```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 175 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54471-54483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22027]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 54472]]

    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 PM2.5\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

[[Page 54473]]

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 SIP-
approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 54474]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 EPA-approved 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,

[[Page 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 sub-element 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 [micro]g/m\3\ (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.

[[Page 54476]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 sub-
elements: 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 sub-element 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

[[Page 54478]]

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 SIP-
approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sub-element 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.

[[Page 54479]]

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 sub-element, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CT DEEP also requested approval into the SIP of CGS section 
1-85 in its January 2, 2013 infrastructure SIP for the 2002 
NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 54480]]

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.

[[Page 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 sub-element 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

[[Page 54482]]

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 anti-
backsliding 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                   A*            A*            A*            A*
 modifications..........................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor            A             A             A             A
 modifications..........................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with               A     No action             A     No action
 maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2)..................
(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               NA            NA            NA            NA
 agencies...............................................
(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               A             A             A             A
 entities...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[[Page 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
```