[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 19925-19927]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0286; FRL-8302-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; EPA's In-Use Vehicle Testing Programs; EPA ICR No.
0222.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0086

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0286, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0286, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, Docket1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0286. 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 information about EPA's
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 734-
214-4869; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0286, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of

information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
owners of motor vehicles.
    Title: EPA's In-Use Vehicle and Engine Testing Programs.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0222.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0086.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September
30, 2007. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA has ongoing programs to evaluate the emission
performance of in-use light-duty (passenger car and light truck) motor
vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and nonroad vehicles and engines. These
are referred to collectively as EPA's in-use vehicle testing programs.
They operate in conjunction with testing of prototype vehicles prior to
use (manufacturer and EPA confirmatory testing for certification) and
the mandatory manufacturer's in-use testing program (IUVP) for light-
duty vehicles. They derive from the Clean Air Act's charge that EPA
insure that motor vehicles comply with emissions requirements
throughout their useful lives. The primary purpose of the program is
information gathering. Nevertheless, EPA can require a recall if it
receives information, from whatever source, including in-use testing,
that a ``substantial number'' of any class or category of vehicles or
engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the
emission standards, when in actual use throughout their useful life.
    The program has two components: Light-duty, and heavy-duty and
nonroad. The light-duty component can be broken down into three
closely-related headings. The first is a surveillance program that
selects approximately 50 classes of passenger cars and light trucks for
in-use testing, at EPA's testing facility, of approximately 150
vehicles (three in each class on average). In rare cases surveillance
testing may be followed by compliance testing (only one such class in
the last five years).The purpose of a compliance phase is to develop
additional information related to test failures observed in a class
during surveillance testing. The second heading is testing of a subset
of approximately 35 vehicles from the surveillance recruitment for
operation of on-board diagnostics (OBD) systems. The third category is
special investigations involving testing of vehicles to address
specific issues. The number of vehicles procured under this category
varies widely from year to year, but this request asks for approval of
the information burden corresponding to 25 such vehicles per year for
the next three years.
    Participation in the light-duty surveys, as well as the vehicle
testing, is strictly voluntary. A group of 25 to 50 potential
participants is identified from state vehicle registration records.
They are asked to return a postcard indicating their willingness to
participate and if so,

to verify some limited vehicle information. Three of those who return
the card are called and asked about a half dozen questions concerning
vehicle condition, and operation and maintenance. Additional groups of
potential participants may be contacted until a sufficient number of
vehicles has been obtained. Owners verify the survey information when
they deliver their vehicles to EPA, voluntarily provide maintenance
records for copying, and receive a loaner car or a cash incentive.
    Procurement and testing are different for the heavy-duty and
nonroad in-use testing program. All testing is done by installing
``Rover'' portable emissions monitoring devices on the vehicle or
engine during a period of operation. Heavy-duty trucks, those commonly
referred to as over \3/4\ ton capacity, are usually employed
commercially; typically they are part of a fleet of identical (or very
similar) vehicles. Consequently, EPA employs a slightly different
method to obtain them. Potential owners/lessees can be found in
registrations lists; engine manufacturers will also supply identities
of their customers. In addition, EPA has a network of entities who have
shown a willingness to participate over the years. Once a potential
source is identified, EPA will make a brief telephone call to the fleet
manager to ascertain if they wish to participate. If the response is
positive, EPA's contractors will frequently visit the fleet to install
the testing instruments at the company's service facility or government
garage. Otherwise, the lessee will be within driving distance of the
testing grounds and the devices will be installed there. The procedure
for nonroad vehicles and engines (e.g., farm tractors, compressors) is
similar; in some cases the vehicle or engine may be rented for the day.
Therefore, EPA makes far fewer inquires than with individual owners of
light vehicles in the process of procuring an estimated 126 vehicles
and engines a year for this program. As with the light-duty component,
all participation is strictly voluntary.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.15
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR Supporting Statement provides a detailed explanation of the
Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: Approximately
4,411 owners/lessees receive EPA's solicitations to participate and
approximately 336 do participate.
    Frequency of response: On Occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
One.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 658.
    Estimated total annual costs: $49,320. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $49,320 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There is an increase of 58 hours in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates based
upon historical information on the scope of EPA's in-use testing
programs and the number of vehicles and engines tested. Note: This ICR
was previously titled, ``Investigation into Possible Noncompliance of
Motor Vehicles''.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
 [FR Doc. E7-7542 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11933-11944]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05318]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0065; FRL-9975-43--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permit Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Connecticut regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 fine particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and a SIP submission addressing
interstate transport requirements of the CAA for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, we are proposing to approve one
statute included in the SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. The EPA is also
proposing to approve revisions to the SIP submitted by Connecticut on
October 18, 2017, satisfying Connecticut's earlier commitment to adopt
and submit provisions that meet certain requirements of the federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. In
addition, we are proposing to convert the June 3, 2016 conditional
approval for elements of Connecticut's infrastructure SIP regarding PSD
requirements to treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor
to ozone and to establish a minor source baseline date for
PM2.5 emissions. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0065 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--
3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
    A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does this rulemaking
address?
    B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
III. EPA's Review
    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System
    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Visibility Protection
    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
    N. Connecticut Statute Submitted for Incorporation Into the SIP
IV Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

A. What Connecticut SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses three submissions from the Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). The state
submitted a SIP addressing the

``Good Neighbor'' (or ``transport'') provisions for the 2006
PM2.5 \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
(Section 110(a)(2)(D)(I) of the CAA) on August 19, 2011, and an
infrastructure SIP (including the transport provisions) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 14, 2015. Under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs
to ensure that state SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on October 18, 2017, CT DEEP submitted a SIP revision
that addresses applicable requirements for the PSD permit program in
Part C of the CAA that are codified in 40 CFR 51.166. PSD permitting
requirements apply to new major sources or major modifications for
pollutants where the area in which the source is located is either in
attainment with or unclassifiable with regard to the relevant NAAQS. CT
DEEP had committed by letter dated August 5, 2015, to submit these
revisions to the PSD permit program for EPA approval.

B. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting on three SIP submissions from Connecticut that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and revisions to
the PSD permit program.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these
sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.'' This requirement is triggered
by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned
upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the
specific elements that ``each such plan'' must address.
    EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas
separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's
approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May
13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45.

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure
SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2,
2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007
guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda,
including a September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).
    With respect to the Good Neighbor provision, the most recent
relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016,
entitled ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor'
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)''
(2016 memorandum).\2\ The 2016 memorandum describes EPA's past approach
to addressing interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review
of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides
information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section
110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``Good Neighbor'' provision requirements in
infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that
memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This memorandum is available in the docket and at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Review

    In this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing action on
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submissions and revisions to the PSD
permit program. In Connecticut's submissions, a detailed list of
Connecticut Laws and previously SIP-approved Air Quality Regulations
show precisely how the various components of its EPA-approved SIP meet
each of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2006
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The following review evaluates the
state's submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and
relevant EPA guidance. For Connecticut's August 19, 2011 submission
addressing the transport provisions with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we reviewed infrastructure elements in Section
110(a)(2)(D)(I).\3\ For the state's December 14, 2015 submission
addressing the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we reviewed all Section
110(a)(2) elements, including the transport provisions, but excluding
the three areas discussed above under the scope of this rulemaking. The
revisions to the PSD permit program were evaluated for consistency with
the regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and Part C of the CAA and are required
to be included in the SIP by Section 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA previously took action on the other elements of
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63228) and on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35636).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section (also referred to in this action as an element) of the
Act requires

SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures,
means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related
matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control
measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment
planning requirements are due.\4\ In the context of an infrastructure
SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this
purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has
basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Connecticut Public Act No. 11-80 established the CT DEEP, and
Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 22a-6(a)(1) provides the
Commissioner of CT DEEP authority to adopt, amend or repeal
environmental standards, criteria and regulations. It is under this
general grant of authority that the Commissioner has adopted emissions
standards and control measures for a variety of sources and pollutants.
Connecticut also has SIP-approved provisions for specific pollutants.
For example, CT DEEP has adopted primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for PM2.5 in Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-24(f).
    As noted in EPA's approval of RCSA Sec.  22a-174-24, Ambient Air
Quality Standards, on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36242), Connecticut's
standards are consistent with the current federal NAAQS. Under element
A of its December 14, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, Connecticut DEEP highlighted several rules that
the state has previously adopted, and that EPA has previously approved,
to limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Some of these are:
RCSA Sec.  22a-174-18, Control of particulate matter and visible
emissions (July 16, 2014; 79 FR 41427); RCSA Sec.  22a-174-19a, Control
of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and other large
stationary sources (July 10, 2014; 79 FR 39322); and RCSA Sec.  22a-
174-22, Control of nitrogen oxides emissions (October 6, 1997; 62 FR
52016 and July 10, 2014; 79 FR 39322).
    In its infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, Connecticut submitted revisions to CGS Sec.  16a-21a (Sulfur
content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of
requirements for emergency). This statute was previously approved into
the SIP (June 3, 2016; 81 FR 35636) and limited the sulfur content of
fuels sold or used in Connecticut to 0.3 percentage by weight for
number two heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. The sulfur content of
number two heating oil was further limited to 500 ppm from July 1, 2011
through June 30, 2014, and to 15 ppm beginning July 1, 2014. The EPA-
approved statute included a provision that these sulfur limits would
not take effect until the states of New York, Massachusetts and Rhode
Island each had adopted similar requirements. In addition, the statute
allows Connecticut to suspend these requirements if availability of the
compliant fuel is inadequate to meet the needs of residential,
commercial or industrial users in the state and if Connecticut deems
that this constitutes an emergency.
    Connecticut's revision of this statute removes the provision
concerning the three other states, and moves the dates for the 500-ppm
requirement to July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, and for the 15-ppm
requirement, to July 1, 2018. The revision also includes a provision
stating that CT DEEP can use RCSA section 22a-174-19b, fuel sulfur
content limitations for stationary sources, to enforce provisions of
the statute. EPA has determined that the revision to CGS Sec.  16a-21a
is as stringent as the EPA-approved version and, therefore, proposes to
approve this revision into the Connecticut SIP.
    EPA proposes that Connecticut meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to
SSM or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring
network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these
annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state:
(i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state
using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent
Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in
a timely manner; and (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior
notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network
plan.
    CT DEEP continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved
the state's 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for
PM2.5 on September 12, 2016.\5\ Furthermore, CT DEEP
populates EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) with air quality monitoring
data in a timely manner, and provides EPA with prior notification when
considering a change to its monitoring network or plan. Under element B
of its December 14, 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, Connecticut DEEP referenced EPA's prior
approvals of Connecticut's annual network monitoring plans, as well as
CGS Sec.  22a-174(d), which provides the Commissioner with ``all
incidental powers necessary to carry out the purposes of''
Connecticut's air pollution control laws. EPA proposes that CT DEEP has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's approval letter is included in the docket for today's
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the
following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major
sources and major modifications; and (iii) a permit program for minor
sources and minor modifications.
Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures
    CT DEEP staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to
CGS Title 22a. Specifically, CGS Sec. Sec.  22a-6 and 22a-6b authorize
the Commissioner of CT DEEP to inspect and investigate to ascertain
whether violations of any statute, regulation, or permit may have
occurred and to impose civil penalties. Additionally, CGS Sec.  22a-171
requires the Commissioner to ``adopt, amend, repeal, and enforce
regulations . . . and do any other act necessary to enforce the

provisions of'' CGS Sec. Sec.  22a-170 through 22a-206, which provide
CT DEEP with the authority to, among other things, enforce its
regulations, issue orders to correct violations of regulations or
permits, impose state administrative penalties, and seek judicial
relief. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the enforcement of SIP
measures requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major Sources and Major Modifications
    PSD applies to new major sources or modifications made to major
sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is
in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS.
CT DEEP's EPA-approved PSD rules in RCSA sections 22a-174-1, 22a-174-
2a, and 22a-174-3a contain provisions that address applicable
requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). Among other
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD
programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone.
See 70 FR 71679 at 71699-700. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166, and requires that states submit SIP revisions incorporating the
requirements of the rule, including provisions that would treat
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions. These SIP revisions
were to have been submitted to EPA by states by June 15, 2007. See 70
FR 71683.
    Connecticut's EPA-approved PSD rules do not currently contain the
provisions needed to ensure that NOX be treated as a
precursor to ozone. However, CT DEEP has made the necessary revisions
to its regulation and, on October 18, 2017, submitted regulations for
the EPA's approval of its PSD rules to treat NOx as precursor pollutant
to ozone.
    Accordingly, as we discuss further on in our discussion of this
sub-element, we are proposing to approve the revisions to CT DEEP's PSD
permit program at RCSA Section 22a-174-3a(k)(1)(C), and to convert our
June 3, 2016, conditional approval of this PSD infrastructure sub-
element relating to treating NOX emissions as precursor
emissions to ozone formation to a full approval. See 81 FR 35636.
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued a final rule (75 FR 64864) entitled
``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)''
(2010 NSR Rule). This rule established several components for making
PSD permitting determinations for PM2.5, including adding
the required elements for PM2.5 into a state's existing
system of ``increment analysis,'' which is the mechanism used in the
PSD permitting program to estimate significant deterioration of ambient
air quality for a pollutant in relation to new source construction or
modification. The maximum allowable increment increases for different
pollutants are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
    The 2010 NSR Rule described in the preceding paragraph revised the
existing system for determining increment consumption by establishing a
new ``major source baseline date'' for PM2.5 of October 20,
2010, and by establishing a trigger date for PM2.5 in
relation to the definition of ``minor source baseline date.'' These
revisions to the federal PSD rules are codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(b)(14)(ii)(c).
    Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the definition of ``baseline
area'' to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic
meter, annual average, for PM2.5. This change is codified in
40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i). States were required to
revise their SIPs consistent with these changes to the federal
regulations.
    On July 24, 2015, EPA approved Connecticut's October 9, 2012, SIP
revision for its PSD program, which incorporated two of the four
changes addressed by the 2010 NSR Rule. The two changes were (1) a
revised definition of ``Major source baseline date'' that included a
date for PM2.5 specifically; and (2) the addition of the
maximum allowable increment for PM2.5. See 80 FR 43960.
    CT DEEP's October 9, 2012, SIP revision did not specifically
address the two other changes EPA made to the PSD rules in 2010, and
for the following reasons EPA did not include those as part of the
conditional approval described in our October 16, 2012 notice. See 77
FR 63228. One of those changes is the requirement that a State's
definition of ``minor source baseline date'' be amended to include a
trigger date for PM2.5 emissions (see EPA's definition for
``minor source baseline date'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)). Instead of
using a specific date, EPA's definition for minor source baseline date
provides that the minor source baseline date is triggered by a state's
receipt of its first complete PSD application. At the time CT DEEP made
its October 9, 2012 SIP revision, it would not have been possible for
the State to have amended its regulation to include a specific minor
source baseline date because no source had submitted a complete PSD
application for PM2.5. This is so because CT DEEP`s PSD
regulations are structured in a way that uses actual specific dates
based on submission of a first complete PSD application for a
particular pollutant. (The approach contained in EPA's regulations is
somewhat different in the sense that instead of using actual specific
dates, EPA articulates the concept of a first complete PSD application
as the minor source baseline date trigger.) EPA understands that CT
DEEP did not receive a complete PSD application for a source subject to
PSD for PM2.5 emissions until 2014. Consequently, the State
could not have included an actual date in its definition of ``minor
source baseline date'' within its October 9, 2012 SIP revision.
    Although Connecticut could not establish an actual date for
PM2.5 in its definition of ``minor source baseline date,''
at the time of its October 9, 2012 SIP revision, Connecticut has since
revised this definition to include a specific date. As a result, on
June 3, 2016, the EPA conditionally approved this element of
Connecticut's infrastructure requirements to establish a ``minor source
baseline date.'' See 81 FR 35636. On October 18, 2017, CT DEEP
submitted revised regulations for EPA's approval to satisfy this
requirement and establish the minor source baseline date as August 24,
2014, for PM2.5. Although Connecticut's approach to
establishing a minor source baseline emissions concentration as part of
an increment consumption analysis differs slightly from the approach
taken under the federal PSD regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.166, the
EPA has determined the minor discrepancy does not result in a different
minor source baseline emissions concentration and Connecticut's
approach is therefore functionally equivalent to the federal PSD
regulations. For example, Connecticut's regulation identifies August
24, 2014 as the minor source baseline date as opposed to September 24,
2014 when the State received its first complete PSD application that
was significant for PM2.5. Although this

approach results in a slightly different time period for calculating
minor source baseline emissions (i.e., one month earlier), the EPA has
concluded that the calculation would yield a result that is as
protective as the federal PSD regulations. Consequently, we propose to
approve Connecticut's revisions to the PSD permit program at RCSA
Section 22a-174-1(71) and to convert our June 3, 2016 conditional
approval of this PSD infrastructure sub-element relating to section
110(a)(2)(C) to a full approval. See 81 FR 35636.
    On July 3, 2016, EPA fully approved Connecticut's SIP with regard
to the remainder of the requirements for this sub-element (81 FR
35636). For a detailed analysis, see EPA's proposed rule at 80 FR
54471.
    In summary, we are proposing to approve Connecticut's submittals
for this sub-element pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as revisions to the PSD permit
program pertaining to treating NOX as a precursor to ozone
and to establishing a minor source baseline date for PM2.5.
Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor
Modifications
    To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and
construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of
major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should
identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new
provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that
regulate emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved
Connecticut's minor NSR program, as well as updates to that program,
with the most recent approval occurring on February 28, 2003 (68 FR
9009). Since this date, Connecticut and EPA have relied on the existing
minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured
by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    We are proposing to find that Connecticut has met the requirement
to have a SIP approved minor new source review permit program as
required under Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management
elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution with which states
must comply. It covers the following five topics, categorized as sub-
elements: Sub-element 1, Significant contribution to nonattainment, and
interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; \6\ Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-
element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution
abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-
elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the Act, and these items are further categorized into the four prongs
discussed below, two of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-
elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act
and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of
the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For this sub-element only, we are evaluating two Connecticut
SIP submittals, the transport SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS submitted on August 19, 2011, and the infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS submitted on December 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
(Prong 2)
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a SIP to prohibit
any emissions activity in the state that will contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
downwind state. EPA commonly refers to these requirements as prong 1
(significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference
with maintenance), or jointly as the ``Good Neighbor'' or ``transport''
provisions of the CAA. This rulemaking proposes action on the portions
of Connecticut's August 19, 2011 and December 14, 2015 SIP submissions
that address the prong 1 and 2 requirements with respect to the 2006
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.
    EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong 1
and 2 interstate-transport requirements with respect to the
PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The
four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining
the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and
analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to
prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind;
and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of
permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently
applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard. See 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    EPA's analysis for CSAPR, conducted consistent with the four-step
framework, included air-quality modeling that evaluated the impacts of
38 eastern states on identified receptors in the eastern United States.
EPA indicated that, for step 2 of the framework, states with impacts on
downwind receptors that are below the contribution threshold of 1% of
the relevant NAAQS would not be considered to significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS,
and would, therefore, not be included in CSAPR. See 76 FR 48220. EPA
further indicated that such states could rely on EPA's analysis for
CSAPR as technical support in order to demonstrate that their existing
or future interstate transport SIP submittals are adequate to address
the transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the
relevant NAAQS. Id.
    In addition, as noted above, on March 17, 2016, EPA released the
2016 memorandum to provide information to states as they develop SIPs
addressing the Good Neighbor provision as it pertains to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistent with step 1 of the framework, the
2016 memorandum provides projected future-year annual PM2.5
design values for monitors throughout the country based on quality-
assured and certified ambient-monitoring data and recent air-quality
modeling and explains the methodology used to develop these projected
design values. The memorandum also describes how the projected values
can be used to help determine which monitors should be further
evaluated to potentially address if emissions from other states
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites. The 2016
memorandum explained that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality
for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas

classified as Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data
included 2017 and 2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5
design values calculated through the CAMx photochemical model, the
memorandum suggests approaches states might use to interpolate
PM2.5 values at sites in 2021.
    For all but one monitor site in the eastern United States, the
modeling data provided in the 2016 memorandum showed that monitors were
expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
both 2017 and 2025. The modeling results project that this one monitor,
the Liberty monitor, (ID number 420030064), located in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, will be above the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS in 2017, but only under the model's maximum projected conditions,
which are used in EPA's interstate transport framework to identify
maintenance receptors. The Liberty monitor (along with all the other
Allegheny County monitors) is projected to both attain and maintain the
NAAQS in 2025. The 2016 memorandum suggests that under such a condition
(again, where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will
maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025, but not in
2017), further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if
the site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (which,
again, is the attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).
The memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete
ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest
available data, should be analyzed to determine whether there are
potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by
transported emissions. This rulemaking considers these analyses for
Connecticut, as well as additional analysis conducted by EPA during
review of Connecticut's submittals.
    To develop the projected values presented in the memorandum, EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air-quality modeling that
it recently performed to support several rulemakings related to the
ozone NAAQS. Base-year modeling was performed for 2011. Future-year
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the proposed CSAPR Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75705 (December 3, 2015). Future-
year modeling was also performed for 2025 to support the Regulatory
Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone NAAQS.\7\ The outputs from
these model runs included hourly concentrations of PM2.5
that were used in conjunction with measured data to project annual
average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and 2025. Areas that
were designated as moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014 must attain the NAAQS by
December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as practicable. Although neither
the available 2017 nor 2025 future-year modeling data corresponds
directly to the future-year attainment deadline for moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the modeling
information is still helpful for identifying potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the 2017-2021 period. Assessing downwind
PM2.5 air-quality problems based on estimates of air-quality
concentrations in a future year aligned with the relevant attainment
deadline is consistent with the instructions from the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut's Submissions for Prongs 1 and 2
    On September 18, 2009, CT DEEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which included transport provisions
that addressed prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. However, on January 7, 2011, CT DEEP withdrew the transport
portion of this 2009 SIP. On August 19, 2011, Connecticut submitted a
revised SIP that replaced the portions of the state's submission that
were previously withdrawn. The state's revised SIP relied on EPA's
analysis performed for the CSAPR rulemaking to conclude that the state
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any downwind area.
    On December 14, 2015, CT DEEP submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submission addressed prongs 1 and
2 of the interstate transport requirements. Based on information given
in Attachment D of its SIP submission, Connecticut concluded that it
does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state because projected emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (NOX and SO2) in
Connecticut are expected to decline over at least the next decade, and
there are federal and SIP-approved state regulations in place to
control emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
    Regarding future emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors, Connecticut developed comprehensive emissions inventories
in collaboration with other states in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU). Results indicate that total emissions of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are projected to
decrease significantly between 2007 and 2025 in New Haven and Fairfield
counties in southwestern Connecticut, the area of the state that
historically has had the highest monitored PM2.5 levels.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Connecticut's PM2.5 Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan, Technical Support Document,'' (June 22, 2012).
Included in the docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analyzed the state's August 19, 2011 and December 14, 2015 SIP
submittals to determine whether they fully address the prong 1 and 2
transport provisions with respect to the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA concludes that emissions of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in Connecticut will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.
Analysis of Connecticut's Submission for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS
    With respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA's analysis in
the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking determined that Connecticut's impact to all
downwind receptors would be below the 1% contribution threshold for
this NAAQS (i.e., 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\), indicating that the state will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind state. As noted
above, EPA previously determined that states can rely on EPA's CSAPR
analysis for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, as EPA has
already concluded that Connecticut will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we do not need to reevaluate Connecticut's Good
Neighbor obligation with respect to this NAAQS. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to approve Connecticut's August 8, 2011, SIP submission with
regard to prongs 1 and 2 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Analysis of Connecticut's Submission for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS
    As noted above, the modeling discussed in EPA's 2016 memorandum
identified one potential maintenance receptor for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS at

the Liberty monitor (ID number 420030064), located in Allegheny County.
The memorandum also identified certain states with incomplete ambient
monitoring data as areas that may require further analysis to determine
whether there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be
impacted by transported emissions.
    While developing the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking, EPA modeled the impacts
of all 38 eastern states in its modeling domain on fine particulate
matter concentrations at downwind receptors in other states in the 2012
analysis year in order to evaluate the contribution of upwind states on
downwind states with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5.
Although the modeling was not conducted for purposes of analyzing
upwind states' impacts on downwind receptors with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, the contribution analysis for the 1997 and 2006
standards can be informative for evaluating Connecticut's compliance
with the Good Neighbor provision for the 2012 standard.
    This CSAPR modeling showed that Connecticut had a very small impact
(0.005 [mu]g/m\3\) on the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, which is the only out-of-state monitor that may be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021. Although EPA has not
proposed a particular threshold for evaluating the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA notes that Connecticut's impact on the
Liberty monitor is far below the threshold of 1% for the annual 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 0.12 [mu]g/m\3\) that EPA previously used
to evaluate the contribution of upwind states to downwind air-quality
monitors. (A spreadsheet showing CSAPR contributions for ozone and
PM2.5 is included in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4228.)
Therefore, even if the Liberty monitor were considered a receptor for
purposes of transport, the EPA proposes to conclude that Connecticut
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at that monitor.
    In addition, the Liberty monitor is already close to attaining the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and expected emissions reductions in the
next four years will lead to additional reductions in measured
PM2.5 concentrations. There are both local and regional
components to measured PM2.5 levels. All monitors in
Allegheny County have a regional component, with the Liberty monitor
most strongly influenced by local sources. This is confirmed by the
fact that annual average measured concentrations at the Liberty monitor
have consistently been 2-4 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than other monitors in
Allegheny County.
    Specifically, previous CSAPR modeling showed that regional
emissions from upwind states, particularly SO2 and NOx
emissions, contribute to PM2.5 nonattainment at the Liberty
monitor. In recent years, large SO2 and NOX
reductions from power plants have occurred in Pennsylvania and states
upwind from the Greater Pittsburgh region. Pennsylvania's energy sector
emissions of SO2 will have decreased 166,000 tons between
2015-2017 as a result of CSAPR implementation. This is due to both the
installation of emissions controls and retirements of electric
generating units (EGUs). Projected power plant closures and additional
emissions controls in Pennsylvania and upwind states will help further
reduce both direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
Regional emission reductions will continue to occur from current on-
the-books federal and state regulations such as the federal on-road and
non-road vehicle programs, and various rules for major stationary
emissions sources. See proposed approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (82 FR 57689; December 7, 2017).
    In addition to regional emissions reductions and plant closures,
additional local reductions to both direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions are expected to occur and should contribute to
further declines in Allegheny County's PM2.5 monitor
concentrations. For example, significant SO2 reductions have
recently occurred at US Steel's integrated steel mill facilities in
southern Allegheny County as part of a 1-hr SO2 NAAQS
SIP.\9\ Reductions are largely due to declining sulfur content in the
Clairton Coke Work's coke oven gas (COG). Because this COG is burned at
U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works, Irvin Mill, and Edgar Thompson Steel
Mill, these reductions in sulfur content should contribute to much
lower PM2.5 precursor emissions in the immediate future. The
Allegheny SO2 SIP also projects lower SO2
emissions resulting from vehicle fuel standards, reductions in general
emissions due to declining population in the Greater Pittsburgh region,
and several shutdowns of significant sources of emissions in Allegheny
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.achd.net/air/pubs/SIPs/SO2_2010_NAAQS_SIP_9-14-
2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA modeling projections, the recent downward trend in local and
upwind emissions reductions, the expected continued downward trend in
emissions between 2017 and 2021, and the downward trend in monitored
PM2.5 concentrations all indicate that the Liberty monitor
will attain and be able to maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by 2021. See proposed approval of the Ohio Infrastructure SIP (82
FR 57689).
    As noted in the 2016 memorandum, several states have had recent
data-quality issues identified as part of the PM2.5
designations process. In particular, some ambient PM2.5 data
for certain time periods between 2009 and 2013 in Florida, Illinois,
Idaho, Tennessee, and Kentucky did not meet all data-quality
requirements under 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. The lack of data means
that the relevant areas in those states could potentially be in
nonattainment or be maintenance receptors in 2021. However, as
mentioned above, EPA's analysis for the 2011 CSAPR rulemaking with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS determined that
Connecticut's impact to all these downwind receptors would be well
below the 1% contribution threshold for this NAAQS. That conclusion
informs the analysis of Connecticut's contributions for purposes of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as well. Given this, and the fact,
discussed below, that the state's PM2.5 design values for
all ambient monitors have declined since 2009-2013, EPA concludes that
it is highly unlikely that Connecticut significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in areas with data-quality issues.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Connecticut's PM2.5 design values for all
ambient monitors from 2004-2006 through 2013-2015 are available on
Table 6 of the 2015 Design Value Report at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values_.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information in Connecticut's 2015 SIP submission
corroborates EPA's proposed conclusion that Connecticut's SIP meets its
Good Neighbor obligations. First, Connecticut's emissions are
decreasing, as indicated in a technical analysis of the state's
interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, which was included in the 2015 submittal. The
technical analysis includes Connecticut's 2014 PM2.5 design
values; design-value trends over the last decade for Connecticut and
the nearby states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island; as well as other factors such as meteorology and emissions
projections. Design values for Connecticut and nearby states have shown
a declining trend and have remained in compliance with the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS since 2011. Emissions projections show
continuing

maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Connecticut and the
nearby states. Connecticut's technical analysis also refers to
emissions projections through 2025 for the southwestern portion of
Connection, the area that historically has had the highest monitored
PM2.5 levels. These projections were part of the state's 10-
year (ending in 2025) maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS that was approved by EPA on September 24,
2013. See 78 FR 58467. In southwestern Connecticut, emissions of
PM2.5, NOX and SO2 were projected to
decrease by 22%, 52% and 43%, respectively, between 2007 and 2025, and
similar levels of reductions were projected for the rest of the state.
This technical analysis is supported by additional indications that the
state's air quality is improving and emissions are falling, including
certified annual PM2.5 monitor values recorded since
Connecticut's 2015 submittal, with the highest value in 2015 being 9.9
[mu]g/m\3\ at a monitor in Hartford and the highest value in 2016 being
9.4 [mu]g/m\3\ at a monitor in Bridgeport, with further statewide
declines indicated by 2017 preliminary results.\11\ In addition, as
reported in EPA's Clean Air Markets Program database, actual ozone-
season NOX emissions from EGUs in Connecticut from 2011
through 2017 fell from 858 to 430 tons, a 50-percent drop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 24-hour and annual PM2.5 monitor values for
individual monitoring sites throughout Connecticut are available at
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Connecticut's sources are well-controlled. Connecticut's
2015 submission indicates that the SIP contains the following major
requirements related to the interstate transport of pollution: RCSA
section 22a-174-2a (NSR program, including notification of nearby
states of major source permits and modifications), RCSA section 22a-
174-3a (PSD and NSR requirements, including modeling to that ensure new
and modified sources do not cause or contribute to PSD or NAAQS issues
in nearby states). These rules were approved by EPA on July 24, 2015,
and became effective on September 22, 2015. See 80 FR 43960.
    It should also be noted that Connecticut is not in the CSAPR
program because EPA analyses show that the state no longer emits ozone-
season NOX at a level that contributes significantly to non-
attainment or interferes with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    For the reasons explained herein, EPA agrees with Connecticut's
conclusions and proposes to determine that Connecticut will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 or 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the August 2011 and December
2015 infrastructure SIP submissions from Connecticut addressing prongs
1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively.
Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--PSD (Prong 3)
    To prevent significant deterioration of air quality, this sub-
element requires SIPs to include provisions that prohibit any source or
other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with
measures that are required in any other state's SIP under Part C of the
CAA. One way for a state to meet this requirement, specifically with
respect to in-state sources and pollutants that are subject to PSD
permitting, is through a comprehensive PSD permitting program that
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the
requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules. For in-state sources
not subject to PSD, this requirement can be satisfied through an
approved NNSR program with respect to any previous NAAQS.
    Connecticut updated RCSA Section 22a-174-3a(k) and 3a(i) effective
April 2014. EPA approved these changes on July 24, 2015 (80 FR 43960).
These regulations contain provisions for how the state must treat and
control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165,
or appendix S to 40 CFR 51.
Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Visibility Protection
(Prong 4)
    With regard to applicable requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and
regional-haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 guidance, 2011 guidance, and
2013 guidance recommend that these requirements can be satisfied by an
approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment,
if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. A fully
approved regional haze SIP meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322).
Accordingly, EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the visibility
protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate Pollution Abatement
    This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with requirements of section 126 relating to interstate
pollution abatement. Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The
statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide
the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources.
    EPA approved revisions to Connecticut's PSD program on July 24,
2015 (80 FR 43960), including the element pertaining to notification to
neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. Therefore, we
propose to approve Connecticut's compliance with the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Connecticut has no obligations under any other
provision of section 126.
Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--International Pollution
Abatement
    This sub-element requires each SIP to contain provisions requiring
compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 relating to
international pollution abatement. Connecticut does not have any
pending obligations under section 115 for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing that Connecticut has met the
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
related to section 115 of the CAA (international pollution abatement)
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for personnel, funding,
and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP and related
issues. In addition, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to
comply with the requirements with respect to state boards under section
128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state
relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for the
implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility
for ensuring implementation of SIP

obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. However, this sub-element
does not apply to this action because Connecticut does not rely upon
local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its
SIP provisions.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    Connecticut, through its infrastructure SIP submittal, has
documented that its air agency has authority and resources to carry out
its SIP obligations. CGS Sec.  22a-171 authorizes the CT DEEP
Commissioner to enforce the state's air laws, accept and administer
grants, and exercise incidental powers necessary to carry out the law.
The Connecticut SIP, as originally submitted on March 3, 1972, and
subsequently amended, provides additional descriptions of the
organizations, staffing, funding and physical resources necessary to
carry out the plan. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (1) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter 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 and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (2) that 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.
    In Connecticut, no board or body approves permits or enforcement
orders; these are approved by the Commissioner of CT DEEP. Thus,
Connecticut is subject only to the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
section 128 of the CAA. Infrastructure SIPs submitted by Connecticut
include descriptions of conflict-of-interest provisions in CGS Sec.  1-
85, which applies to all state employees and public officials. Section
1-85 prevents the Commissioner from acting on a matter in which the
Commissioner has an interest that is ``in substantial conflict with the
proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest and
of his responsibilities as prescribed in the laws of'' Connecticut.
    Connecticut submitted CGS Sec.  1-85 for incorporation into the SIP
on December 28, 2012, with its infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. We approved this statute into the Connecticut SIP on June 3,
2016 (81 FR 35636). Therefore, Connecticut has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    CGS Sec.  22a-6(a)(5) authorizes the Commissioner to enter at all
reasonable times, any public or private property (except a private
residence) to investigate possible violations of any statute,
regulation, order or permit. Additionally, CGS Sec.  22a-174 authorizes
the Commissioner to require periodic inspection of sources of air
pollution and to require any person to maintain, and to submit to CT
DEEP, certain records relating to air pollution or to the operation of
facilities designed to abate air pollution. For monitoring possible air
violations, CT DEEP implements RCSA Sec.  22a-174-4 (Source monitoring,
record keeping and reporting) to require the installation, maintenance,
and use of emissions monitoring devices and to require periodic
reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and extent of the
emissions. Section 22a-174-4 has been approved into the SIP. See 79 FR
41427 (July 16, 2014). Additionally, CT DEEP implements RCSA Sec.  22a-
175-5 (Methods for sampling, emissions testing, sample analysis, and
reporting), which provides, among other things, specific test methods
to be used to demonstrate compliance with various aspects of
Connecticut's air regulations, and this rule has also been approved
into the SIP. See 46 FR 43418 (December 19, 1980). Furthermore, under
RCSA Sec.  22a-174-10 (Public availability of information) emissions
data are to be available to the public and are not entitled to
protection as a trade secret. See 37 FR 23085 (October 28, 1972). EPA
recognizes that Connecticut routinely collects information on air
emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information
available to the public. In addition, RCSA Sec.  22a-174-10 requires
that emission data made public by CT DEEP shall be presented in such a
manner as to show the relationship (or correlation) between measured
emissions and the applicable emission limitations or standards, as
required by CAA Sec.  110(a)(2)(F)(iii).
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure
SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for state authority
analogous to that provided to the EPA Administrator in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to
seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing
to emissions that present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' Section 303 further
authorizes the Administrator to issue ``such orders as may be necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the environment'' in the event
that ``it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by
commencement of such civil action.''
    Connecticut's submittal notes that CGS Sec.  22a-181 (Emergency
action) authorizes the Commissioner of the CT DEEP to issue an order
requiring any person to immediately reduce or discontinue air pollution
as required to protect the public health or safety. In addition, in a
letter dated August 5, 2015, Connecticut specified that CGS Sec.  22a-7
grants the Commissioner the authority, whenever he finds ``that any
person is causing, engaging in or maintaining, or is about to cause,
engage in or maintain, any condition or activity which, in his
judgment, will result in or is likely to result in imminent and
substantial damage to the environment, or to public health within the
jurisdiction of the commissioner under the provisions of chapter . . .
446c [Air Pollution Control] . . . [to] issue a cease and desist order
in writing to such person to discontinue, abate or alleviate such
condition or activity.'' This section further provides the Commissioner
with the authority to seek a court ``to enjoin

any person from violating a cease and desist order issued pursuant to
[Sec.  22a-7] and to compel compliance with such order.''
    We propose to find that RCSA Sec.  22a-174-6, along with CGS Sec.
22a-181, provide for authority comparable to that in section 303.
    Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires a state to submit for EPA approval a
contingency plan to implement the air agency's emergency episode
authority for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) within the state
that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II for certain pollutants, See
40 CFR 51.150. This requirement may be satisfied by submitting a plan
that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (40
CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency
Episodes'') for the relevant NAAQS, and, indeed, Connecticut has ``Air
pollution emergency episode procedures'' at RCSA Sec.  22a-174-6 that
EPA has previously evaluated and approved as satisfying the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(G) in the context of SOX
and ozone. See 81 FR 35636 (June 3, 2016); 80 FR 54471 (Sept. 10,
2015). PM2.5, however, is not explicitly included in the
contingency plan requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, and, thus,
a contingency plan satisfying the provisions of subpart H is not
required. For PM2.5, EPA's 2009 guidance recommends instead
that states develop emergency episode plans for any area that has
monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140
[mu]g/m\3\ since 2006. EPA's review of Connecticut's certified air
quality data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) indicates that the
highest 24-hour PM2.5 level recorded since 2006 was 57.5
[mu]g/m\3\, which was recorded at a monitor in Bridgeport on January 1,
2011. And, as noted earlier, Connecticut has general authority to order
a source to reduce or discontinue air pollution as required to protect
the public health or safety or the environment.
    Connecticut also, as a matter of practice, posts on the internet
daily forecasted ozone and fine particle levels through the EPA AirNow
and EPA EnviroFlash systems. Information regarding these two systems is
available on EPA's website at www.airnow.gov. Notices are sent out to
EnviroFlash participants when levels are forecast to exceed the current
8-hour ozone or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, when
levels are expected to exceed the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS in
Connecticut, the media are alerted via a press release, and the
National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted to issue an Air Quality
Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert system.
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Connecticut through the combination of
statutes and regulations discussed above, and participation in EPA's
AirNow program, has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires that a state's SIP provide for revision from
time to time as may be necessary to take account of changes in the
NAAQS or availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS and
whenever the EPA finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
    Connecticut certifies that its SIP may be revised should EPA find
that it is substantially inadequate to attain a standard or to comply
with any additional requirements under the CAA and notes that CGS Sec.
22a-174(d) grants the Commissioner all incidental powers necessary to
control and prohibit air pollution. EPA proposes that Connecticut has
met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has
determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the
infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Visibility
Protection

    The evaluation of the submission from Connecticut with respect to
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) is described below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements.
    CGS Sec.  22a-171 (Duties of Commissioner of Energy and
Environmental Protection) directs the Commissioner to consult with
agencies of the United States, agencies of the state, political
subdivisions and industries and any other affected groups in matters
relating to air quality. Additionally, CGS Sec.  22a-171, which was
approved into Connecticut's SIP (81 FR 35636; June 3, 2016), directs
the Commissioner to initiate and supervise state-wide programs of air
pollution control education and to adopt, amend, repeal and enforce air
regulations.
    Furthermore, RCSA Sec.  22a-174-2a, which has been approved into
Connecticut's SIP (80 FR 43960; July 24, 2015), directs CT DEEP to
notify relevant municipal officials and FLMs, among others, of
tentative determinations by CT DEEP with respect to certain permits.
    EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area, advise the public of health hazards
associated with exceedances, and enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air
quality.
    As part of the fulfillment of CGS Sec.  22a-171 (Duties of
Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection), Connecticut
issues press releases and posts warnings on its website advising people
what they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse
health effects on poor air quality days. Connecticut is also an active
partner in EPA's AirNow and Enviroflash air quality alert programs. In
addition, in 2014, Connecticut revised CGS Sec.  4-168 to require that
state regulations be submitted through the state's e-regulations
system, thus creating an additional way for the public to access any
changes to state regulations.
    EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. Connecticut's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and satisfies
the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation rules.
    We are proposing to approve the revisions to Connecticut's PSD
program that were submitted on October 18, 2017 regarding PSD
requirements to treat

NOX as a precursor to ozone and to establish a minor source
baseline date for PM2.5 emissions. Consequently, we are
proposing to approve the PSD sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J) for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with the actions we are
proposing for sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). 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, as noted in EPA's 2013 guidance, we find that there is no
new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when
a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility
protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to
infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    To satisfy Element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it
has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on
air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such
data to EPA upon request.
    In its submittal, Connecticut indicates that CGS Sec.  22a-5
(Duties and powers of commissioner) implicitly authorizes the
Commissioner of the CT DEEP to perform air quality modeling to predict
effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and to
submit such data to EPA upon request. Connecticut reviews the potential
impact of major sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
``Guidelines on Air Quality Models.'' In its submittal, Connecticut
also cites RCSA section 22a-174-3a(i), which authorizes the
commissioner to request any owner or operator to submit an ambient air-
quality impact analysis using applicable air quality models and
modeling protocols approved by the commissioner. CT DEEP updated RCSA
Section 22a-174-3a(i), effective April 2014, and EPA published a direct
final rule approving these updates on July 24, 2015. See FR 80 FR
43960.
    The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association and EPA
in order to perform large-scale urban air shed modeling for ozone and
PM, if necessary. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary
source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    EPA's full approval of Connecticut's Title V program became
effective on May 31, 2002. See 67 FR 31966 (May 13, 2002). To gain this
approval, Connecticut demonstrated the ability to collect sufficient
fees to run the program. CGS Sec.  22a-174(g) directs the Commissioner
of CT DEEP to require the payment of a fee sufficient to cover the
reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon an application for, and
monitoring compliance with, any state or federal permit, license,
registration, order, or certificate. CT DEEP implements this directive
through state regulations at RCSA Sec. Sec.  22a-174-26 and 22a-174-33,
which contain specific requirements related to permit fees, including
fees for Title V sources. EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    To satisfy Element M, states must consult with, and allow
participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Connecticut's infrastructure submittal references CGS Sec.  4-168
(Notice prior to action on regulations), which provides a public
participation process for all stakeholders that includes a minimum of a
30-day comment period and an opportunity for public hearing for all
SIP-related actions.
    Connecticut also notes that monthly meetings of the State
Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee provide an additional
forum for consultation and participation by the public and other
stakeholders on air-quality-related topics.
    EPA proposes that Connecticut has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

N. Connecticut Statute Submitted for Incorporation Into the SIP

    Connecticut's December 14, 2015, infrastructure SIP submittal for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS included a revision of CGS Sec.  16a-
21a, ``Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel.
Suspension of requirements for emergency'' (see discussion under
element A), EPA is proposing to approve revisions to CGS Sec.  16a-21a
into the Connecticut SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the elements of the infrastructure SIP
submitted by Connecticut on December 14, 2015, for the 2012
PM2.5, NAAQS. Specifically, EPA's proposed action regarding
each infrastructure SIP requirement are contained in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--Proposed Action on Connecticut's Infrastructure SIP Submittal
                        for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Element                            2012 PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control          A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data    A
 system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures.............  A
(C)2: PSD program for major sources and major   A
 modifications.
(C)3: PSD program for minor sources and minor   A
 modifications.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere     A
 with maintenance of NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD.....................................  A
(D)3: Visibility Protection...................  A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement..........  A
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement.......  A
(E)1: Adequate resources......................  A
(E)2: State boards............................  A
(E)3: Necessary assurances with respect to      NA
 local agencies.
(F): Stationary source monitoring system......  A
(G): Emergency power..........................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions.....................  A

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions  +
 under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with government officials..  A
(J)2: Public notification.....................  A
(J)3: PSD.....................................  A
(J)4: Visibility protection...................  +
(K): Air quality modeling and data............  A
(L): Permitting fees..........................  A
(M): Consultation and participation by          A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows: A, Approve. NA, Not
  applicable. +, Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

    EPA also is proposing to approve the transport provisions (Element
(D)1 in Table 1) of Connecticut's August 2011 infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Connecticut SIP, the
following Connecticut statute, which was included for approval in
Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submittal:
    Revisions to CGS Sec.  16a-21a, Sulfur content of home heating oil
and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of requirements for emergency,
effective July 1, 2015.
    EPA is also proposing to approve revisions to the PSD permit
program pertaining to treating NOX as a precursor to ozone
and establishing a minor source baseline date for PM2.5.
    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 comments
to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Connecticut statute referenced in Section IV above. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA New England Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

VI. 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-05318 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P