
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16358-16365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6870]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0639; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0641; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-00642; 
EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643; A-1-FRL-9285-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island; Infrastructure SIPs 
for the 1997 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve submittals from the States of 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. These submittals 
outline how each state's State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 
requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 
110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for 
the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS 
promulgated by the EPA. This SIP is commonly referred to as an 
infrastructure SIP. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air 
Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R01-OAR-2008-00639 
for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-
R01-OAR-2008-0641 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for 
Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2008-06432 for comments pertaining to our proposed 
action for New Hampshire, or EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643 for comments 
pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode Island, by one of the 
following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0639, EPA-
RO1-OAR-2008-0641, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-642, or EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0643'' 
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), 
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of 
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Numbers: EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0639 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for 
Connecticut, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0641 for comments pertaining to our 
proposed action for Maine, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0642 for comments 
pertaining to our proposed action for New Hampshire or EPA-RO1-OAR-
2008-0643 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode 
Island. 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 through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov website 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at 
all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, e-
mail Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical 
support documents are also available for public inspection during 
normal business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air 
Agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630; the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health 
Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017; Air Resources Division, 
Department of Environmental Services,

[[Page 16359]]

6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095; and the Office of 
Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade 
Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

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

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
    A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
    B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
    C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
    D. Interstate Transport
    E. Adequate Resources
    F. Stationary Source Monitoring System
    G. Emergency Power
    H. Future SIP Revisions
    I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D
    J. Consultation With Government Officials; Public Notification; 
PSD; and Visibility Protection
    K. Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Permitting Fees
    M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve submittals from the States of 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island as meeting the 
Section 110(a) infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 
1997 ozone standard.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on 8-hour average ozone 
concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-
hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (see 62 FR 38856). The Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) requires State Implementation Plans (SIPs) meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states 
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1) and (2). Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, 
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the 
standards, so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. States were 
required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 standards to EPA no later 
than June 2000. However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour 
ozone standards created uncertainty about how to proceed, and certain 
States did not provide the required infrastructure SIP submission for 
this newly promulgated standard.
    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP 
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that 
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In 
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the 
State develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects 
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may 
also vary depending upon what provisions the State's existing SIP 
already contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, States 
typically have met the basic program elements required in section 
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous 
ozone standards.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 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.'' This guidance noted that to the extent an existing SIP 
already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states need only to 
certify that fact via a letter to EPA.
    The States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island 
each submitted such certification letters to EPA on December 28, 2007, 
January 3, 2008, December 14, 2007 and December 14, 2007, respectively. 
All four submittals were deemed complete, effective April 28, 2008. 
(See 73 FR 16205; March 27, 2008.)

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

    EPA has reviewed the December 2007 submittal from Connecticut, the 
January 2008 submittal from Maine, the December 2007 submittal from New 
Hampshire, and the December 2007 submittal from Rhode Island. The 
Agency has determined that each state's SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) 
infrastructure requirements of the CAA and is consistent with the 
relevant EPA guidance. Each state's submittal and EPA's evaluation of 
that submittal are detailed in the following technical support 
documents (TSDs) which are available in the docket for these actions 
and at the EPA New England Regional Office referenced in the ADDRESSES 
section: (1) ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Connecticut 
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 9, 2011; (2)``Technical 
Support Document (TSD) for the Maine Submittal to Fulfill the 
Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air Act Under Section 
110(a)(2),'' dated March 10, 2011; (3) ``Technical Support Document 
(TSD) for the New Hampshire Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for 
1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure 
Portion of the Clean Air Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 10, 
2011; and (4) ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Rhode Island 
Submittal to Fulfill the Requirements for 1997 8-hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard Infrastructure Portion of the Clean Air 
Act Under Section 110(a)(2),'' dated March 9, 2011.
    In their submittals each state references items in their state 
specific laws, statutes, regulations and SIPs that address the elements 
detailed in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. These elements and the 
corresponding subsection of the CAA are as follows:
    Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A));
    Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B));
    Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C));
    Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
    Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
    Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F));
    Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
    Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
    Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J));
    Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
    Prevention of significant deterioration (110(a)(2)(J));
    Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K));
    Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
    Consultation/participation by affected local entities 
(110(a)(2)(M)).
    In its submittal, Connecticut references the Connecticut Air 
Quality SIP, the Connecticut General Statues (CGS) and the Regulations 
of the Connecticut State Air Agency (RCSA). In its submittal, Maine 
references the Maine Air Quality SIP, the Code of Maine Regulations 
(CMR) and the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA). In its 
submittal, New Hampshire references the New Hampshire Air Quality SIP, 
the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) as well as the New

[[Page 16360]]

Hampshire Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and NH Admin. 
Rules Env-A 100 et seq. In its submittal, Rhode Island references the 
Rhode Island Air Quality SIP, the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control 
Regulations (RIAPCR) and the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL).
    The discussion below summarizes how each state meets each relevant 
CAA infrastructure requirement outlined above.

A. Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission 
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for 
compliance and other related matters. Each state's infrastructure 
submittal includes a list of regulations that have been previously 
adopted by the state and approved by EPA which include specific 
emission limits and the framework for implementation of these limits. 
The specific details of each state's submittal and EPA analysis of the 
submittal for this element is stated in the TSD for each state. Also, a 
table containing each regulation and the citation of EPA's approval of 
this regulation is included in the Appendix of each state's TSD.
    EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the 
nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be 
governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have included some 
SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its 
submission documenting its compliance with the infrastructure 
requirements of section 110(a)(2). These states have over time 
continually updated the elements of their SIPs addressing the ozone 
NAAQS, and the provisions reviewed here are a weave of SIP revisions 
submitted in response to the infrastructure requirements of section 
110(a)(2) and the nonattainment requirements of part D.
    For the purposes of this action, EPA is reviewing any rules 
originally submitted in response to part D solely for the purposes of 
determining whether they support a finding that the state has met the 
basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2). For example, 
in response to the requirement to have enforceable emission limits 
under section 110(a)(2)(A), Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and 
Rhode Island cited to several rules that were submitted to meet the 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement of part D. 
EPA is here approving those rules as meeting the requirement to have 
enforceable emission limits on ozone precursors; any judgment about 
whether those emission limits discharge the state's obligation to 
impose RACT under part D was or will be made separately, in an action 
reviewing those rules pursuant to the requirements of part D.
    Also, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove 
any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 
EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are 
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,\1\ and the Agency plans 
to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to 
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, from Steven 
Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 
and Radiation, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' 
(August 11, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states 
may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 
guidance (52 FR 45109, November 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take 
action in the future to address such state regulations. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or 
variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take 
steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    The Connecticut submittal cites 16 specific rules the state adopted 
to control the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). In addition the State of 
Connecticut has also adopted the California-Low Emission Vehicle 
standard for automobiles.
    The Maine submittal cites over 20 specific rules the state adopted 
to control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
    The New Hampshire submittal cites a general overview of the RSA, 
Chapters: Env-A 300, 600, 700, 1200, and 3200 of their air quality 
regulations, and five specific rules for the control the emissions of 
VOCs and NOX. In addition, they also cite several rules for 
the control of control the emissions of VOCs and NOX from 
automobiles.
    The Rhode Island submittal cites 15 specific rules the state 
adopted to control the emissions of VOCs and NOX.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

B. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide 
for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, 
collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these 
data available to EPA upon request. Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 
and Rhode Island all operate ambient air quality monitors and submit 
the data collected to EPA. All four states have submitted annual air 
monitoring network plans which have been approved by EPA as follows: 
Connecticut (submitted on August 16, 2010, approved by EPA on August 
31, 2010); Maine (submitted on June 30, 2010, approved by EPA on July 
7, 2010); New Hampshire (submitted on September 7, 2010, approved by 
EPA on October 13, 2010); and Rhode Island (submitted on July 12, 2010, 
approved by EPA on July 13, 2010).
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

C. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing 
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction 
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New 
Source Review (NSR) requirements.
    In this action, EPA is not evaluating nonattainment-related 
provisions, such as the NSR program required by part D in section 
110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section 
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because these 
submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS 
promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure submittals are required.
    Also, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove 
any state rules with regard to the NSR Reform requirements. EPA will 
act on SIP submittals that are made for purposes of addressing NSR 
Reform through a separate rulemaking process.
    EPA has determined that Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's, 
and Rhode Island's minor NSR programs adopted pursuant to

[[Page 16361]]

section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulate ozone precursor emissions. EPA 
is concerned that certain provisions of some states' minor NSR programs 
adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act might not meet all 
the requirements found in EPA's regulations implementing that 
provision. See 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. EPA previously approved all four 
states minor NSR programs into the SIP, and there was at the time no 
objection to the provisions of these programs. For Connecticut, 58 FR 
10987 (Feb. 23, 1993); for Maine, 45 FR 6786 (Jan. 30, 1980); for New 
Hampshire, 51 FR 10863 (March 15, 1983); and for Rhode Island, 48 FR 
29690, (June 28, 1983). Since then, the states and EPA have relied on 
the existing state minor NSR programs to assure that new and modified 
sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not 
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Therefore, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve 
Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's, and Rhode Island's 
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the general 
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP 
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary 
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not 
proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR 
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's 
regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of 
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing 
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to 
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for 
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide 
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA 
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this 
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to 
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns, 
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting 
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
    As further discussed in the TSDs, and each states's respective 
submittal, each state cites specific sections of their rules and 
regulations that show how the state meets the requirements for this 
element.
    The Connecticut submittal cites several sections of the CGS (see 
CGS Sections 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-175, 22a-176 and 22a-178)) and 
several regulations of the RCSA (see RSCA 22a-174-3a and RSCA 22a-174-
12), including a program to meet minor source NSR and PSD requirements. 
Connecticut's 110 submittal meets the requirements of CAA Section 
110(a)(2)(C), with the following exception which is currently being 
addressed. EPA previously noted that Connecticut's PSD program had a 
deficiency because the state did not have the authority to implement 
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions. (See 75 FR 77698; December 13, 2010.) Connecticut proposed 
rule revisions to address this deficiency and EPA proposed approval of 
those revisions through parallel processing procedures on January 6, 
2011 (76 FR 752). On February 9, 2011, Connecticut submitted a final 
SIP revision addressing this deficiency. Final approval of 
Connecticut's GHG SIP revision is expected prior to final approval of 
Connecticut's section 110 infrastructure submittal. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to fully approve this element for Connecticut.
    The Maine submittal cites 38 MRSA Sec.  347-A and C, Sec.  348, and 
Sec.  349 which provides the Maine DEP with civil and criminal 
enforcement authorities, including the authority to assess penalties. 
In addition Maine cites, CMR Chapter 100 Definitions and Regulations 
and CMR Chapter 115 Emission License Regulation, which contains the 
regulations for minor source NSR and PSD programs. Maine's submittal 
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously 
noted that there was a deficiency in Maine's PSD program because the 
state does not have adequate resources to implement the PSD permitting 
program with respect to GHG emissions. (See 75 FR 82536, December 30, 
2010). Maine DEP has adopted revisions to its program to address this 
deficiency, but has not yet submitted these rules to EPA. In that same 
December 30, 2010 action, EPA issued a SIP error correction withdrawing 
EPA's approval of Maine's PSD program to the extent it applies to 
increases in GHG emissions below the thresholds in EPA's tailoring rule 
revisions to the federal PSD program in the so-called ``narrowing 
rule.'' Ibid. On March 10, 2011, Maine submitted a letter to EPA 
stating that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure submittal, 
EPA should consider the state's PSD program as currently approved in 
the SIP and as corrected by EPA's December 30, 2010 narrowing rule. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this element for Maine for 
the purposes of meeting the infrastructure requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address how the state's newly adopted PSD rules 
implement GHG requirements in a separate action.
    The New Hampshire submittal cites the RSA and ENV-A (see RSA 125-
C:4, 125-C:11, and 125-C:15, and ENV-A 618 and ENVA-619), including a 
program for the minor source NSR and PSD programs. New Hampshire's 
submittal meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 
previously noted that there was a deficiency in New Hampshire's PSD 
program because the state does not have adequate resources to implement 
the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG emissions. 75 FR 82536 
(December 30, 2010). New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision to its 
program to address this deficiency on February 7, 2011. EPA is 
reviewing this submittal. On March 8, 2011, New Hampshire submitted a 
letter to EPA stating that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure 
submittal, EPA should consider the revised rules. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to fully approve this element for New Hampshire for the 
purposes of meeting the infrastructure requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address how the state's newly adopted PSD rules 
implement GHG requirements in a separate action.
    The Rhode Island submittal cites sections 23-23-10, 23-23-11 and 
23-23-14 of the RIGL, which provide DEM with civil and criminal 
enforcement authorities, including the authority to assess penalties. 
In addition, RI APCR No. 9 Air Pollution Control Permits, which has 
been approved into the RI SIP, includes the requirements to implement 
the PSD permitting program and includes the minor source NSR 
provisions. Rhode Island's submittal meets the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA previously noted that there was a deficiency 
in Rhode Island's PSD program, because the state does not have adequate 
resources to implement the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG 
emissions. 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). Rhode Island DEM submitted a 
SIP revision to its program to address this deficiency on January 18, 
2011. On March 3, 2011, Rhode Island submitted a letter to EPA stating 
that in evaluating its section 110 infrastructure submittal, EPA should 
consider the revised rules. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully 
approve this element for Rhode Island for the purposes of meeting the 
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA will address 
how the state's newly adopted PSD rules implement GHG requirements in a 
separate action.

[[Page 16362]]

D. Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires SIPs to include 
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, or from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality or to protect visibility in another state. This action 
does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which have been 
addressed by a separate finding issued by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 
21147).
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA requires SIPs to include 
provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of 
sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement). Specifically, section 126(a) requires new or 
modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential 
impacts from the source
    Connecticut's PSD regulations provide for notice to most of the 
parties consistent with the requirements in the EPA PSD program, 
although there is no specific mandate that affected states receive 
notice. Connecticut in fact issues extensive notice of its draft 
permits, and neighboring states consistently get copied on those 
drafts. Connecticut has no pending obligations under section 115 or 
126(b) of the Act. The CT DEP procedures meet the requirements of CAA 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    Maine is required to give notice of draft PSD permits that meet the 
requirements in our regulations. Maine's SIP-approved Chapter 115 
requires the state to provide a ``copy of the public notification and a 
copy of the draft order to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region I, the chief executives of the municipality and county where the 
source proposes to locate, any comprehensive land use planning agency, 
and any State, Federal Land Manager, or Indian Governing Body whose 
lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.'' 
Maine also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of 
the Act. Maine's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    New Hampshire is required to give notice of draft PSD permits that 
meet the requirements in our regulations. New Hampshire specifically 
defers to 40 CFR part 52 for the process by which PSD permits are 
issued. Env-A 205.03. 40 CFR part 52 effectively incorporates the 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 124--which include affected state notice. 
40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(iii), (vii) & (x). New Hampshire has no pending 
obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. New Hampshire SIP 
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 9, ``Air 
Pollution Control Permits,'' which has been approved into the RI SIP 
provides for notice to nearby States. (See 9.12.3.) Rhode Island has no 
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Rhode 
Island's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

E. Adequate Resources

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide for adequate 
personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out 
its SIP and related issues.
    As further explained in each state's TSD and respective submittal, 
each state cites specific sections of their rules and regulations that 
show how the state meets the requirements for this element.
    Connecticut cites its state law (see CGS Section 22a-171) and its 
SIP, Chapter 11, Parts A-E which describe the (A) existing 
organizations, (B) manpower, (C) funding, (D) physical resources and 
(E) local agencies. It states, in part, ``The Department of 
Environmental Protection will secure appropriations sufficient, in 
conjunction with federal assistance, to maintain the projected state 
funding levels.''
    Maine cites its state law (see 38 MRSA Sec.  341-A. 38 MRSA Sec.  
341-D 38 MRSA Sec.  342 and 38 MRSA Sec.  581) and its original 1972 
SIP Chapter 8, documenting the existence of adequate resources. For FY 
2007 (the year cited in its submittal), the Maine Bureau of Air Quality 
had a staff of 59, and a budget of $5.5 million.
    New Hampshire cites the RSA 125 C:6, which authorizes the NHDES 
Commissioner to enforce the state's air laws, establish a permit 
program, accept and administer grants, and exercise all incidental 
powers necessary to carry out the law, and RSA 125 C:12, which 
authorizes the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of 
reviewing and acting upon permit applications. In addition New 
Hampshire cites its original 1972 SIP which describes the (A) existing 
organizations; (B) manpower; (C) funding; and (D) physical resources.
    Rhode Island cites Sec.  23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides the 
Director of DEM with the legal authority to enforce air pollution 
control requirement, and Sec.  23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides for 
the assessment of operating permit fees from air emissions sources, 
allows for DEM to assess preconstruction permit fees and establishes a 
general revenue reserve account within the general fund to finance the 
state clean air programs. In addition, RI DEM referred to its 
regulations implementing its operating permit program pursuant to 40 
CFR part 70. RI APCR No. 28, ``Operating Permit Fees,'' requires major 
sources to pay annual operating permit fees. Finally, Section III of 
the 1972 RI SIP specifies the RI DEM's legal authority to implement SIP 
measures and Section VII of the 1972 SIP describes the resources and 
manpower estimates for the RI DEM.
    As discussed above, EPA has previously determined that Maine, New 
Hampshire, and Rhode Island would not have adequate resources to 
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to GHG emissions 
without adopting rules to limit the number of GHG sources that require 
PSD permits. A complete discussion of this issue is provided above in 
Section III.C. of this rule. All three state environmental agencies 
adopted programs to address this deficiency. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to fully approve this element.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

F. Stationary Source Monitoring System

    Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the CAA requires states to establish a 
system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and to submit 
periodic emission reports. Connecticut's, Maine's, New Hampshire's, and 
Rhode Island's infrastructure submittals reference the specific 
regulations that were previously adopted by the state and approved by 
EPA which require sources to monitor emissions and submit reports. The 
specific rules, along with a citation to EPA's approval of each rule, 
is included in the TSD for each state. For example, Rhode Island's 
submittal references the following: (1) APCR No. 9, ``Air Pollution 
Control Permits,'' which requires emissions testing of permitted 
processes within 60 days of full operation and specifies that 
preconstruction permits issued contain an emissions testing section; 
(2) APCR No. 14, ``Record Keeping and Reporting,'' which requires 
emission sources to report annually emissions and other data to RI DEM; 
and (3) APCR No. 27, ``Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,'' which 
requires annual emissions testing of subject sources and includes 
specifications for continuous emissions monitors. As detailed in the 
TSD's, similar rules and regulations

[[Page 16363]]

have been adopted by Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

G. Emergency Power

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires states to provide for 
authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial 
endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement 
the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. Connecticut's, Maine's, 
New Hampshire's, and Rhode Island's infrastructure submittals reference 
the specific state legislation that gives each state authority to order 
a source to cease operations if it is determined that emissions from 
the source pose an immediate danger to public health or safety. In 
addition, Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island have adopted emergency 
episode regulations, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 
51, subpart H, sections 51.150 through 51.153, which have been 
previously approved by EPA. (See TSDs for state regulation and EPA 
approval citations.)
    New Hampshire has broad statutory authority (see RSA 125-C:9 
Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency) to address 
activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public 
health; however, New Hampshire does not have regulations that 
specifically address all the 40 CFR part 51 subpart H requirements. But 
New Hampshire, as a matter of practice, does the following in response 
to elevated ozone levels. Through the EPA AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH 
systems, the New Hampshire DES posts on the internet forecasted ozone 
levels statewide for each day. Notices are sent out to ENVIROFLASH 
participants when levels are forecast to exceed the current 8-hour 
ozone standard. In addition, when levels are expected to exceed the 
ozone standard in New Hampshire, the media are alerted, through a press 
release, and the National Weather Service is alerted to issue an Air 
Quality Advisory through the normal National Weather Service weather 
alert system. This is similar to the notification and communication 
requirements of 40 CFR 151.152. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully 
approve this element for New Hampshire.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

H. Future SIP Revisions

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA requires states to have the 
authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, 
availability of improved methods for attaining NAAQS, or in response to 
an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate. Connecticut's 
infrastructure submittal references the SIP and CGS which requires the 
SIP to be a dynamic and not static document that is to be revised as 
necessary. Maine's infrastructure submittal references the MRSA, which 
requires, the adoption, amendment or repeal of reasonable rules and 
emergency rules necessary for the interpretation, implementation and 
enforcement of any provision of law that the environmental department 
is charged with administering. New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal 
references, RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, which 
requires the commissioner to develop ``a comprehensive program and 
provide services for the study, prevention and abatement of air 
pollution.'' Rhode Island's infrastructure submittal references, Sec.  
23-23-5 of the RIGL, which allows the Director of RI DEM to ``make, 
issue, and amend rules and regulations * * * for the prevention, 
control, abatement, and limitation of air pollution.'' In addition, it 
should be noted that all four states have made numerous SIP revisions 
for both the previous 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

I. Nonattainment Area Plan Under Part D

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

J. Consultation With Government Officials; Public Notification; PSD; 
and Visibility Protection

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a 
process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land 
Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to 
Section 121 relating to consultation.
    Connecticut's infrastructure submittal references CGS Section 22a-
171, Duties of Commissioner of Environmental Protection, which requires 
the commissioner to ``advise and consult with agencies of the United 
States, agencies of the state, political subdivisions and industries 
and any other affected groups in furtherance of the purposes of this 
chapter.'' In addition Connecticut has a State Implementation Plan 
Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) which was established in 1972, and 
generally meets each month in Hartford. The meeting notices are posted 
on the CT DEP Web site and the agenda is also available on the Web 
site. The SIPRAC committee discusses relevant air quality issues, such 
as air quality permits, state and national regulation revisions and SIP 
changes.
    Maine's infrastructure submittal references the MRSA and CMR. 
Specifically 06-096 CMR Chapter 115 Major and Minor Source Air Emission 
License Regulations, Section 4A(d) establishes consultation 
requirements with Federal Land Managers for NSR and PSD, which 
requires, ``The applicant and/or the Department shall notify and 
provide a copy of the application to all Federal Land Managers listed 
in Chapter 100 of the Department's regulations, and the Indian 
governing body of any reservation located within 50 km of any Major 
Modification or new Major source on or before the date the applicant 
provides Notice of Intent to File to the public, and provide at least a 
thirty (30) days public comment period.''
    New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal references state laws and 
regulations, specifically, RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the 
Commissioner, which requires: Consulting, and cooperating with the 
cities and towns and other agencies of the state, federal government, 
interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or groups in matters 
relating to air quality; encouraging local units to promote cooperation 
by the people, political subdivisions, industries, and others in 
preventing and controlling air pollution and coordinating and 
regulating the air pollution control programs of political

[[Page 16364]]

subdivisions of the state and entering agreements with said 
subdivisions to plan or implement programs for the control and 
abatement of air pollution.
    Rhode Island's submittal references Sec.  23-23-5 of the RIGL which 
specifies that the RI DEM Director shall ``advise and consult with 
agencies of the United States, agencies of the state, political 
subdivisions and industries and any other affected groups in 
furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.''
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA further requires states to notify 
the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public 
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are all state 
partners participating in EPA's AIRNOW and EnviroFlash Air Quality 
Alert programs. See http://www.airnow.gov. Through this program, states 
provide near real-time air quality data, as well as next day forecasts, 
to the public. Individuals and organizations may also sign up to 
receive e-mail alerts when poor air quality is predicted in their area.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA also requires states to meet 
applicable requirements of Part C related to prevention of significant 
deterioration and visibility protection. With regard to the applicable 
requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that states are 
subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part 
C of the Act (which includes CAA 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, we 
find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. We are, however, 
evaluating the infrastructure submittals with respect to the applicable 
PSD program requirements under 110(a)(2)(C). A complete discussion of 
this issue is provided above in Section III.C. of this rule.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

K. Air Quality Modeling/Data

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 
performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality 
of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to 
EPA upon request.
    As further explained in each state's TSD, all four states reference 
the relative portions of their laws, regulations and SIPs that require 
modeling from new or modified sources of air pollution, and the general 
authority for the state to conduct air quality analyses. Connecticut, 
New Hampshire and Rhode Island have submitted 8-hour ozone attainment 
demonstrations to EPA as required under the CAA for ozone nonattainment 
areas classified moderate and above. Maine was not required to submit 
an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration, because the nonattainment 
areas in Maine were not classified as moderate or higher. In addition, 
all four states are members of and participate in the ozone attainment 
demonstration modeling efforts conducted by the Ozone Transport 
Commission.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

L. Permitting Fees

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA requires SIPs to require each major 
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of 
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit until such 
fee requirements are superseded by EPA's approval of a title V 
operating permit program with a fee program consistent with the Act. 
None of these states' title V operating permit programs is formally 
approved into the state's SIP. However, the operating permit program is 
a legal mechanism the state can use to ensure that it has sufficient 
resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(L).
    EPA's full approval of Connecticut's title V program became 
effective on May 31, 2002. Before EPA can grant full approval, a state 
must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Connecticut's 
title V program included a demonstration the state will collect a fee 
from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 
40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Connecticut collects sufficient fees to 
administer the title V permit program.
    EPA's full approval of Maine's title V program became effective on 
December 17, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, the state must 
demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. On October 23, 1995, 
Maine submitted a detailed fee demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR 
70.9. The detailed fee demonstration was part of EPA's full approval. 
Maine collects adequate fees for Title V sources. The statute also 
allows the state to collect fees from new Title V sources, which meets 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L).
    EPA's full approval of New Hampshire's title V program became 
effective on November 23, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, a 
state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. New 
Hampshire's title V program included a demonstration the state will 
collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in 
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). New Hampshire collects sufficient 
fees to administer the title V permit program.
    EPA's full approval of Rhode Island's title V program became 
effective on November 30, 2001. Before EPA can grant full approval, a 
state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Rhode 
Island's title V program included a demonstration the state will 
collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in 
accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Rhode Island collects sufficient 
fees to administer the title V permit program.
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

M. Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the CAA requires states to provide for 
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political 
subdivisions affected by the SIP. The Connecticut infrastructure 
submittal references state law (see CGS Section 4-168) and Chapter 12 
of the original 1972 Connecticut SIP, which require consultation and 
coordination with local entities. In addition, the Connecticut State 
Implementation Plan Revision Advisory Committee (SIPRAC) established in 
1972 generally meets each month in Hartford. The meeting notices are 
posted on the Connecticut DEP Web site and the agenda is also available 
on the Web site. SIPRAC discusses relevant air pollution issues and 
regulations with all interested parties, including EPA. Maine's 
infrastructure submittal references state law (see 5 MRSA Chapter 375, 
Subchapter 2 and 38 MRSA Sec.  597) and Chapter 9 of the original 1972 
SIP, which requires consultation and coordination with local entities. 
New Hampshire's infrastructure submittal references state regulations 
(see RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner), which requires 
consultation and coordination with local entities. Rhode Island's 
infrastructure submittal references

[[Page 16365]]

section 23-23-5 of the RIGL which provides for the RI DEM Director ``to 
advise, consult, and cooperate with the cities and towns and other 
agencies of the State, Federal government, and other states and 
interstate agencies * * *''
    Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all meet the 
requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to find that the current SIPs for the States of 
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island meet the 
infrastructure elements and the corresponding subsection of the CAA 
listed below for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
    Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A));
    Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B));
    Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C));
    Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii));
    Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E));
    Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F));
    Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G));
    Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H));
    Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J));
    Public notification (110(a)(2)(J));
    Prevention of significant deterioration (110(a)(2)(J));
    Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K));
    Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and
    Consultation/participation by affected local entities 
(110(a)(2)(M)).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES 
section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments 
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the 
directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this action and if that provision may be 
severed from the remainder of the action, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions that are not the subject of an adverse comment. In addition, 
EPA may take final action on one or more of these state's submittals 
separately, depending on the circumstances involved with each state's 
submittal.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2011-6870 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


