Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62375 

Dated: August 24, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended 

by adding entry (44) in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(44) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ............................... 11/16/15 9/9/16, [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is 

not applicable. [EPA–R07– 

OAR–2016–0313; FRL– ] 

[FR Doc. 2016–21474 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0953; FRL–9950–77– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Infrastructure or Requirements for the 

2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions from the State of Texas for 

Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). These submittals address 

how the existing SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS (infrastructure SIPs or iSIPs). These i-SIPs ensure that the 

State’s SIP is adequate to meet the 

State’s responsibilities under the 

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0953. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst, telephone (214) 665– 

6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our February 8, 

2016, proposal (81 FR 6483). In that 

document we proposed to approve 

elements of SIP submittals from the 

State of Texas for the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. These submittals address 

how the existing SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 i-SIPs. 

We received comments on the 

proposal submitted jointly from two 

organizations. Our response to the 

comments are below. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: We received one set of 

comments—submitted jointly by the 

Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk— 

on the February 8, 2016 proposal to 

approve certain elements of Texas’s SIP 

submissions for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. These comments are 

provided in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking action. The commenters 

contend that EPA cannot approve the 

section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of Texas’s 

2008 ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission because of Fifth Circuit 

‘‘binding precedent’’ purportedly 

holding this portion of the submission 

must ‘‘prohibit upwind sources in Texas 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in downwind areas’’ in 

Texas. Specifically, the commenters 

contend that there are five coal-fired 

power plants in East Texas that 

‘‘significantly contribute’’ to Dallas-Fort 

Worth’s ozone nonattainment problem 

and that the Texas i-SIP fails to address 

those emissions. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters that infrastructure SIPs 

must include detailed attainment and 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state and must be disapproved if air 

quality data and modeling show current 

and future nonattainment. We believe 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attaining and maintaining 

a new or revised NAAQS and that they 

contain enforceable control measures 

and demonstration that the state has the 

available tools and authority to develop 

and implement plans to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

The commenters suggest that EPA 

must disapprove the Texas ozone 

infrastructure SIP because of the fact 

that areas in Texas have air quality data 

and modeling projections above or 

forecasting above the standard, which 

proves that the infrastructure SIP is 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62376 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 739–43 

(5th Cir. 2002). The case also addressed whether 

EPA had reasonably concluded that no additional 

Reasonably Available Control Measures were 

required for the Beaumont area. See id. at 743–45. 

2 Id. at 737. 

3 Id. at 740–41. 

4Likewise, the details of the Agency’s 

interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) have 

also changed, in part guided by U.S. Supreme Court 

and D.C. Circuit case law evaluating EPA’s 

rulemakings under that provision. See, e.g., North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 

inadequate. We disagree with the 

commenters because EPA does not 

believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

detailed planning SIPs demonstrating 

either attainment or maintenance for 

specific geographic areas of the state. 

The infrastructure SIP is triggered by 

promulgation of the NAAQS, not 

designation. Moreover, infrastructure 

SIPs are due three years following 

promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, 

during a significant portion of the 

period that a state has available for 

developing the infrastructure SIP, it 

does not know what the designation 

will be for individual areas of the state. 

In light of the structure of the CAA, our 

long-standing position regarding 

infrastructure SIPs is that they are 

general planning SIPs to ensure that the 

state has adequate resources and 

authority to implement a NAAQS in 

general throughout the state and not 

detailed attainment and maintenance 

plans for each individual area of the 

state. 

Our interpretation that infrastructure 

SIPs are more general planning SIPs is 

consistent with the statute as 

understood in light of its history and 

structure. When Congress enacted the 

CAA in 1970, it did not include 

provisions requiring states and the EPA 

to label areas as attainment or 

nonattainment. Rather, states were 

required to include all areas of the state 

in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) 

and section 110 set forth the core 

substantive planning provisions for 

these AQCRs. At that time, Congress 

anticipated that states would be able to 

address air pollution quickly pursuant 

to the very general planning provisions 

in section 110 and could bring all areas 

in compliance with the NAAQS within 

five years. Moreover, at that time, 

section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the 

section 110 plan provide for 

‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section 

110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must 

include ‘‘emission limitations, 

schedules, and timetables for 

compliance with such limitations and 

such other measures as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’ In 1977, 

Congress recognized that the existing 

structure was not sufficient and many 

areas were still violating the NAAQS. At 

that time, Congress for the first time 

added provisions requiring states and 

EPA to identify whether areas of the 

state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., 

were nonattainment) and established 

specific planning requirements in 

section 172 for areas not meeting the 

NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had 

air quality not meeting the NAAQS and 

Congress again amended the CAA and 

added yet another layer of more 

prescriptive planning requirements for 

each of the NAAQS, with the primary 

provisions for ozone in section 182. At 

that same time, Congress modified 

section 110 to remove references to the 

section 110 SIP providing for 

attainment, including removing preexisting section 110(a)(2)(A) in its 

entirety and renumbering subparagraph 

(B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, 

Congress replaced the clause ‘‘as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as 

may be necessary or appropriate to meet 

the applicable requirements of this 

chapter.’’ Thus, the CAA has 

significantly evolved in the more than 

40 years since it was originally enacted. 

While at one time section 110 did 

provide the only detailed SIP planning 

provisions for states and specified that 

such plans must provide for attainment 

of the NAAQS, under the structure of 

the current CAA, section 110 is only the 

initial stepping-stone in the planning 

process for a specific NAAQS. More 

detailed, later-enacted provisions 

govern the substantive planning 

process, including planning for 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

For all of these reasons, EPA disagrees 

with the commenters that we must 

disapprove an infrastructure SIP 

revision if there are monitored or 

forecasted violations of the standard in 

the state and the section 110(a)(2)(A) 

revision does not have detailed plans for 

demonstrating how the state will bring 

that area into attainment. Rather we 

believe that the proper inquiry at this 

juncture is whether the state has met the 

basic structural SIP requirements 

appropriate at the point in time we are 

acting upon the submittal. 

Further, we disagree with the 

commenters’ suggestion that the Texas 

SIP does not adequately address the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requirement 

for enforceable emission limits based on 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th 

Cir. 2002). The commenters contend 

that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Sierra 

Club mandates disapproval by EPA of 

this i-SIP because Texas has areas 

measuring nonattainment of the NAAQS 

at issue. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion is 

not ‘‘binding precedent’’ on this point, 

and mandates no such disapproval. 

To the extent the Fifth Circuit 

discussed section 110(a)(2)(A) at all in 

Sierra Club, it was in dicta. The Fifth 

Circuit’s Sierra Club opinion primarily 

concerned the distinct issue of whether 

EPA’s ‘‘extension of the statutory date’’ 

for Beaumont, Texas to attain the onehour ozone NAAQS (and approval of 

Texas’s attainment SIP based on that 

extension) complied with the CAA.1

The court’s lone citation to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) appears in a portion of the 

opinion titled, ‘‘Factual and Procedural 

Background,’’ following a brief 

discussion of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Read in full context, it 

is clear that the court’s mention of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) is merely a 

recitation of the regulatory background, 

not a holding: 

Under the CAA, states must adopt SIPs 

specifying emission limitations applicable to 

pollution sources in order to maintain and 

enforce each NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a). SIPs 

are submitted to the EPA, which may 

approve, conditionally approve, or 

disapprove the SIPs in full or in part. Id. 

§ 7410(k). Significantly, the CAA has a 

provision that requires SIPs to contain 

provisions regulating emissions that 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment in, 

or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national 

primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standard.’’ Id. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In 

addition, as noted in the challenged final 

action, the EPA has interpreted 42 U.S.C. 

7410 (a)(2)(A) as incorporating a similar 

requirement that an upwind area be 

prohibited from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in a downwind area within 

the same state. See 66 FR 26,917.2

This lone mention of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) was likely because EPA had 

invoked its interpretation of that section 

as one justification for why it was 

reasonable to read the Act as permitting 

the relevant deadline extension. While 

this passing mention of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) was dicta, the Fifth 

Circuit’s decision invalidating EPA’s 

extension policy was not: Regardless of 

the merits of EPA’s proffered 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), the court held at Chevron 

step one that the CAA did not authorize 

EPA to grant extensions of the 

attainment date.3

The EPA interpretation mentioned 

off-hand in the Sierra Club opinion— 

i.e., that section 110(a)(2)(A) 

incorporates a similar requirement for 

intrastate transport as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does for interstate 

transport—is no longer the Agency’s 

interpretation and has not been so for 

quite some time.4 EPA’s prior 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62377 

(evaluating EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 

25,162 (May 12, 2005); EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d 134 

S. Ct. 1584 (2014), remanded to 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. 

Cir. 2015) (evaluating EPA’s Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8 2011)). 

5See Nat’l Cable and Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand 

X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981–82 (2005) 

(quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 

863–64 (1984)). 

6 Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). 

7See, e.g., 80 FR 33840. 

8See, e.g., 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

interpretation is not ‘‘carved in stone’’; 

agencies are permitted to change their 

interpretations.5 EPA’s most recent 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) can be found in the 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance,6 as well as 

relatively recent regulatory actions.7

Even if the Fifth Circuit had not 

reversed the EPA’s extension policy at 

Chevron step one (which it did), and 

even if the EPA had not subsequently 

changed its interpretation of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) (which it has), the 

commenters would still be incorrect in 

their contention that EPA must use the 

same ‘‘significant contribution’’ analysis 

for intrastate emissions that EPA has 

recently used for interstate emissions 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). That 

analysis is based in part on an 

evaluation of ‘‘the total ‘collective 

contribution’ ’’ of multiple upwind 

interstate sources that is captured at 

various significance thresholds; 8 it was 

never intended to apply in the intrastate 

context. Nor does the relevant statutory 

phrase, ‘‘significant contribution,’’ 

appear in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

requires enforceable emission limits and 

control measures. As noted in the 2012 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance, a different 

part of the CAA, part D, outlines the 

process, timeframe, and substantive 

requirements for states to bring their 

nonattainment areas into attainment. 

The Fifth Circuit’s Sierra Club opinion 

says nothing to the contrary. The court 

in no way ruled that infrastructure SIPs 

must contain provisions prohibiting 

upwind intrastate areas from 

‘‘significantly contributing’’ to 

nonattainment in downwind intrastate 

areas, or that EPA must apply the same 

technical analysis to intrastate 

emissions as it does for interstate 

emissions under a different subsection. 

Commenters’ reliance on the Fifth 

Circuit’s opinion as setting forth that 

precedent is misplaced. In short, we 

disagree that the Sierra Club opinion 

constitutes ‘‘binding precedent’’ 

requiring us to disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP for CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

III. Final Action 

We are approving elements of the (1) 

December 13, 2012, SIP submittal for 

the State of Texas pertaining to the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and; (2) December 7, 2012, SIP submittal 

pertaining to the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS as 

outlined in our February 8, 2016, 

proposal. Specifically, EPA is approving 

the following infrastructure elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i) (portions pertaining to PSD for 

2008 O3 and 2010 NO2 and portions 

pertaining to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance for 2010 

NO2), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L) and 

(M). 

IV. 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, our 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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, described in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

In addition, 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 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 8, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62378 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 31, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270(e), the table titled 

‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended 

by adding entries at the end for 

‘‘Infrastructure and Transport SIP 

Revisions for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

Standard’’ and ‘‘Infrastructure and 

Transport SIP Revisions for the 2008 

Ozone Standard’’ to read as follows. 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Infrastructure and Transport SIP Revisions for 

the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Standard.

Statewide ..................... 12/7/2012 9/9/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation].Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i) (portions pertaining to nonattainment and interference with maintenance), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (K), (L) and (M). 

Infrastructure and Transport SIP Revisions for 

the 2008 Ozone 

Standard.

Statewide ..................... 12/13/2012 9/9/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation].Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i) (portion pertaining to PSD), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (K), (L) and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2016–21593 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0238; FRL–9951–94– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; NOX

Emission Trading Orders as Single 

Source SIP Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Connecticut. 

This revision continues to allow 

facilities to create and/or use emission 

credits using NOX Emission Trading and 

Agreement Orders (TAOs) to comply 

with the NOX emission limits required 

by Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174–22 

(Control of Nitrogen Oxides). The 

intended effect of this action is to 

approve the individual trading orders to 

allow facilities to determine the most 

cost-effective way to comply with the 

state regulation. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0238. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05–2), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, phone number 

(617) 918–1657, fax number (617) 918– 

0657, email Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of SIP Revision 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of SIP Revision 

On November 15, 2011, the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) 

submitted a formal revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

revision consists of eighty-nine sourcespecific Trading Agreement and Orders 

(TAOs) that allow twenty-four 

individual stationary sources of nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) emissions to create and/or 

trade NOX emission credits in order to 

ensure more effective compliance with 

EPA SIP-approved state regulations for 

reducing NOX emissions. We previously 

approved source-specific TAOs of the 

same kind issued by CT DEEP under 

this program for these same sources on 

September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), 

March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and 

September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The 

November 15, 2011 SIP submittal also 

includes Consent Order 8029A issued to 

Hamilton Sundstrand which addresses 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) 

emissions. 

On June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38999) EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Connecticut’s 2011 SIP revision 

submittal, proposing approval of the 

TAOs, except for Consent Order 8029A. 

The NPR also proposed approval of the 

revised TAO 8110A issued to Yale 

University. This TAO was originally 

submitted as part of a July 1, 2004 SIP 

revision from Connecticut, and was 

modified by CT DEEP on May 29, 2015. 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking action is 

explained in the published NPR. The 

NPR is available in the docket for this 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES