Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards
Posted Date: 2012-07-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43023-43032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17902]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (CT); EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0318 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 (ME); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and 
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 (MA); EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-
0324 (NH); A-1-FRL-9704-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs 
for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submittals from 
the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We 
are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of these 
submittals, as well as disapprove a few elements of Massachusetts' 
submittals. The submittals outline how each state's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the requirements of section 110(a) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and 
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of 
each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is commonly referred to as 
an infrastructure SIP. These actions are being taken under the Clean 
Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 or 
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our proposed action 
for Connecticut,\1\ EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322 for 
comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2009-
0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining to our proposed 
action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for New 
Hampshire by one of the following methods:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For each State, the first docket number refers to the docket 
for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal and the 
second docket number refers to the docket for the 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317; EPA-
R01-OAR-2011-0321; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0322; EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0459; EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323; EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460; or 
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of 
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Numbers: EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0317 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 for comments pertaining to our 
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 or EPA-R01-OAR-
2011-0322 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Maine, 
EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 or EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 for comments pertaining 
to our proposed action for Massachusetts, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 or 
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 for comments pertaining to our proposed action 
for New Hampshire. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is

[[Page 43024]]

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 in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittals and EPA's technical 
support documents are also available for public inspection during 
normal business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air 
Agency: the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and 
Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, 
Hartford, CT 06106-1630; the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department 
of Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta 
Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; Division of 
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter 
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; and Air Resources Division, 
Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, 
Concord, NH 03302-0095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email 
simcox.alison@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is 
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing action on infrastructure SIPs submitted by the 
States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. 
Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 EPA guidance \2\ for addressing the SIP 
infrastructure elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 
there are fourteen section 110(a)(2) components that must be included 
in the SIPs that the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire submitted for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
These fourteen section 110(a)(2) components are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, dated October 2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures.
    (D) Interstate transport.
    (E) Adequate resources.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system.
    (G) Emergency power.
    (H) Future SIP revisions.
    (I) Nonattainment area plan under Part D
    (J) Consultation with government officials, Public notification, 
Prevention of significant deterioriation (PSD), and Visibility 
protection.
    (K) Air quality modeling/Data.
    (L) Permitting fees.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
    EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as 
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and 
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), 
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and 
(M).
    EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New 
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly 
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national 
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any 
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection, 
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to 
interstate and international pollution abatement.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all 
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A) 
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are 
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states 
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD 
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals 
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's 
submittals for section110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 
as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), which 
relates to interstate and international pollution abatement. 
Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Massachusetts' 110(a) 
submissions do not meet these PSD requirements, the state is already 
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for PSD, and so EPA has 
no additional FIP obligations under section 110(c). Furthermore, the 
state will not be subject to mandatory sanctions as a result of this 
disapproval.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA published new NAAQS for particulate matter 
(PM) (62 FR 38652). This included a new annual and a new 24-hour NAAQS 
for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted PM2.5). The annual 
PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter 
([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard was set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    Thus, states were required to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs for 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 
However, intervening litigation over the 1997 PM2.5 (and 
1997 8-hour ozone) NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed, and 
many states did not provide the required ``infrastructure'' SIP 
submissions for these newly promulgated NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue 
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related 
to the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 (and 
8-hour ozone) NAAQS. With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice, which required EPA 
to complete a Federal Register notice

[[Page 43025]]

announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the 
Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
by October 5, 2008.
    On October 17, 2006, EPA published revised standards for PM (71 FR 
61144). For PM2.5, the annual standard of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ 
was retained, and the 24-hour standard was revised to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. 
For PM10, the annual standard was revoked, and the 24-hour 
standard (150 [micro]g/m\3\) was retained. As required by section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) (``infrastructure'') submittals were 
due within three years of promulgation of the revised 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard (i.e., by September 21, 2009).
    For the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA 
on September 4, 2008; September 10, 2008; April 4, 2008; and April 3, 
2008, respectively. On October 22, 2008, EPA published findings 
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the 
1997 PM2.5 standards (73 FR 62902). In the October 2008 
action, we found that Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire had made 
complete submissions. Massachusetts received a ``finding of failure to 
submit'' a SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) pertaining to 
the Part C PSD permit program. However, this requirement has already 
been addressed by a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that remains in 
place, and therefore, the finding-of-failure action did not trigger any 
additional FIP obligations.
    For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire submitted certification letters to EPA 
on September 18, 2009; July 27, 2009; September 21, 2009; and September 
18, 2009, respectively. On September 8, 2011, EPA published findings 
concerning whether states had made the 110(a)(2) submissions for the 
2006 PM2.5 standards (76 FR 55577). None of these four 
states received a finding for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to fully approve most elements of the 110(a) 
submittals from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. 
We are also proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of 
these submittals, as well as proposing disapproval of a few elements of 
Massachusetts' submittals. Elements for which we are proposing 
approval, conditional approval, and disapproval are listed in section I 
and IV of this notice.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered 
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the 
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA 
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
Federal Register.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?

    EPA has reviewed the submittals for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards listed above and has determined that most, 
but not all, of each state's SIPs meet the section 110(a)(2) 
infrastructure requirements of the CAA and are consistent with the 
relevant EPA guidance. Each state's submittals and EPA's evaluation of 
those submittals are detailed in the following technical support 
documents (TSDs). These TSDs (one per state) are available on-line at 
http://www.regulations.gov: Docket numbers EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0317 and 
EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0321 (Connecticut), EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0318 and EPA-R01-
OAR-2011-0322 (Maine), EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0459 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0323 
(Massachusetts), and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0460 and EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0324 
(New Hampshire).
    In their submittals, each state references items in their state 
laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that address the elements detailed 
in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically, Connecticut references 
the Connecticut Air Quality SIP, the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) 
and the Regulations of the Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA); Maine 
references the Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of Maine Regulations 
(CMR) and the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA); Massachusetts 
references the Massachusetts Air Quality SIP, the Massachusetts General 
Laws (MGL) and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR); and New 
Hampshire references the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, the New 
Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) as well as the New Hampshire 
Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and New Hampshire 
Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq.
    The discussion below summarizes how each state meets each relevant 
CAA infrastructure requirement. As noted above, Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire provided infrastructure submittals for 
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the 
demonstrations submitted by each State for how it is meeting many of 
the section 110(a)(2) elements are substantively identical for both of 
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the 
following evaluation of each element pertains to both standards. For 
more information, please refer to the TSDs referenced above.

A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission 
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for 
compliance and other related matters. The rules approved in the EPA-
approved SIPs for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire 
apply a substantial level of control on PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors.
    In January 2011, Connecticut revised Section 22a-174-3a. However, 
to be sure that references to NAAQS in Section 22a-174 incorporate by 
reference the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Connecticut 
submitted a letter to EPA, dated July 11, 2012, committing to provide a 
statement of legal authority or to take any necessary actions to meet 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year 
from conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2.5 
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to 
conditionally approve Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure 
element 110(a)(2)(A).
    Maine's Ambient Air Quality Standards in Chapter 110 currently do 
not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) has recently proposed 
revisions to Chapter 110 to address the more recent NAAQS. On June 30, 
2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit 
the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date that is no later 
than one year from conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5 
infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to conditionally 
approve Maine's 110(a) submissions for infrastructure element 
110(a)(2)(A).
    Regarding Massachusetts, the current SIP-approved 310 CMR 6.00 
(Ambient Air Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Massachusetts has submitted a letter to EPA on 
July 12, 2012, committing to take action to meet requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no later than one year from conditional 
approval of Massachusetts' PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. 
Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve Massachusetts' 
110(a) submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).
    For New Hampshire, the current SIP-approved Env-A 300 (Ambient Air 
Quality Standards) does not reflect the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. However,

[[Page 43026]]

in March 2012, New Hampshire proposed the necessary revisions to Env-A 
300, and has submitted a letter dated June 29, 2012, committing to 
adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date 
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of New 
Hampshire's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. We propose to 
conditionally approve New Hampshire's 110(a) submissions for 
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide 
for establishment and operation of ambient air-quality monitors, 
collecting and analyzing ambient air-quality data, and making these 
data available to EPA upon request. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts 
and New Hampshire have all established and currently operate ambient 
air-quality monitors and submit the data collected to EPA. All four 
states have submitted annual air monitoring network plans which have 
been approved by EPA. We conclude that all four states' infrastructure 
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(B).

C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to have a plan that includes a 
program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the 
regulation of modification and construction of any stationary source 
within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS 
are achieved, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment New 
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
    Recent PM2.5 PSD rules that require updates to state 
regulations and subsequent submittal to EPA for approval include 
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 
16, 2008) and ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 
Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). States were also 
required to update their regulations to meet PSD rules related to 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are the ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' 
(75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), as modified by the ``Limitation of 
Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans'' or ``Narrowing Rule'' (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010). The 
effect of EPA narrowing its approval in this manner is that the 
provisions of previously approved SIPs that apply PSD to increases in 
GHG emissions from sources that emit GHGs below the Tailoring Rule 
thresholds have the status of having been submitted by the state, but 
not yet acted upon by EPA.
    In this action, we are not evaluating nonattainment-related 
provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D in 
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section 
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS because these submittals are required beyond the 
date (3 years from NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure 
submittals are required.
    The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce 
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to 
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the 
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas 
emission (76 FR 26933). This PSD program takes advantage of the 
Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability.
    New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are 
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's 
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire 
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to 
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect 
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of 
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD 
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD 
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule.
    For Connecticut and New Hampshire, EPA is proposing to make a 
determination that the state 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS do not meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
which relate to the state's need to have a federally enforceable PSD 
program that meets requirements of the two major source 
PM2.5 PSD rules, ``Implementation of the New Source Review 
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), and ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels 
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, 
October 20, 2010). However, Connecticut and New Hampshire are making 
progress. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut submitted a letter to EPA 
committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to 
EPA by a date no later than one year from conditional approval of 
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. On June 28, 
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and 
submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date no later 
than one year from conditional approval of New Hampshire's 
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we propose to 
conditionally approve Connecticut's and New Hampshire's 110(a) 
submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) as it relates to 
the states' need to have a PSD program that meets all federal 
requirements. As discussed below, for these states, we are also 
proposing to conditionally approve related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).
    The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations) 
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing 
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under 
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February 
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and 
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. Maine has adopted revisions to 
its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but has not yet 
submitted these rules to EPA.
    For Maine, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the state 
110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS do not 
meet the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) which relate to the state's 
need to have a federally enforceable PSD program that meets 
requirements of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules listed 
above (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). In 
addition, Maine's current PSD regulations do not properly account for 
NOX as a precursor to ozone as required by the Phase 2 Ozone 
Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). However, ME DEP 
is in the process of adopting rules to meet its obligations for PSD 
under the

[[Page 43027]]

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, and, on June 13, 2012, Maine 
submitted a letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit regulation 
revisions to EPA to meet requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) by a date 
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of the state's 
PM2.5 110(a) submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to 
conditionally approve Maine's 110(a) submittals with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed 
below, we are also proposing to conditionally approve related elements 
(D)(i)(II) and (J).
    Massachusetts does not have an approved PSD SIP, and has long been 
subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Between 1982 and 2003, 
Massachusetts implemented that FIP through a delegation agreement. 
Massachusetts rescinded the delegation agreement in 2003. However, 
effective April 11, 2011, EPA Region 1 granted the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) full delegation 
authority to implement and enforce the Federal PSD program (76 FR 
31241). Because the state is subject to a PSD FIP, its infrastructure 
submissions are not approvable with respect to this element. However, 
the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions solely as a result of 
this type of infrastructure SIP disapproval, for the reason that the 
SIP deficiencies are neither with respect to a submittal that is 
required under part D nor in response to a SIP call under section 
110(k)(5) of the CAA. Moreover, the requirements for which the state is 
subject to the FIP are already satisfied by the FIP, and so EPA has no 
additional FIP obligations under section 110(c).
    For these reasons, we conclude that Massachusetts' infrastructure 
SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS meet the enforcement 
and minor NSR requirements, but not the PSD requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' 
110(a) submittals with respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Notwithstanding our conclusion that the 
Massachusetts' 110(a) submissions do not meet the PSD requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(C), the state is not subject to mandatory sanctions 
as a result of this disapproval. As discussed below, we are also 
proposing to disapprove related elements (D)(i)(II) and (J).

D. Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) is divided into two components, 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, EPA has subdivided 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) into four ``prongs,'' two under 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs 
under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong 1) contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national 
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by 
any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are (prong 3) interfere with measures required to 
be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state 
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or 
(prong 4) to protect visibility.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) addresses interstate and international 
pollution abatement, and requires SIPs to include provisions insuring 
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 
and international pollution abatement.
Connecticut
    In this action for Connecticut, we are only addressing prong 3 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with PSD) for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
    As discussed above under (C) (program for enforcement of control 
measures), Connecticut's PSD program does not yet meet requirements of 
the most recent federal PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 
64864, October 20, 2010), but Connecticut has committed to revising its 
PSD regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are 
proposing to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in 
Connecticut's 110(a) submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Connecticut's PSD regulations 
provide for notice to most of the parties consistent with the 
requirements in the EPA PSD program. There is, however, a flaw in 
Connecticut's SIP-approved PSD program regarding notice to other 
states. Compare CAA section 126 (a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv) 
(requiring notice to, among others, ``any State * * * or Indian 
Governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source 
or modification'') with RCSA 22a-174-2a(b)(6) (specifically excluding 
other states from the list of parties to receive copies of draft PSD 
permits). Although there is no specific mandate in Connecticut's 
regulations that affected states receive notice, Connecticut issues 
extensive notice of its draft permits, and neighboring states 
consistently get copied on those drafts. On January 12, 2012, 
Connecticut proposed revisions to their permit program notification 
requirements in 22a-174-2a(b)(5) and (6). On June 15, 2012, Connecticut 
sent a letter to EPA committing to submit the adopted provision to EPA 
by a date that is no later than one year from conditional approval of 
Connecticut's PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Also, the 
State also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of 
the Act. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve 
Connecticut's submissions for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Maine
    In this action for Maine, we are addressing all four prongs of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i). On June 30, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA 
certifying that it is not contributing significantly to nonattainment 
or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS in any other state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for 
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208, August 8, 
2011) that shows that Maine does not contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve Maine's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2 
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under 
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine's SIP-approved 
PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent federal 
PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS or the Phase 2 
Ozone Implementation Rule, but Maine has committed to revising its PSD 
regulations to meet current requirements. Therefore, we are proposing 
to conditionally approve prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in Maine's 110(a) 
submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding prong 4 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (interference with 
visibility protection), EPA proposes to approve Maine's 110(a) 
submissions. Specifically, Maine submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA 
on December 9, 2010, with supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011 
and November 9, 2011. On April 24, 2012, EPA approved Maine's Regional 
Haze SIP for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018 (77 FR 
24385).
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Maine's currently approved SIP, 
which EPA approved on February 14, 1996 (61 FR 5690), provides for 
notice to various parties consistent with the requirements in the EPA 
PSD program at 40 CFR 51.166(q)(iv). (Maine has since revised its 
notice regulation for PSD permits,

[[Page 43028]]

and since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are not 
presently reviewing the revised regulation.) In its 110(a) submissions, 
the state certified that it has no pending obligations under section 
115 or 126(b) of the CAA. As noted in the June 2011 addendum to their 
110(a) submittals, Maine notifies affected states regarding new source 
and modifications under its Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emission License 
Regulations. However, this regulation has not been approved into the 
Maine SIP. On June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a letter to EPA committing 
to adopt and submit the necessary regulation revisions to EPA by a date 
that is no later than one year from conditional approval of Maine's 
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions. Therefore, we are 
proposing to conditionally approve Maine's submissions for 
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Massachusetts
    In this action for Massachusetts, we are only addressing prong 3 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (i.e., interference with PSD). As discussed under (C) 
(program for enforcement of control measures), Massachusetts is 
currently subject to a PSD FIP. A state's infrastructure SIP submittal 
cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until 
EPA has issued final approval of that state's PSD SIP or, 
alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has 
otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other states' 
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. 
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' 110(a) 
submissions for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). However, this disapproval 
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which relates to interstate and 
international pollution abatement, as noted above, Massachusetts is 
subject to a PSD FIP. States relying on the federal PSD program 
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(q), which provide for notification of 
affected state and local air agencies, to satisfy this requirement have 
programs that are considered technically deficient and not approvable. 
Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove Massachusetts' submissions 
for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). However, this disapproval 
will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation.
New Hampshire
    In this action for New Hampshire, we are addressing prongs 1, 2 and 
3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 3, 
2012, New Hampshire submitted a letter to EPA certifying that it is not 
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with 
maintenance of the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 
state. EPA agrees and has conducted modeling for the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) and for the Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) that shows that New 
Hampshire does not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in any other state. Therefore, we are proposing to approve 
New Hampshire's submissions with respect to prongs 1 and 2 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    Regarding prong 3 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed under 
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New Hampshire's SIP-
approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of the most recent 
federal PSD rules for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS, but New 
Hampshire has committed to revising its PSD regulations to meet current 
requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve 
prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in New Hampshire's 110(a) submittals for the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), New Hampshire is required to 
give notice of draft PSD permits that meet the requirements in our 
regulations. In the currently approved SIP, former Env-A 205.03 
provides that New Hampshire specifically defers to 40 CFR Part 52 for 
the process by which PSD permits are issued. Forty CFR Part 52 
effectively incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR Part 124, which 
include affected state notice. (See 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) & 
(x).) (New Hampshire has since revised its notice regulation for PSD 
permits, Env-A 621.03-04, and it does not reference 40 CR Part 52. 
However, since the approved SIP's notice regulation is adequate, we are 
not presently reviewing the revised regulation.) The State also has no 
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore, 
we are proposing to approve New Hampshire's submissions for 
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

E. Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary 
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and 
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited 
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or 
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the 
requirements respecting state boards under section 128, and (iii) 
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or 
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation 
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring 
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    Congress added section 128 in the 1977 amendments as the result of 
a conference agreement. Titled ``State boards,'' section 128 provides 
in relevant part: (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7, 
1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements 
that:
    (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders 
under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members who 
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders 
under [this Act], and (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by 
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with 
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have SIP-
approved regulations that provide adequate authority for each of the 
states to carry out their SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Each of the four states receives sections 
103 and 105 grant funds through their Performance Partnership Grants 
along with required state-matching funds to provide funding necessary 
to carry out their SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes to find 
that Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have 
sufficient resources to meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    With regard to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Maine and New Hampshire 
have state boards, Maine Board of Environmental Protection and New 
Hampshire Air Resources Council, that approve permits or enforcement 
orders under the CAA. Therefore, both states are subject to the 
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1), as well as to the requirements of 
section 128(a)(2). However, although both states have conflict-of-
interest provisions in their general statutes, they have not been 
approved by EPA into either the Maine or New Hampshire SIP. These items 
were not addressed in Maine and New Hampshire's original 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. In a letter dated June 
29, 2012, New Hampshire submitted its statute addressing conflict of 
interest for SIP approval. EPA has not yet acted on this submittal. 
Also, in a letter dated June 13, 2012, Maine committed to submitting 
the statutory provisions pertaining to conflict of

[[Page 43029]]

interest to EPA within one year of our final action on its 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to 
conditionally approve the infrastructure submittals for both Maine and 
New Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Connecticut and Massachusetts do not have state boards that approve 
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Instead, permits and 
enforcement orders are approved by each state's Commissioner of 
Environmental Protection. Thus, Connecticut and Massachusetts are not 
subject to the requirements of subsection 128(a)(1). However, they are 
subject to the requirements of section 128(a)(2), but neither state 
demonstrated in their infrastructure submittals that they have met 
these requirements. Subsequently, on June 15, 2012, Connecticut 
submitted a letter to EPA committing to address this issue by a date no 
later than one year from conditional approval of Connecticut's 
PM2.5 Infrastructure submittals. Massachusetts submitted a 
similar commitment letter to EPA on July 12, 2012. Therefore, we are 
proposing to conditionally approve Connecticut's and Massachusetts' 
submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), none of the four states 
has assigned responsibility for carrying out portions of the SIP to any 
local government, agency, or other instrumentality. Therefore, the 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire 110(a) submittals 
meet the requirements for this element.

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System

    Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires states to establish a 
system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit 
periodic emission reports. The infrastructure submittals for 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference specific 
regulations that require sources to monitor emissions and submit 
reports to EPA. The specific rules are referenced in the TSD for each 
state.
    EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into 
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has 
determined that all four states' infrastructure submittals for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section 
110(a)(2)(F).

G. Emergency Power

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires states to provide for 
authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial 
endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement 
the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    For PM2.5, EPA's guidance dated September 25, 2009 \3\ 
provides clarification that states that have air quality control 
regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II by 
the ``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes'' rules at 40 CFR 
51.150 must develop emergency episode contingency plans. The guidance 
recommends that until EPA establishes significant harm levels (SHL) for 
PM2.5, states should establish their own SHL levels based on 
EPA's February 12, 2007 issue paper on setting priority and emergency 
action levels and also consider the recommended levels set forth in 
Attachment B of the September 25, 2009 guidance. States would be 
required to develop emergency episode plans for any area that has 
monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 
140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ since 2006. A state that has never exceeded this 
level since 2006 is considered to be Priority III in accordance with 
the guidance, may certify that it has appropriate general emergency 
powers to address PM2.5 -related episodes, and is not 
required to adopt specific emergency episode plans at this time, given 
the existing monitored levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated September 25, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air-quality monitors in all four states show that PM2.5 
levels for the past three years are below the 140.5 [micro]g/m\3\ 
threshold. Connecticut and Massachusetts certified in their 
infrastructure submittals that they expect to be classified as Priority 
III regions and, therefore, emergency episode plans for 
PM2.5 are not required. Maine and New Hampshire submitted 
letters to EPA, dated June 13, 2012, and July 3, 2012, respectively, 
certifying that they expect to be classified as Priority III regions. 
Therefore, all four states have met the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(G) for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.

H. Future SIP Revisions

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA requires states to have the 
authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, 
availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, or in response to 
an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
    Infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards 
certify that SIPs for each state may be revised should EPA find that a 
plan is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply with 
any additional requirements under the CAA. Therefore, Connecticut, 
Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have met the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(H).

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D

    Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA requires that each such plan shall 
``in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a 
nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D of this 
subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).'' EPA is not evaluating 
nonattainment-related provisions, such as the NSR program required by 
part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by 
section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because these 
submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS 
promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure submittals are required.

J. Consultation With Government Official, Public Notification, PSD, and 
Visibility Protection

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for 
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying 
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121 relating 
to consultation. Section 127 requires that the state notify the public 
of any NAAQS exceedences, advise the public of health hazards 
associated with such pollution, and include measures to enhance public 
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to meet applicable 
requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant 
deterioration and visibility protection. EPA interprets this section 
110 provision on visibility as not being ``triggered'' by a new NAAQS 
because the visibility requirements in part C are not changed by a new 
NAAQS.
Consultation With Government Officials
    EPA finds that the 110(a) submittals from Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials.
Public Notification
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire are all state 
partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality

[[Page 43030]]

Alert programs. (See www.airnow.gov.) We are proposing to approve the 
infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification.
PSD
    Regarding the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the 
infrastructure submittals meet the applicable requirements of part C of 
title I of the CAA, EPA evaluated this requirement in the context of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting (see discussion under 
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures)).
    The Connecticut PSD program is established in RCSA section 22a-174-
3a (k). This PSD program was approved into the SIP on May 10, 2011 (76 
FR 26933). Connecticut has authority to issue PSD permits and enforce 
them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA recently approved changes to 
Connecticut's PSD program on May 10, 2011, to reflect changes in the 
federal PSD program related to the permitting of greenhouse gas 
emission (76 FR 26933, May 10, 2011). This PSD program takes advantage 
of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD applicability. However, as 
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures), 
Connecticut's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements 
of the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 
16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). The State has, however, 
committed to address this issue. Therefore, we are proposing to 
conditionally approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of 
section 110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
    The Maine PSD program is established in CMR (Maine Regulations) 
Chapters 100, 113, 115 (licensing for minor sources) and 140 (licensing 
for major sources). Maine implements its PSD program requirements under 
CMR Chapter 115. This PSD program was approved into the SIP on February 
14, 1996 (61 FR 5690). Maine has authority to issue PSD permits and 
enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. However, as discussed under 
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures), Maine has adopted 
revisions to its PSD permitting program to address GHG emissions, but 
has not yet submitted these rules to EPA. In addition, Maine has not 
completed rulemaking to meet requirements of the two PM2.5 
PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010) 
discussed above, nor of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule. However, 
Maine is making progress and, on June 13, 2012, Maine submitted a 
letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit the necessary regulation 
revisions to EPA by a date that is no later than one year from 
conditional approval of Maine's PM2.5 infrastructure 
submissions. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve the 
state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) that 
relates to PSD.
    Massachusetts is currently subject to a PSD FIP, as discussed under 
(C) (program for enforcement of control measures). The approvability of 
a state's PSD program in its entirety is essential to the approvability 
of the infrastructure SIP with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Until 
the state provides such a program, the Massachusetts infrastructure SIP 
is not approvable with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J). Therefore, we 
propose to disapprove Massachusetts' infrastructure SIP with respect to 
the PSD sub-element of 110(a)(2)(J). However, as noted above, this 
disapproval does not impose any sanctions or new FIP obligations.
    New Hampshire's PSD provisions for air-quality permits are 
established in Env-A 619. The most recent version of the state's 
Statewide Permit System (Env-A 600) was approved into the New Hampshire 
SIP on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5700). New Hampshire has authority to 
issue PSD permits and enforce them under its approved PSD SIP. EPA 
recently approved changes to New Hampshire's PSD program that reflect 
changes in the federal PSD program related to the permitting of 
greenhouse gas emission (77 FR 5700, February 6, 2012). This PSD 
program takes advantage of the Tailoring Rule thresholds for PSD 
applicability by relying on the GHG PSD Narrowing Rule. However, as 
discussed under (C) (program for enforcement of control measures), New 
Hampshire's EPA-approved PSD program does not yet meet requirements of 
the two major source PM2.5 PSD rules (73 FR 28321, May 16, 
2008 and 75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010), or implement the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS itself. The State has, however, committed to 
address these issues. Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally 
approve the state's 110(a) submittals for the portion of section 
110(a)(2)(J) that relates to PSD.
Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the 
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we 
find that there is no new visibility obligation triggered under section 
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 
performing air-quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality 
of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to 
EPA upon request. The infrastructure submittals for Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire reference regulations that have 
provisions for performing air-quality modeling, including modeling for 
attainment plans, permits, and redesignation requests. The specific 
rules are referenced in the TSD for each state.
    EPA has reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into 
the Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire SIPs and has 
determined that all four states infrastructure submittals for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section 
110(a)(2)(K).

L. Permitting Fees

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA requires SIPs to require each major 
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of 
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such 
time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the 
State's Title V operating permit program.
    EPA's full approval of Title V programs for Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire became effective on May 31, 2002 (CT), 
December 17, 2001 (ME), November 27, 2001 (MA), and November 23, 2001 
(NH). Before EPA can grant full approval, a state must demonstrate the 
ability to collect adequate fees. Each of the four states' title V 
programs included a demonstration that the state will collect a fee 
from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 
40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). The states collect sufficient fees to administer 
their title V permit programs. Therefore, Connecticut, Maine, 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire all meet the requirements for section 
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.

M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA requires states to provide for 
consultation and participation in SIP

[[Page 43031]]

development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    EPA reviewed the laws and regulations that been approved into the 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire SIPs, and proposes 
to find that all four states' 110(a) submittals for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards meet the requirements for section 
110(a)(2)(M).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the submittals from all four states as 
fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standards for the following 110(a)(2) elements and 
sub-elements: (B), (C) (enforcement program), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), 
(G), (H), (J) (consultation), (J) (public notification), (K), (L), and 
(M).
    EPA also is proposing to approve the submittals from Maine and New 
Hampshire as fully meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 
and 2006 PM2.5 standards for the two prongs of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These two prongs are (1) contribute significantly 
to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national 
primary or secondary NAAQS, and (2) interfere with maintenance by any 
other state with respect to the same NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to approve the submittals from Maine for the prong of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to interference with visibility protection, 
and the submittals from New Hampshire for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to 
interstate and international pollution abatement.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from all 
four states for the following 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A) 
and E(ii) (state boards and conflict of interest provisions). We are 
proposing to conditionally approve the submittals from three states 
(Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire) for section 110(a)(2) sub-
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to the states' PSD 
programs. We are also proposing to conditionally approve the submittals 
from Connecticut and Maine for 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    For Massachusetts, EPA is proposing to disapprove the state's 
submittals for section 110(a)(2) sub-elements (C), prong 3 of (D)(i), 
and (J) as they relate to the state's PSD program, as well as (D)(ii), 
which relates to interstate and international pollution abatement. 
However, this disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional 
FIP obligation.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments 
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the 
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a 
plan based on a commitment from a State to adopt specific enforceable 
measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date 
of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final 
rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to complete 
requirements of each section 110(a)(2) element listed above. If 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts or New Hampshire fails to do so for 
any section 110(a)(2) element, our conditional approval of that element 
will, by operation of law, become a disapproval for the applicable 
State or States one year from the date of final approval. EPA will 
notify the State or States by letter that this action has occurred. At 
that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved SIP 
for the applicable State or States. EPA subsequently will publish a 
document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire meet their 
commitments within the applicable time frame, the conditionally 
approved submission will remain a part of the SIP or SIPs until EPA 
takes final action approving or disapproving the element in question. 
If EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally approved 
section 110(a)(2) element will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA 
approves the submittal, the section 110(a)(2) element will be fully 
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved 
110(a)(2) element in the SIP. Finally, if, based on information 
received before EPA takes final action on this proposal, EPA determines 
that it cannot issue a final conditional approval for one or more 
elements for which EPA has proposed a conditional approval, then EPA 
will instead issue a disapproval for such elements.

V. 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 proposed action merely approves State law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,

[[Page 43032]]

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-17902 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P