[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8326-8329]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3280]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036; FRL-9266-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: ``Interference With
Visibility'' Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado interstate
transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted on March
31, 2010, addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, in this Federal Register action EPA proposes full
approval of those portions of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission
that address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a
State's emissions from interfering with any other State's required
measures to protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1036, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-1036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background Information
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA?
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background Information

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8[dash]hour ozone
and for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is
being taken in response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does not address the
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5, or the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in later actions.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a State's SIP must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in any other State; (2) interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS by any other State; (3) interfere with any other State's required
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; or (4)
interfere with any other State's required measures to protect
visibility.
    On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA an
Interstate Transport SIP addressing all four elements of the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns
regarding the June 11, 2008 submission, the State later submitted two
superceding interstate transport SIP revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009
submission addressing the requirements of elements (1) and (2) of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (b) a March 31,
2010 submission addressing the requirements of elements (3) and (4) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1) through (4) for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted earlier, in this rulemaking EPA
is evaluating only the Colorado SIP revisions of the March 31, 2010
submission that address the requirements of element (4), prohibiting
sources in Colorado from emitting pollutants from interfering with any
other state's measures to protect visibility, for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has already taken final action on elements
(1) and (2) for ozone (see 75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, respectively).
EPA will be taking action on elements (1)-(3) for PM2.5 and
element (3) for ozone in a separate action.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of the sections of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 that address the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with visibility protection''
requirement for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January
13, 2010, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
interstate transport SIP revisions addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted these revisions to EPA on
March 31, 2010. In this Federal Register action EPA is proposing to
approve the sections of the March 31, 2010 submissions that address
element (4), ``interference with visibility protection,'' of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).

IV. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses EPA's rulemaking action on SIP
submissions by States. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to EPA.
    The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing in December 2009 for the
interstate transport SIP revision: ``State

of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of the Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) and (II)--Regarding Interstate
Transport for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The
AQCC adopted this revision on January 13, 2010, and the State submitted
it to EPA on March 31, 2010.
    EPA has reviewed the submittal from the State of Colorado and has
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

V. EPA's Review and Technical Information

    The interstate transport provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
also referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions, require that each
SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that adversely
affect any other State's air quality through interstate transport of
air pollutants. As discussed in the Background Information section of
this notice, a SIP must contain provisions that satisfy the four
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action only addresses element
(4), or the ``interference with visibility protection'' requirement,
for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued guidance (2006 Guidance) \1\ outlining the Agency's phased
approach to visibility protection: The 1980 requirements of the
Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) program, that
addressed visibility impairment caused by one or a small number of
sources, and the 1999 Regional Haze requirements addressing visibility
impairment due to emission of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographical area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions
to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2006 Guidance further explains that since EPA had not
determined at that point in time that emissions from any States
interfered with any other States' measures addressing RAVI, States
could satisfy this portion of the ``interference with visibility
protection'' requirement by certifying that none of their sources
emitted pollutants interfering with other States' implementation plan
measures to protect visibility under the 1980 regulations.\2\ The
Colorado Interstate Transport submission of March 31, 2010 outlines the
periodic update of the State RAVI SIP and verifies that ``no State or
Federal Land Manager has identified Class I area impairment attributed
to a Colorado source or identified a Colorado source that interferes
with efforts to improve visibility.'' \3\ Consistent with EPA's 2006
Guidance, the Colorado SIP verifies that there are no sources in the
State that emit pollutants interfering with any other State's measures
to protect visibility through their RAVI SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Colorado March 31, 2010 SIP submission, at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 1999 Regional Haze provisions (see 64 FR 35714)
addressing visibility impairment due to emission of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographical area, the 2006
Guidance indicated that States could satisfy the interference with
visibility protection requirement through their EPA-approved Regional
Haze (RH) SIPs. The 2006 Guidance did not prohibit States from
satisfying element (4) by something other than an EPA-approved RH SIP.
The State submitted a partial RH SIP to EPA on June 11, 2008, and
revisions to the 2008 submittal on June 18, 2009. In the fall of 2010,
the State revised its entire RH SIP and will be submitting this SIP to
EPA in 2011. Thus, at the time the State submitted the March 13, 2010
Interstate Transport SIP, EPA had not approved a RH SIP for Colorado.
    The State of Colorado has elected to satisfy the element (4)
requirement of the good neighbor provisions by providing a
demonstration in its March 13, 2010 Interstate Transport SIP submittal
that it does not interfere with other State's measures to protect
visibility through their RH SIP. The State provides an analysis in its
SIP that begins with an inventory of current control measures (some
approved only at the State level, some that are Federally enforceable,
and some that are Federal programs) that reduce visibility impairing
pollutants. Some examples of measures the State has relied on in making
its demonstration that are Federally enforceable or are Federal
programs include: (1) Regulation Number 1--Emission Controls for
Particulates, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides; (2) parts of
Regulation Number 3--Stationary Source Permitting and Air pollutant
Emission Notice Requirements; and (3) Federal mobile source tailpipe
exhaust programs. The State also included some reductions attributable
to its RH SIP, which have not been approved by EPA.
    The State used emission inventory information and modeling provided
by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to quantify the
visibility impacts from Colorado sources on Class I areas outside of
the State. Under the RH Rule, States must establish reasonable progress
goals which provide for an improvement in visibility for the most
impaired, or worst days, and no degradation on the best days (see 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)). The State analyzed its projected 2018 impacts on the
worst days on surrounding Class I areas in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The modeling the
State used for this analysis includes emission reductions for RH that
are not Federally enforceable. For nitrates, the most impacted areas
were Canyonlands National Park in Utah and Bandelier National Monument
in New Mexico. Colorado's modeled contribution to nitrate extinction
was 6.9% and 5.1%, respectively. Total nitrates from all source regions
are projected to comprise 9.5% of the extinction in Canyonlands and
6.6% of the extinction in Bandelier. Thus, Colorado's nitrate
contribution to the overall extinction in 2018 is 0.3% at Bandelier
(0.051 x 0.066) and 0.7% (0.069 x 0.095) at Canyonlands. For sulfates,
the most impacted areas were also Canyonlands National Park and
Bandelier National Monument. Colorado's modeled contribution to sulfate
extinction was 2.3% and 1.2%, respectively. Total sulfates from all
source regions are projected to comprise 15.5% of the extinction in
Canyonlands and 14.8% of the extinction in Bandelier. Thus, Colorado's
sulfate contribution to the overall extinction in 2018 is 0.3% (0.012 x
0.148) at Bandelier and 0.2% (0.023 x 0.155) at Canyonlands. Colorado's
total impact from nitrates and sulfates combined at Bandelier and at
Canyonlands is 0.5% and 1.0% of the overall extinction, respectively.
EPA performed additional analysis (discussed below) to assess impacts
to reasonable progress goals in Class I areas outside of the State.
    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), the measures relied on by Colorado
to make a demonstration that it does not interfere with other States'
measures to protect visibility in their RH SIP have to be approved by
EPA as part of a SIP and made Federally enforceable. As mentioned
above, the State's demonstration relies on potential RH SIP emission
reductions that have not been approved by EPA. EPA conducted a weight
of evidence analysis on Canyonlands National Park, the most impacted
Class I area to determine Colorado's impact if non-Federally
enforceable measures were not included in the demonstration. EPA's
weight of evidence analysis includes a recalculation of the reasonable
progress goal to reflect the addition of non-

Federally enforceable measures, review of current and future year
emission inventories, and an evaluation of the weighted emission
potential (WEP) for sulfates and nitrates. The weighted emission
potential information was obtained from technical work performed by the
WRAP.\4\ (The complete weight of evidence analysis is included in the
docket for this notice.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The WRAP technical work, including modeling, was used by all
western States as the basis for evaluating impacts on Class I areas
and the need for controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recalculated the reasonable progress goal to determine
approximate changes to visibility impacts at Canyonlands due to
emission increases. To account for measures that are not Federally
enforceable, EPA increased the Colorado emission inventory 45,700 tons
for sulfates and 5,200 tons for nitrates from the emission inventory
used for Colorado in the WRAP 2018 reasonable progress modeling. To
calculate the approximate visibility impact from this change, the
following procedure was followed: (1) Recalculate the baseline haze
index (2000-2004) using daily 20% worst case monitored species
extinction from WRAP data; (2) recalculate 2018 predicted reasonable
progress goal haze index by applying Class I area specific annual
relative response factors (RRFs) provided by WRAP to the daily 20%
worst case monitored for each pollutant; (3) assume that Colorado's
relative contribution of nitrates and sulfates identified by WRAP
tracer modeling for the 2018 base case is the same for the 2018
reasonable progress case; (4) rescale sulfate extinction and nitrate
extinction in step 2 to account for Colorado emissions that are not
Federally enforceable; and (5) recalculate the reasonable progress
goals that would be expected. This method of approximating the change
in the haze index, given in deciviews (dv),\5\ shows that the 2018
predicted reasonable progress goal would only increase from 10.77 dv to
10.80 dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A deciview is a measure of visibility impairment that
directly relates to human perception. A higher deciview number
indicates more perceptible visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed WEP information developed by the WRAP. The WEP
analysis was developed as a screening tool for States to decide which
source regions have the potential to contribute to haze formation in
Class I areas, based on annual emissions inventories, baseline period
back trajectories, and source to Class I area distances. The WEP
analyses also show that Colorado has a minimal impact on visibility at
Canyonlands.
    The RH Rule also requires States ensure no degradation of
visibility on the best days. The WRAP modeling projects that visibility
on the best days will not degrade in 2018 at any of the surrounding
Class I areas. For example, modeling indicates that the visibility at
Canyonlands on the best days is expected to improve from 3.8 dv to 3.5
dv. Accordingly, EPA finds that Colorado does not interfere with
another States' ability to ensure no degradation of visibility on the
best days.
    Based on the information presented above, EPA concludes that
Colorado does not interfere with Utah's measures to protect visibility
at Canyonlands National Park. Since Colorado impacts Canyonlands more
than any other out of State Class I area, Colorado's impacts on other
Class I areas, including Bandelier, would be even less. EPA thus has
determined that Colorado does not interfere with other States' measures
to protect visibility in their RH SIP.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing partial approval of the March 31, 2010 Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP revisions submission. Specifically, in this
action EPA is proposing to approve subsections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3,
addressing the ``interference with protection of visibility''
requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and subsections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3,
addressing the ``interference with protection of visibility''
requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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:
     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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: February 3, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-3280 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	SIP Completeness Checklist

State:  New Jersey

Date of Letter:  May 14, 2009 (as supplemented on July 13, 2009)

Date Received:   May 26, 2009

Title:  NOx RACT Source-Specific SIP revision for the

Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE)

Reviewer's Name-:  Anthony (Ted) Gardella/Raymond Forde

Review Date: July 22, 2009/Updated May 12, 2011

Result of Review: Complete

Submission ID Number:  __________________

OAQPS Number:  __________________________

Determination of Completeness Checklist

The following checklist is to be used to determine if a formal SIP
revision submittal is complete, or if a State's request for parallel
processing is adequate to initiate the federal rulemaking process.  The
entire checklist should be used to determine whether a formal SIP
revision submittal is complete, including a formal submittal of a
revision for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was published via
parallel processing on a proposed/draft version of the revision.  An
asterisk * indicates the portions of the checklist that are to be used
to determine if a State's request for parallel processing is adequate to
initiate federal rulemaking.

The checklist serves as a guide to State/local agencies in preparing
reviewable SIP packages, and for the EPA reviewers in determining
whether to initiate the federal rulemaking process or return the
submittal to the State/local agency.  Common sense judgment must be used
in assessing the completeness of a package.  In doing so the reviewer
must keep in mind the objectives of the completeness policy: (1) prompt
return of SIP submittals that are inherently inadequate for review; (2)
objective and consistent application of objective, understandable
screening criteria; (3) reduction of the overall time and resources
expended by both State/local agencies and EPA in the preparation and
review of SIP submittals.

	Administrative Materials

1) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or designee requesting
EPA approval of the revision.

5/14/09 letter from Mark N. Mauriello, Acting Commissioner NJDEP to
George Pavlou, Acting RA, EPA Region 2

	* A formal letter from the Governor or designee requesting that EPA
propose approval of a proposed revision by parallel processing.

2) Evidence that the State has adopted the revision in the State code or
body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement
(hereafter document) in final form.  That evidence should include the
date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the
revision if different from the adoption/issuance date.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE (Enclosure 2),
supplemental information on May 21, 2009 w/attached Conditions of
Approval Document with NOx limits and other compliance requirements.

	* Schedule for final adoption or issuance should be included in a
State's request for parallel processing.

3) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State
law to adopt and implement the revision.

	* Same evidence should accompany a request for parallel processing of a
Proposed State revision.

N.J.A.C. 7:27-19

4) A copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval
and incorporation by reference into the SIP, including indication of the
changes made to the existing approved SIP, where applicable.  The
submittal should be a copy of the official state regulation/document
signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that
it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the
regulation/document should, whenever possible, be indicated in the
document itself.

	* A copy of the proposed/draft regulation or document must be included
in a State's request for parallel processing.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.

5) Evidence that the State followed all of the requirements of its
Administrative Procedures Act (or equivalent) in conducting and
completing the adoption/issuance of the revision.

NJDEP provided for public notice and hence opportunity for public
hearing (Enclosure 5).

6) Evidence that Public Notice was given of the proposed change
consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of
publication of such notice.

Affidavit of Public Notice in NJ newspapers. Published on January 16,
2009 in The Star ledger Newspaper with 30 day comment period (Enclosure
6).

7) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the
information provided in the public notice and the State's Administrative
Procedures Act (or equivalent). If applicable.

There were no requests for a public hearing before, during, or after the
public hearing.  Therefore, no public hearing was conducted.

8) Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

NJDEP responded to public comments - see Enclosure 2 and 7/13/09 letter
from NJDEP with revised response to comments document.

NOTE: Items 5 - 8 are not required for a request to parallel process a
proposed/draft revision.

	Technical Support

* Requests for parallel processing should include all of the Technical
Support required for formal submittals as follows:

1) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the revision.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.

2) Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA
attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of
the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

Public Notice (Enclosure 6) and NJDEP’s SIP Completeness Checklist
(Enclosure 1)

3) Quantification of the changes in SIP allowable emissions from the
affected sources.  Estimates of changes in current actual emissions from
affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in
actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the
differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions
anticipated post revision.

NJDEP’s SIP Completeness Checklist (Enclosure 1)

4) Demonstration that the NAAQS/PSD increments/RFP
demonstration/visibility are protected if revision is approved and
implemented.

Not Applicable

5) Modeling information required to support the proposed revision,
including input data, output data, models used, justification of model
selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,
justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models
used, assumptions, etc.

Not Applicable

6) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on
continuous emission reduction technology, e.g., add-on controls,
industrial/process equipment designs, reformulated materials, etc.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.

7) Evidence that a revision contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.

8) Compliance/enforcement strategies including how compliance will be
determined in practice, and at what frequency.

5/12/09 letter from NJDEP’s Permit Bureau Chief to NWSE w/attached
Conditions of Approval Document (Enclosure 2) and supplemental
information on May 21, 2009.

9) As appropriate, special economic and technological justifications per
applicable EPA policies.  For example, economic and technological
justification for alternative RACT, for long-term averaging of VOC
emission limits, or to support bubble proposals.

See
桴潦汬睯湩㩧䄠灰楬慣楴湯倠捡慫敧⠠湅汣獯牵⤷
※䩎䕄鉐⁳䥓⁐潃灭敬整敮獳䌠敨正楬瑳⠠湅汣獯牵
⤱ⴠ椠整猣㘠愠摮㤠ܠഇ̍഍ഄ̍഍ഄ഍഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍഍


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15451]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1884-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of California (FEMA-1884-DR), dated March 8,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 8, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of California resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, and
debris and mud flows during the period of January 17 to February 6,
2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of California.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct
Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael H. Smith, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of California have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Calaveras, Imperial, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Siskiyou Counties for Public Assistance. Direct Federal assistance
is authorized.
    All counties within the State of California are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-6954 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P