[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32316-32320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0443; FRL-9876-01-R1]


Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most 
elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Rhode Island. This revision addresses the infrastructure 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine 
particle (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS). We are not taking action on three elements of this submittal 
in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) that relate to 
requirements for the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

[[Page 32317]]

(PSD) program. These will be addressed in a separate action. In 
addition, EPA is disapproving the submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(H) (future SIP revisions). However, because a Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) has been in place for section 110(a)(2)(H) 
since 1973, no further action by EPA or the State is required. This 
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective June 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0443. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed 
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
confidential business information (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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 
requests that, if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 
facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office 
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617) 
918-1684, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aad9c3c7c9c5d284cbc6c3d9c5c4eacfdacb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b283236383423753a37322834351b3e2b3a753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On December 6, 2017, Rhode Island submitted a SIP submission to 
address the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act)--including the interstate transport requirements--for the 
2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> \1\ NAAQS. EPA refers to this type of SIP 
submission as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' On February 1, 2019 (84 FR 
1025), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing 
to approve most elements of the State's infrastructure SIP submission 
and to conditionally approve certain other elements of the submission. 
The infrastructure SIP 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 for 
implementation of the NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is 
given in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    During the comment period, EPA received one set of germane 
comments, which addressed two issues: (1) EPA's proposed conditional 
approval of certain portions of Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP 
submission related to the State's PSD program and (2) the impact on 
this infrastructure SIP action of EPA's 2015 Startup, Shutdown and 
Malfunction (SSM) SIP Action. In that action, EPA found that certain 
existing SIP provisions governing periods of SSM in 45 states and local 
jurisdictions, including one such provision in Rhode Island's SIP, were 
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. EPA issued a SIP 
call on June 12, 2015, directing those states to submit SIP revisions 
to address the specific inadequacies. See 80 FR 33839.
    Regarding the first issue, the commenter stated that a conditional 
approval of the PSD-related elements of Rhode Island's December 6, 
2017, infrastructure SIP submission is ``not appropriate,'' because the 
State had already made a SIP submission to EPA in March 2018 purporting 
to address those elements, although EPA had not yet acted on that 
submission. The commenter stated that the March 2018 submittal is not 
in the docket for this action and that this ``prevent[s] the public 
from being able to assess whether it does in fact cure the PSD-related 
deficiencies in the December 2 [sic], 2017, submission [and] prevents 
the public from being able to fully assess and comment on EPA's 
proposed conditional approval.''
    As EPA noted in the NPRM, Rhode Island's SIP lacked certain 
provisions \2\ required for EPA to find that the SIP contained a 
complete PSD permitting program meeting applicable requirements, which 
is required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) and which 
are relevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission. The 
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's (RIDEM) December 
2017 infrastructure SIP submittal acknowledged these deficiencies and 
indicated that RIDEM would amend its regulations to address them and 
submit revised regulations to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. As EPA also 
noted, RIDEM submitted a SIP revision to EPA on March 26, 2018, that 
included changes to address the PSD-related deficiencies. We stated in 
the NPRM that we were currently reviewing that submittal to verify 
whether it resolved the identified infrastructure SIP deficiencies. The 
NPRM did not include any substantive assessment of the March 2018 
submittal because we had not completed a review of that submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In particular, EPA noted that Rhode Island's SIP did not yet 
incorporate: (1) A requirement to identify NO<INF>X</INF> as a 
precursor to ozone in the definition of ``major stationary source'' 
from 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,'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); and (2) 
definitional changes required under an EPA rule entitled 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)--Increments, 
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 
Concentration,'' 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010); see 84 FR 1025 at 
1027-28 (February 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are not finalizing the proposed conditional 
approvals of these PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for purposes of the infrastructure SIP requirements 
of the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that the 
timing of the proposed conditional approvals was confusing and unusual 
given that the State had already made a SIP submission purporting to 
satisfy these requirements by the time EPA proposed the conditional 
approvals. Therefore, EPA has decided to withdraw the proposed 
conditional approvals. EPA will issue a separate proposed rule at a 
future date in which EPA will provide an evaluation of whether Rhode 
Island's March 2018 SIP satisfies these PSD-related requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The public will have an opportunity to provide 
comments to EPA on this proposed rule.
    Regarding the second issue, the commenter stated that it is 
``inappropriate'' for EPA to rely on the ``outsider theory'' in 
approving Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submission

[[Page 32318]]

for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS where the state has not yet 
responded to the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In that action, EPA found that a 
provision approved as a part of Rhode Island's existing approved SIP 
(25-4-13 R.I. Code R. section 16.2) was substantially inadequate to 
meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to Rhode Island to address 
the inadequacy. 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). The commenter stated that, 
until Rhode Island has corrected its SIP as directed by EPA in the 2015 
SSM SIP Action, EPA should either not approve the infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS or should 
condition any approval on submission by Rhode Island of a revision 
within 12 months that adequately addresses the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2015 SSM SIP Action referenced in the comment addressed 
how provisions in a number of States' SIPs treat excess emissions 
during periods of SSM. 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). While the 
comment states that Rhode Island must correct SIP ``provisions,'' 
EPA notes that it issued the SIP Call to Rhode Island with respect 
to just one provision. Id. at 33959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA has explained that its review 
of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that a 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements for the new or revised 
NAAQS. In this context, EPA does not consider it appropriate to review 
a state's existing approved SIP for all potential deficiencies in 
existing provisions, and thus has excluded certain types of potentially 
deficient provisions from this process. EPA considers this approach to 
infrastructure SIPs reasonable based on the specific statutory language 
of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). The CAA provides other avenues and 
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs that allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action. EPA has used 
one of these other mechanisms in this instance to address the SSM 
deficiency in Rhode Island's SIP.
    EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action included, among other things, a finding 
that Rhode Island's SIP contained an insufficiently bounded 
``director's discretion'' provision related to emissions during periods 
of SSM. See 80 FR 33840-33959. However, in the NPRM for this 
infrastructure SIP action, we stated that the rulemaking would ``not 
cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission,'' including ``[e]xisting 
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 
[and] 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.''
    In response to the commenter's argument, EPA reiterates its view 
that it generally considers existing provisions in these substantive 
areas to be outside the scope of its review of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submittal. The commenter did not provide any specific argument 
based on the statutory language for its assertion that EPA cannot move 
forward with finalizing approval of this infrastructure SIP action in 
light of EPA's position.
    As EPA explained in the NPRM, see 84 FR 1026 (citing 79 FR 27241 at 
24242-45), an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not 
the appropriate type of action in which to address deficiencies in a 
given state's SIP regarding existing provisions related to excess 
emissions from sources during periods of SSM that may be contrary to 
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions. EPA may 
approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the 
totality of the existing SIP for such deficient provisions and may 
approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing 
provisions.\4\ As relevant here, EPA has separate mechanisms for 
addressing deficient provisions and has used one of those mechanisms 
here by issuing a SIP call to Rhode Island for its problematic SSM 
provision. It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's 
infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or 
implicit re-approval of any existing deficient provisions that relate 
to the specific issue just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new 
provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal 
deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM 
events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for 
compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the 
context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions is 
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. This approach is appropriate because it would not be 
reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and 
the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring EPA review of each and 
every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in 
the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the 
state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning 
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion 
over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA 
have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical 
artifacts.
    These existing provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless 
may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of 
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new or revised 
NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. 
A better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those 
elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a 
specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of the new or revised 
NAAQS or other factors. For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler 
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. 
As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or 
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to 
address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    This approach is also a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission 
because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address 
specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other 
statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, 
depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 
Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the 
Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to 
attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to 
otherwise comply with the CAA.\5\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 
correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP 
submissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \6\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

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

[[Page 32319]]

    Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's 
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to 
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's 
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the 
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For 
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to 
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions 
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, EPA has already taken steps through the SIP Call 
mechanism to address the deficiency identified in Rhode Island's SIP 
and has taken further steps to ensure that separate process is followed 
as envisioned and consistent with legal requirements. Under the 2015 
SSM SIP Action, Rhode Island was required to revise its SIP to address 
the SSM provision identified as substantially inadequate within 18 
months. Rhode Island failed to meet that deadline, so on January 12, 
2022, EPA issued a Finding of Failure to Submit (FFS) to Rhode Island. 
See 87 FR 1680. If the State has not made the required SIP submittal 
within 18 months of the effective date of the FFS, then, pursuant to 
CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the 2-to-1 emission offset 
sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the State 
for all new and modified major sources subject to the nonattainment new 
source review program.
    The sanction will not take effect if, within 18 months after the 
effective date of the FFS, EPA affirmatively determines that the State 
has made a complete SIP submittal addressing the deficiency in 
accordance with the 2015 SSM Action. Additionally, a finding that Rhode 
Island has failed to submit a required SIP submission triggers an 
obligation under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no 
later than 2 years after issuance of the FFS. If the State makes the 
required SIP submittal and EPA takes final action to approve the 
submittal within 2 years of the effective date of the FFS, EPA is not 
required to promulgate a FIP.
    Based on the above rationale, we are finalizing the action as 
described above.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving most elements of Rhode Island's December 6, 2017, 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. EPA is disapproving Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submission 
for section 110(a)(2)(H), for which Federal regulations through a FIP 
are already in place. The disapproval with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(H) does not start a sanctions clock because the disapproval 
relates neither to a submission required under CAA title I part D nor 
to one required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 10(k)(5). 
No further action by EPA or the State is required with respect to this 
disapproval.
    We are finalizing the action as proposed, except that, for the 
reasons provided above, we are not finalizing our proposal to 
conditionally approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 
the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) for the annual 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA is withdrawing the proposed conditional 
approvals and will address those PSD-related requirements in a separate 
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United

[[Page 32320]]

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2022. 
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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 22, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070(e), amend the table by adding an entry for 
``Infrastructure SIP and Transport SIP for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           Rhode Island Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable            State
   Name of non regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/ EPA approved date       Explanations
           provision              nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure SIP and           Statewide...........       12/6/2017  May 31, 2022,      This submittal is
 Transport SIP for the 2012                                             [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                           Register           to the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements: 110(a)(2)
                                                                                           (A); (B); (C); (D) ;
                                                                                           (E); (F); (G); (J);
                                                                                           (K); (L); and (M),
                                                                                           except for certain
                                                                                           PSD-related
                                                                                           requirements in (C),
                                                                                           (D)(i)(II), and (J).
                                                                                           This submittal is
                                                                                           disapproved for (H).
                                                                                           This approval
                                                                                           includes the
                                                                                           Transport SIP for the
                                                                                           2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
                                                                                           which shows that
                                                                                           Rhode Island does not
                                                                                           significantly
                                                                                           contribute to PM2.5
                                                                                           nonattainment or
                                                                                           maintenance in any
                                                                                           other state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  52.2077, add paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2077   Identification of plan--conditional approvals and 
disapprovals.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP 
submitted on December 6, 2017, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element 
110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at Sec.  
52.2080.

[FR Doc. 2022-11456 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>