2722 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CT–068–7225b; A–1–FRL–7440–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; New Source Review/

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP). The revisions include new 

provisions that implement the core 

requirements of 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments (CAAA) regarding 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) in areas that have not attained the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). In addition, the changes 

amend the applicability requirements 

and certain other requirements of the 

Prevention of Significant Protection 

(PSD) program and NSR rules. Finally, 

the changes provide a definition for 

‘‘Practicably Enforceable’’ that would 

allow sources a streamlined approach to 

limit potential to emit for PSD/NSR 

applicability purposes. In aggregate, 

these revisions will substantially 

strengthen the DEP’s air permitting 

rules. 

This action proposes to approve the 

revisions to section 22a–174–1, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 22a–174–2a, 

‘‘Procedural Requirements for New 

Source Review and Title V Permitting,’’

and section 22a–174–3a, ‘‘Permit to 

Construct and Operate Stationary 

Sources.’’ This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 11, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Steven A. Rapp, Manager, Air Permits, 

Toxics and Indoor Programs, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAP), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA-New England, 1 Congress Street—

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023. 

Copies of the documents relevant to this 

action are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th 

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room B–108 West, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC and the 

Bureau of Air Management, Department 

of Environmental Protection, State 

Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, 

CT 06106–1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brendan McCahill, (617) 918–1652; 

email at McCahill.Brendan@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

23, 1994, the DEP formally submitted 

revisions to its SIP for the purposes of 

meeting the 1990 CAAA requirements 

for nonattainment NSR. Due to various 

issues with these revisions and the preexisting state rules, EPA did not take 

action on this SIP submittal. On June 14, 

2002, after completing a top to bottom 

review of its entire state permitting 

program, the DEP formally withdrew the 

May 23, 1994 submittal and submitted 

new revisions to its SIP. 

EPA has recently promulgated 

revisions to certain portions of the 

federal PSD and nonattainment NSR 

regulations (67 FR 80244 (Dec. 31, 

2002). These rules have an effective date 

of March 3, 2003. With respect to 

Connecticut’s rules relating to new 

source review, EPA has determined that 

Connecticut’s rules meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

I, as currently in effect, and is taking no 

position on whether Connecticut will 

need to make changes to its new source 

review rules to meet requirements that 

EPA has promulgated, but are not yet 

effective, as part of new source review 

reform. 

The rule revisions proposed for 

approval today are the product of a 

comprehensive, multi-year, stakeholder 

process intended to increase the 

effectiveness of Connecticut’s program. 

The rules proposed for approval include 

important flexibility provisions 

discussed below, including provisions 

that provide a framework for 

establishing ‘‘practicably enforceable’’

limits on ‘‘potential to emit’’ and 

provisions allow sources to consider 

decreases in emissions as well as 

increases in determining applicability. 

Not only do the rules proposed for 

approval increase flexibility, but they 

also enhance the enforceability of the 

state program. Therefore, EPA believes 

it is appropriate to propose approval of 

these rules under the rules that are 

currently in effect in order to 

significantly strengthen the state 

program.

I. Revisions to the Nonattainment NSR 

Rules 

A. What Is Nonattainment NSR? 

The CAA requires new major sources 

and major modifications to existing 

major sources to obtain an air pollution 

permit before commencing construction. 

The nonattainment NSR rules are the set 

of regulations specifying the minimum 

permit requirements for new major 

sources or major modifications in areas 

that are in nonattainment of the 

NAAQS. The nonattainment NSR rules 

include two major elements: (1) 

Requirements that subjected sources 

obtain emission reductions (‘‘offsets’’) 

from existing sources to ensure a 

progression toward achieving the 

NAAQS and; (2) requirements that 

sources apply controls that achieve 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER) to ensure emissions are 

controlled to the greatest degree 

possible. 

B. Why Does Connecticut Need To 

Revise Its Rules? 

In 1990, Congress revised the CAA to 

include new general requirements that 

apply to all nonattainment areas and 

additional requirements that apply to 

ozone nonattainment areas. In 

particular, the amended provisions for 

NSR in ozone nonattainment areas 

require substantially more stringent 

applicability and offset requirements 

over the pre-1990 NSR requirements. 

All portions of Connecticut are 

currently designated as nonattainment 

areas for ozone. 

C. Where Can One Locate Additional 

Information on the General 

Requirements for Nonattainment NSR? 

The air quality planning requirements 

for nonattainment NSR are set out in 

part D of subchapter I of the CAA The 

EPA has issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing EPA’s preliminary views on 

how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP 

revisions submitted under part D, 

including those state submittals 

containing nonattainment area NSR SIP 

requirements (see 57 FR 13498 (April 

16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 

1992)). Because this notice describes 

EPA’s interpretations only in broad 

terms, the reader should refer to the 

General Preamble for a more detailed 

discussion of the interpretations of part 

D advanced in today’s proposal and the 

supporting rationale. 

D. How Did Connecticut Satisfy the 

General NSR Requirements?

The general nonattainment NSR 

requirements are found in sections 172 

and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / Proposed Rules 2723

Act and must be met by all 

nonattainment areas. The following 

paragraphs reference the nonattainment 

NSR requirements required to be 

submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992 

and explain how Connecticut’s rules 

meet those requirements. Connecticut’s 

existing SIP already contained some of 

these provisions while others are being 

proposed for approval today. 

1. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(5)(D), 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with section 173(a)(1)(A) of the CAA to 

assure that calculations of emissions 

offsets are based on the same emissions 

baseline used in the demonstration of 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). 

2. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(viii) 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to 

allow offsets to be obtained in another 

nonattainment area if: (i) The area has 

an equal or higher nonattainment 

classification and, (ii) emissions from 

the other nonattainment area contribute 

to an NAAQS violation in the area in 

which the source would construct. 

3. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(i)&(iii), 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with sections 173(a) and 173 (c)(1) of 

the CAA that any emissions offsets 

obtained in conjunction with the 

issuance of a license to a new or 

modified source shall be federally 

enforceable before permit issuance and 

must be in effect and enforceable by the 

time the new or modified source 

commences operation. 

4. Sections 22a–174–1(26), ‘‘CERC,’’

22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(ii) &, 22a–174–

3a(l)(5), establish provisions in 

accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the 

CAA to assure that emission increases 

from new or modified sources are offset 

by real reductions in actual emissions. 

5. Sections 22a–174–1(26), ‘‘CERC,’’

22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(ii) &, 22a–174–

3a(l)(5) establishes provisions in 

accordance with section 173(c)(2) of the 

CAA to prevent emissions reductions 

otherwise required by the Act from 

being credited for purposes of satisfying 

part D offset requirements. 

6. The 1990 CAAA modified the Act’s 

provisions on growth allowances in 

nonattainment areas by (1) Eliminating 

existing growth allowances in the 

nonattainment area that received a 

notice prior or subsequent to the 

Amendments that the SIP was 

substantially inadequate, and (2) 

restricting growth allowances to only 

those portions of nonattainment areas 

formally targeted as special zones for 

economic growth (Sections 173(b) and 

173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA). Connecticut’s 

regulations do not contain provisions 

for growth allowances and are 

consequently consistent with the Act. 

7. Connecticut has a practice of 

supplying information from 

nonattainment NSR licenses to EPA’s 

RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse in 

accordance with section 173(d) of the 

CAA. 

8. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(6) 

establishes provisions, in accordance 

with section 173(a)(3) of the CAA, to 

ensure that owners or operators of each 

proposed new or modified major 

stationary source demonstrate, as a 

condition of license issuance, that all 

other major stationary sources under the 

same ownership in the State are in 

compliance with the CAA. 

9. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(2) 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with section 173(a)(5) of the CAA that, 

as a prerequisite to issuing any Part D 

permit, require an analysis of alternative 

sites, sizes, production processes and 

environmental control techniques for 

proposed sources that demonstrate that 

the benefits of the proposed source 

significantly outweigh the 

environmental and social costs imposed 

as a result of its location, construction, 

and modification. 

10. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(8)(A) 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with section 173(a)(4) of the CAA that, 

as a prerequisite to issuing any Part D 

permit, the Administrator has not 

determined that the applicable 

implementation plan is not being 

adequately implemented for the 

proposed nonattainment area in which 

the proposed source is to construct or be 

modified. 

E. What Are the Requirements for NSR 

in Ozone Nonattainment Areas? 

As mentioned, the general 

nonattainment NSR requirements found 

in sections 172 and 173 of part D of 

subchapter I of the Act must be met by 

all nonattainment areas. The 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas that supplement or supersede 

these requirements are found in subpart 

2 of part D. In addition to requirements 

for ozone nonattainment areas, subpart 

2 includes section 182(f), which states 

that requirements for major stationary 

sources of VOC shall apply to major 

stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) unless the Administrator makes 

certain determinations related to the 

benefits or contribution of NOX control 

to air quality, ozone attainment, or 

ozone air quality. States were required 

under section 182(a)(2)(C) to adopt new 

NSR rules for ozone nonattainment 

areas by November 15, 1992.

F. How Did Connecticut Comply With 

the Subpart 2 Requirements? 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(5) of the 

CAA, State implementation plans must 

require permits for the construction and 

operation of new or modified major 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas. The federal statutory permit 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas are generally contained in revised 

section 173, and in subpart 2 of 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA. These 

are the minimum requirements that 

States must include in an approvable 

implementation plan. For all 

classifications of ozone nonattainment 

areas, States must adopt the appropriate 

major source thresholds and offset 

ratios, and must adopt provisions to 

ensure that any new or modified major 

stationary source of NOX satisfies the 

requirements applicable to any major 

source of VOC, unless a special NOX

exemption is granted by the 

Administrator under the provision of 

section 182(f). 

Connecticut was required to meet the 

subpart 2 requirements because all 

portions of the state are designated as in 

nonattainment for ozone. Most of 

Connecticut is designated as in 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment, except for 

southwest Connecticut, which is 

designated as in ‘‘severe’’

nonattainment. The following 

paragraphs reference the serious and 

severe ozone nonattainment 

requirements that Connecticut was 

required to submit to EPA by November 

15, 1992 and how Connecticut has met 

those requirements. 

1. Section 22a–174–1(57) ‘‘Major 

Stationary Source,’’ establishes 

provisions in accordance with the 

serious nonattainment area 

requirements provided in sections 

182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA, by setting 

a major source threshold level of 50 TPY 

for VOC and for NOX. 

2. Section 22a–174–1(57) ‘‘Major 

Stationary Source,’’ establishes 

provisions in accordance with the 

severe nonattainment area requirements 

provided in sections 182(d) and 182(f) 

of the CAA, by setting a major source 

threshold level of 25 TPY for VOC and 

for NOX. 

3. Section 22a–174–1 (55) ‘‘Major 

Modification,’’ establishes provisions in 

accordance with the serious and severe 

nonattainment area requirements 

provided in sections 182(c)(6) and 

182(d) of the CAA, by setting a major 

modification threshold level of 25 TPY 

for VOC and for NOX. 

4. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(x) 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with the serious nonattainment areas

2724 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

provided in sections 183(c)(10) and 

182(f) of the CAA, by setting an offset 

ratio of 1.2 to 1 for major sources or 

major modifications of VOC or NOX. 

5. Section 22a–174–3a(l)(4)(B)(x) 

establishes provisions in accordance 

with the severe nonattainment areas 

provided in sections 183(d)(2) and 

182(f) of the CAA, by setting an offset 

ratio of 1.3 to 1 for major sources or 

major modifications of VOC or NOX. 

6. Connecticut’s regulations do not 

include provisions that apply EPA’s 

special rules for modifications as 

defined in sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of 

the CAA. The special rules for 

modifications are optional, less 

stringent applicability/permitting 

requirements that apply to a small 

number of modifications in serious and 

severe nonattainment areas. By not 

including provisions for section 

182(c)(7) and (8), DEP’s rules are more 

stringent than the CAA. Since the DEP 

rules only allows the most stringent 

applicability/permitting option, its SIP 

meets the federal requirements. 

G. What Provisions of the 1990 CAAA 

Has Connecticut Not Properly 

Addressed? 

For serious and severe ozone 

nonattainment areas, State plans must 

implement section 182(c)(6) with regard 

to modifications of major sources. 

Commonly referred to as the de minimis

rule, the provision requires state 

permitting authorities to submit rules 

that require sources to consider all 

contemporaneous emission changes 

occurring within the last five calender 

years of a physical change when 

determining if the change is major 

modification. 

As noted above, Connecticut contains 

serious and severe nonattainment areas 

and therefore must implement the deminimis rule. However, the DEP’s SIP 

submittal is not clear regarding 

implementation of this rule. The rule 

only requires sources to keep records of 

de-minimis emission increases but does 

not explain how these emissions will be 

used to define a major modification. As 

a result, the DEP’s NSR rules do not 

completely satisfy the requirements of 

the CAA. Since this submittal includes 

the remaining NSR requirements of the 

CAA and substantially strengthens the 

DEP’s SIP, EPA is proposing to approve 

as a SIP strengthening measure all 

portions of the submittal except for the 

provisions for the de-minimis rule. EPA 

intends to work with DEP to develop an 

approvable de-minimis provision in the 

future.

II. Revisions to the Major Modification 

Applicability Requirements for the PSD 

Program and Nonattainment NSR Rules 

A. How Does EPA Define a Major 

Modification Under Its Rules That Are 

in Effect? 

EPA defines a major modification as 

a physical change or a change in the 

method of operation of a major 

stationary source that results in a 

significant net emissions increase. 

EPA’s definition for net emission 

increase consists of two additive 

components: (a) Any increase in actual 

emissions from a particular physical 

change or change in method of 

operation and; (b) any other increase or 

decrease in actual emissions at the 

source that are contemporaneous with 

the particular change and are creditable. 

If the resultant net emissions increase is 

greater than the significance level for 

any Title I regulated pollutant, the 

physical change is a major modification 

and subject to PSD/NSR requirements. 

The first component of net emission 

increase narrowly includes only the 

emission increase associated with a 

particular change at the source. When 

calculating the emission increase, EPA’s 

rules in effect generally employ what is 

commonly called the actual-to-potential 

test (special provisions in effect for 

electric utility steam generating units 

are discussed below). The maximum 

potential emissions from a modified 

emission unit after the modification is 

compared to the actual emissions from 

the emission unit before the 

modification. The difference between 

the unit’s potential emissions and its 

current actual emissions is the actual 

emission increase from the 

modification. 

The second component allows 

sources to broadly include changes in 

actual emissions that have occurred 

anywhere at the source within the 

contemporaneous period, typically 

defined by state rules as five years from 

the time of the modification under 

review. It provides sources the 

opportunity to avoid major PSD/NSR 

applicability by giving a source credit 

for reducing emissions at other emission 

units located anywhere at its facility. If 

the actual emission increase from the 

modification under review combined 

with emission decreases source-wide 

are below significance level for any 

given regulated pollutant, the 

modification is not major and not 

subject to PSD/NSR. When employing 

component two, federal rules also 

require sources to include any 

creditable emission increases occurring 

source-wide when calculating the net 

emission increase. 

B. Why Is Connecticut Changing Its 

Rules? 

The DEP’s existing SIP-approved rules 

use a different approach for calculating 

the emission increase from a 

modification. Instead of the actual-topotential test, the DEP uses the 

potential-to-potential test. This method 

compares the emission units potential 

before the modification with its 

potential after the modification. The 

DEP also does not allow sources the 

option to take credit for emission 

changes occurring source-wide. 

Adopting provisions that reflect the EPA 

rules that are currently in effect 

significantly improves Connecticut’s 

program.

C. How Does Connecticut’s Submittal 

Meet the Federal Requirements? 

EPA’s ‘‘actual to potential’’

applicability test and ‘‘net emissions 

increase’’ requirements for PSD/NSR 

applicability are established in the 

federal definitions for ‘‘Actual 

emissions,’’ ‘‘Potential emissions,’’ ‘‘Net 

emission increase,’’ and ‘‘Significant 

emissions.’’ In section 22a–174–1, the 

DEP is adopting with minor revisions 

the definitions for ‘‘Actual emissions,’’

‘‘Net emission increase,’’ and 

‘‘Significant emissions’’ located in 40 

CFR 51.165 and 51.166. In addition, the 

DEP is adopting a definition of 

‘‘Potential emissions’’ that requires 

sources to effectively limit PTE using 

either federally or practicably 

enforceable limits. With these 

definitions, the DEP’s PSD/NSR 

applicability requirements are 

consistent with existing federal 

requirements. 

EPA notes that federal applicability 

requirements also provide a separate 

applicability method for sources defined 

as electric steam utility generators. For 

this source category, EPA regulation 

applies an actual-to-representative 

actual emissions test. A sources current 

actual emissions are compared to the 

source’s predicted future actual 

emissions to determine the emission 

increase from a modification. 

The provisions for this applicability 

test, referred to as the WEPCO 

applicability test, were added to the 

federal NSR regulations following the 

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 

decision in 1990 ((Wisconsin Electric 

Power Company (WEPCO) v. Reilly)). 

These provisions include definitions for 

‘‘electric steam utility generator’’ and 

‘‘representitive actual annual 

emissions.’’ While these definitions are 

referred to in the DEP’s new definition 

of actual emissions, the DEP did not 

explicitly define these two terms.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / Proposed Rules 2725

However, the DEP’s interpretation of 

state law provides it the authority to 

implement all provisions of the federal 

‘‘actual emissions’’ definition that is 

incorporated by reference into its rules. 

This authority extends to the definitions 

for ‘‘Electric steam utility generator’’

and ‘‘Representative actual annual 

emissions’’ that are referenced in the 

federal definition but not explicitly 

defined in the state rule. Consequently, 

the DEP’s rules comply with all 

provisions of the federal definition for 

‘‘actual emissions’’ including the 

provisions for the WEPCO applicability 

test. 

III. Revisions That Make Various 

Definitions Used in the State’s 

Nonattainment NSR Rules and PSD 

Program Consistent With Federal 

Definitions 

A. What Definitions Is the DEP Adding 

or Revising? 

The DEP is adding or revising 

definitions to clarify general 

requirements of its permitting rules and 

to make the rules consistent with the 

federal permitting requirements. The list 

of new or revised definitions includes: 

Allowable Emissions; Baseline 

concentration; Begin Actual 

Construction; Commence construction; 

Construction; Emission limitation and 

emission standard; Emissions Unit; 

Excessive concentration; Federally 

enforceable; Good engineering practice; 

Innovative control technology, 

Malfunction; Secondary emissions; and 

Volatile organic compound. 

Several definitions and other terms in 

Connecticut’s rules reference EPA’s NSR 

and PSD rules in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Under Connecticut 

law, when the reference is to a CFR 

section ‘‘as amended from time to time,’’

the reference is intended to incorporate 

amendments to the CFR made 

subsequent to state publicly noticing its 

proposal to adopt these rules. When the 

reference is simply to the CFR, it is to 

the EPA rules in effect as of July 17, 

2001, which is the date DEP publicly 

noticed the proposed rule amendments. 

B. How Will These Definitions Affect 

Permitting in Connecticut? 

The DEP’s decision to incorporate the 

federal permitting program definitions 

under 40 CFR 51.100–166 will ensure 

the DEP’s permit procedures and permit 

decisions will be consistent with federal 

requirements. In addition, EPA policies 

and guidance will be directly applicable 

to the DEP’s rules ensuring more 

consistent program implementation and 

improved program compliance. 

For further details concerning the 

revisions to Connecticut’s SIP and 

EPA’s analysis, please refer to the 

memorandum from Brendan McCahill, 

Environmental Engineer, to Steven 

Rapp, Manager, Air Permits Program 

entitled, ‘‘Technical Support 

Document—Connecticut New Source 

Review/Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program Revisions,’’ dated 

January 10, 2003, available upon request 

from the EPA regional office noted in 

the ADDRESSES section of this document. 

IV. Proposal To Approve Revisions To 

Allow Sources To Limit Potential To 

Emit (PTE) Through Practicably 

Enforceable Limitations 

A. Why Is PTE Important?

As explained in section II, the 

emissions increase from a modification 

is the difference between an emission 

unit’s PTE after the modification and its 

actual emissions before the 

modification. Therefore, the rules 

governing how PTE limits are created 

and enforced is critically important in 

any PSD/NSR applicability 

determination. EPA defines ‘‘potential 

to emit’’ as the maximum capacity of a 

stationary source to emit a pollutant 

under its physical and operational 

design. Absent an inherent physical or 

operational restriction, EPA calculates 

PTE assuming the source operating full 

time (i.e., 8760 hours/year) at its 

maximum emission rate. Federal rules 

allow sources to overcome this 

assumption by accepting physical or 

operation restrictions that limit PTE. 

Typically, sources accept PTE limits to 

reduce the net emission increase from a 

modification and avoid NSR 

applicability. For example, a source may 

accept a restriction on hours of 

operation (e.g., 4000 hours/year) if the 

restriction results in a PTE that reduces 

the net emission increase calculation to 

below the NSR/PSD applicability 

threshold levels. 

Up to 1995, EPA’s NSR and PSD rules 

required limits on PTE to be federally 

enforceable. The term ‘‘federally 

enforceable’’ incorporates two 

fundamental elements. First, EPA must 

have direct right to enforce restrictions 

and limitations. Second, limits must be 

enforceable as a practicable manner or 

‘‘practicably enforceable.’’ EPA has 

issued several guidance documents 

explaining the requirements of 

practicably enforceable. In brief, EPA 

has interpreted ‘‘practicably 

enforceable’’ to mean that sufficient 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting exists such that the source 

and/or permitting authority can show 

continual compliance with the emission 

limitation. 

EPA’s requirement that a PTE 

limitation that keeps a source out of a 

CAA requirement must be federally 

enforceable was legally challenged by 

industry. In Chemical Manufacturer’s 

Association V. EPA, No. 89–1514 (D.C. 

Cir. Sept. 15 1995), the court vacated the 

EPA’s requirements that physical or 

operational restrictions on a source’s 

PTE be federally enforceable. As a 

result, states may develop and submit 

for EPA approval NSR/PSD programs 

under 40 CFR 51.165/51.166 that 

include provisions for state-enforceable 

PTE limits provided that the provisions 

are practicably enforceable and 

effectively limit the source’s emissions. 

B. What Are Connecticut’s Provisions 

Regarding PTE? 

The DEP’s new definition of 

‘‘practicably enforceable’’ will allow 

sources the option of taking either 

federally enforceable or practicably 

enforceable PTE limits. In developing 

this definition, the DEP closely followed 

EPA’s guidance on practicably 

enforceable limitations in a January 25, 

1995 memorandum from John Sietz, 

director of the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards entitled 

‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to 

Emit of a Stationary Source Under 

Section 112 and title V of the Clean Air 

Act.’’ The policy specifies the following 

minimum elements required for a 

practicably enforceable limitation: (1) A 

technically accurate limitation and 

identifying the portions of the source 

subject to the limitation; (2) the time 

period for the limitation and; (3) the 

method to determine compliance 

including appropriate monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting. The DEP 

worked closely with EPA to ensure its 

definition followed EPA guidance on 

practicably enforceable limits and 

included these three minimum 

requirements. As a result, in the absence 

of any federal rules reimposing 

mandated federally enforceable PTE 

limits, EPA proposes to approve the 

DEP’s ‘‘practicably enforceable’’

definition.

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

revision submitted by Connecticut on 

June 14, 2002. 

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

2726 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this action. 

Comments must be received on or 

before February 11, 2003. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered late. EPA is not required to 

consider late comments. 

VI. Regulatory Assessment 

Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: January 10, 2003. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 03–1239 Filed 1–17–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–7440–1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete a 

portion of the Former Nansemond 

Ordnance Depot Site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region III 

announces its intent to delete soil in the 

Impregnation Kit Area of the Former 

Nansemond Ordnance Depot site 

(Nansemond) from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comment on this action. The NPL 

constitutes appendix B to the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 

300, which EPA promulgated pursuant 

to section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA and 

the Commonwealth of Virginia 

(Commonwealth), acting through the 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

have determined that all appropriate 

CERCLA response actions have been 

implemented for the soil and that no 

further action for soil is appropriate. 

This partial deletion pertains only to the 

soil in the Impregnation Kit Area and 

does not include the ground water 

beneath the Impregnation Kit Area, nor 

any other portion of Nansemond.

DATES: EPA will accept comments 

concerning its proposal for partial 

deletion until February 20, 2003, and 

publication of a notice of availability of 

this document in a newspaper of record.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted to Mr. Robert Thomson, PE, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, 

Region III (3HS13), 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103–

2029, Telephone: (215) 814–3357, email thomson.bob@epa.gov.

Information Repositories:

Comprehensive information on the 

Nansemond site, information specific to 

this proposed partial deletion, the 

Administrative Record and the Deletion 

Docket for this partial deletion are 

available for review at the following 

Nansemond document/information 

repositories:

Tidewater Community College 

(Frederick Campus) Library, 

Information Desk, 7000 College Drive, 

Portsmouth, Virginia 23703, (757) 

822–2130, Hours of Operation: 

Monday through Thursday 8 a.m. to 9 

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

Saturday 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

U.S. EPA Region III Library, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, 

(215) 814–5254, Hours of Operation: 

Monday through Friday 8 a.m.–5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Thomson, PE, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region III (3HS13), 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, (215) 814–3357, e-mail 

thomson.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction 

The United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region III 

announces its intent to delete a portion 

of the Former Nansemond Ordnance 

Depot site (Nansemond) located in