather than the single day 

with the maximum visibility impact. 

NPS stated that while correcting the 

modeling results may not change the 

BART control decisions, EPA should 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES