Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17367 

sufficient to enable CBP to identify the 

article. 

(d) Conditional release. In lieu of 

immediate refusal of admission into the 

customs territory of the United States, 

CBP, upon a recommendation from the 

DOE or FTC, may permit the release of 

a noncompliant covered import to the 

importer of record for purposes of 

reconditioning, re-labeling, or other 

modification. The release from CBP 

custody of any such covered import will 

be deemed conditional and subject to 

the bond conditions set forth in § 113.62 

of this Chapter. Note: Conditionally 

released covered imports will also be 

subject to the jurisdiction of DOE and/ 

or FTC. 

(1) Duration. Unless extended in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section, the conditional release period 

will terminate upon the earliest 

occurring of the following events: 

(i) The date that CBP issues a notice 

of refusal of admission pursuant to 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(ii) The date that the DOE or FTC 

issues a notice to CBP stating that the 

covered import is in compliance and 

may proceed; or 

(iii) At the conclusion of the 30-day 

period following the date of release. 

(2) Extension. The conditional release 

period may be extended if both CBP and 

the importer of record receive, within 

the initial 30-day conditional release 

period or any subsequent authorized 

extension thereof, a written or electronic 

notice from the DOE or FTC stating the 

reason for and anticipated length of the 

extension. 

(3) Issuance of a redelivery notice and 

demand for redelivery. If the 

noncompliant covered import is not 

timely brought into compliance, and if 

so directed by DOE or FTC, CBP will 

issue a refusal of admission notice to the 

importer pursuant to paragraph (c) of 

this section and, in addition, CBP will 

demand the redelivery of the specified 

covered product to CBP custody. The 

demand for redelivery may be made 

concurrently with the notice of refusal 

of admission. 

(4) Liquidated damages. A failure to 

comply with a demand for redelivery 

made under this paragraph (d) will 

result in the assessment of liquidated 

damages equal to three times the value 

of the covered product. Value as used in 

this provision means value as 

determined under 19 U.S.C. 1401a. 

Approved: March 20, 2012. 

David V. Aguilar, 

Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7105 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 111 

[USCBP–2010–0038] 

RIN 1651–AA80 

Permissible Sharing of Client Records 

by Customs Brokers 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 27, 2010, that proposed 

amendments to the Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) regulations that would 

allow brokers, upon the client’s consent 

in a written authorization, to share 

client information with affiliated 

entities related to the broker so that 

these entities may offer non-customs 

business services to the broker’s clients. 

Although the proposed rule was 

prepared in response to a request from 

a member of the broker community 

seeking to allow brokers to share clients’ 

information for marketing purposes, 

there was opposition to the proposal 

from brokers due to the condition on 

sharing the information that CBP 

included in the document to protect 

importers’ proprietary information. The 

notice is being withdrawn to permit 

further consideration of the relevant 

issues involved in the proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective March 26, 2012, the 

proposed rule published October 27, 

2010, (75 FR 66050), is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Harris, Chief, Broker Compliance 

Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, 

Office of International Trade, (202) 863– 

6069. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 27, 2010, Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 66050) 

pertaining to the obligations of customs 

brokers to keep clients’ information 

confidential. The proposed amendment 

would allow brokers, upon the client’s 

written consent, to share client 

information with affiliated entities 

related to the broker so that these 

entities may offer non-customs business 

services to the broker’s clients. The 

proposed amendment would also allow 

customs brokers to use a third-party to 

perform photocopying, scanning, and 

delivery of client records for the broker. 

These proposed changes were intended 

to update the regulations to reflect 

modern business practices, while 

protecting the confidentiality of client 

(importer) information. The comment 

period ended on December 27, 2010. 

CBP received public comment on the 

proposed rulemaking. The majority of 

commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed rule did not serve the interests 

of the importing public. Specifically, 

there was opposition to the proposal 

from brokers due to the condition on 

sharing the information that CBP 

included in the document to protect 

importers’ proprietary information. 

Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

CBP is withdrawing the notice 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 66050) on October 27, 2010, pending 

further consideration of the relevant 

issues involved in the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Dated: March 21, 2012. 

David V. Aguilar, 

Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7223 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0919; A–1–FRL– 

9651–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Connecticut State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2018. It was submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (now known 

as Connecticut Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection, CT 

DEEP) on November 18, 2009, February, 

24, 2012 and March 12, 2012. This 

revision addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require States to prevent any 

future, and remedy any existing, 

manmade impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas (also referred to 

as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States 

are required to assure reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0919 by one of 

the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0919 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

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 No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0919. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Management, Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection, State 

Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, 

CT 06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.go. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Regional Haze 

Requirements 

II. What are the requirements for the Regional 

Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Connecticut’s 

Regional Haze SIP submittal? 

A. Connecticut’s Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

1. Identification of All BART Eligible 

Sources 

2. Identification All BART Source 

Categories Covered by the Alternative 

Program 

3. Determination of the BART Benchmark 

4. Connecticut’s SO2 Alternative BART 

Program 

5. Connecticut’s NOX Alternative BART 

Program 

6. EPA’s Assessment of Connecticut’s 

Alternative to BART Program 

Demonstration 

7. Connecticut’s PM BART Determinations 

8. BART Enforceability 

C. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairments 

4. Reasonable Progress Goal 

5. Additional Considerations for the LTS 

D. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17369 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without manmade air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 1 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 

(Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in Section II. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. In 

40 CFR 51.308(b), States are required to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. On January 15, 2009, EPA found 

that 37 States, the District of Columbia 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to 

submit this required implementation 

plan. See 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In 

particular, EPA found that Connecticut 

failed to submit a plan that met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See 74 

FR 2393. On November 18, 2009, the 

Bureau of Air Management of the CT 

DEEP submitted revisions to the 

Connecticut State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to address regional haze as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308. EPA has 

reviewed Connecticut’s submittal and is 

proposing to find that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

as outlined in Section II. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the States and 

Tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and Tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) RPO is a 

collaborative effort of State 

governments, tribal governments, and 

various federal agencies established to 

initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Northeastern 

United States. Member State and Tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Regional Haze 

Requirements 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

required some states to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

contribute to violations of the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 

established emissions budgets for SO2

and NOX. On October 13, 2006, EPA’s 

‘‘Regional Haze Revisions to Provisions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

Governing Alternative to SourceSpecific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; 

Final Rule’’ (hereinafter known as the 

‘‘Alternative to BART Rule’’) was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

71 FR 60612. This rule establishes that 

states participating in the CAIR program 

need not require Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) for SO2 and NOX at 

BART-eligible electric generating units 

(EGUs). Many States relied on CAIR as 

an alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX

for their subject EGUs. 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until replaced by EPA 

with a rule consistent with its opinion. 

See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to replace 

CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 

2011). Connecticut was subject to ozone 

season NOX controls under the CAIR 

program, however, the State was not 

subject to any of the requirements of 

CSAPR and thus the option to rely on 

CSAPR as an alternative to BART was 

not available to the State. 

On December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 

Court issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the D.C. 

Circuit stayed CSAPR pending the 

court’s resolutions of the petitions for 

review of that rule in EME Homer 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). The court also 

indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until the court rules on the 

petitions for review of CSAPR. 

On December 15, 2011, Connecticut 

held a public hearing on proposed 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174–22d. 

This regulation, once adopted, will 

permanently maintain the ozone season 

NOX emission reductions that were 

previously required under the CAIR 

program. Connecticut has requested the 

parallel processing of RCSA section 

22a–174–22d with EPA’s action on the 

Connecticut Regional Haze SIP revision. 

Under this procedure, EPA prepared 

this action before the State’s final 

adoption of this regulation. Connecticut 

has indicated that they plan to have a 

final adopted regulation by June 2012, 

prior to our final action on its Regional 

Haze SIP. After Connecticut submits its 

final adopted regulation, EPA will 

review the regulation to determine 

whether it differs from the proposed 

regulation. If the final regulation does 

differ from the proposed regulation, 

EPA will determine whether these 

differences are significant. Ordinarily, 

changes that are limited to issues such 

as allocation methodology would not be 

deemed significant for SIP approval 

purposes, assuming the methodology 

does not lead to allocations in excess of 

the total state budget. Based on EPA’s 

determination regarding the significance 

of any changes in the final regulation, 

EPA would then decide whether it is 

appropriate to prepare a final rule and 

describe the changes in the final 

rulemaking action, re-propose action 

based on the Connecticut’s final 

adopted regulation, or other such action 

as may be appropriate. 

RCSA 22a–174–22d is a replacement 

for RCSA 22a–174–22c, ‘‘The Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program,’’ 

which is federally approved by EPA and 

currently being implemented in 

Connecticut. Proposed regulation RCSA 

22a–174–22d is one component of 

Connecticut’s NOX Alternative BART 

Program. This alternative program is 

discussed in detail in Section III.B.5. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.2

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program and as 

part of the process for determining 

reasonable progress, States must 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area within 

the State at the time of each regional 

haze SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years midway 

through each 10-year planning period. 

To do this, the RHR requires States to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, States must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purposes of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to States regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents entitled, Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005) 

available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17371 

3The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 

(EPA–454/B–03–004), available at 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data from 2000 through 

2004, States are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area within the State, 

based on the average of annual values 

over the five year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish RPGs for Class I 

areas for each (approximately) 10-year 

planning period. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions for their Class I areas. In 

setting RPGs, States must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the CAA and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s July 1, 2007 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10, 

entitled Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (p. 4–2, 5– 

1)(EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance). In setting the RPGs, States 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the ‘‘glide 

path’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which States are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each State with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I State’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing States,’’ i.e., other nearby 

States with emission sources that may 

be contributing to visibility impairment 

at the Class I State’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, the CAA 

requires States to revise their SIPs to 

contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing stationary sources 

built between 1962 and 1977 procure, 

install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available 

Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by 

the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).3 States 

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, States 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts (MW), a State must use 

the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). EPA has stated that States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, States may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART 

eligible source would not be expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. The 

State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must 

state the basis for its selection of that 

value. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. 

See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 

2005). In making BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that States consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. States are free to 

determine the weight and significance 

to be assigned to each factor. See 70 FR 

39170 (July 6, 2005). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required by CAA 

(section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR, 

States are required to include a LTS in 

their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS 

must include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the State. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the seven 

factors listed below is taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the State’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the State 

must revise its plan to provide for 

review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing reasonably 

attributable and regional haze visibility 

impairment, and the State must submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTS’s, and periodic 

progress reports evaluating progress 

towards RPGs, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

reviews of a State’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment and must be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4), the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

of regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I Federal areas within the State. 

The strategy must be coordinated with 

the monitoring strategy required in 40 

CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with 

this requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the 

RHR, state control strategies must cover 

an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17373 

4The August 2006 NESCAUM document 

Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic United States has been provided 

as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted 

above, apply only to the first 

implementation period. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

State must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

State and FLMs regarding the State’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Connecticut’s regional haze SIP 

submittal? 

On November 18, 2009, February, 24, 

2012, and March 12, 2012, CT DEEP’s 

Bureau of Air Management submitted 

revisions to the Connecticut SIP to 

address regional haze as required by 40 

CFR 51.308. EPA has reviewed 

Connecticut’s submittal and is 

proposing to find that it is consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

as outlined in Section II. A detailed 

analysis follows. 

Connecticut is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP which 

addresses Connecticut’s impact on any 

nearby Class I areas. As Connecticut has 

no Class I areas within its borders, 

Connecticut is not required to address 

the following Regional Haze SIP 

elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions; (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals; (c) monitoring requirements; and 

d) RAVI requirements. 

A. Connecticut’s Impact on MANE–VU 

Class I Areas 

Connecticut is a member of the 

MANE–VU RPO. The MANE–VU RPO 

contains seven Class I areas in four 

States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, 

Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/ 

Campobello International Park in 

Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River 

Wilderness Area and Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; 

Brigantine Wilderness Area in New 

Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont. 

Through source apportionment 

modeling, MANE–VU assisted States in 

determining their contribution to the 

visibility impairment of each Class I 

area in the MANE–VU region. 

Connecticut and the other MANE–VU 

States adopted a weight-of-evidence 

approach which relied on several 

independent methods for assessing the 

contribution of different sources and 

geographic source regions to regional 

haze in the northeastern and midAtlantic portions of the United States. 

Details about each technique can be 

found in the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) document Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Contribution Report’’).4

The source apportionment modeling 

demonstrated that the contribution of 

Connecticut emissions to total sulfate 

(the main contributor to visibility 

impairment in the Northeast, see 

Section III.C.3) was consistently 

determined to be no more than 0.76% 

of the total sulfate at any Class I area. 

This finding was consistently predicted 

by different assessment techniques that 

are based on the application of disparate 

chemical, meteorological and physical 

principles. The greatest modeled 

contribution from Connecticut for each 

of the MANE–VU Class I areas was 

0.76% sulfate at Acadia National Park, 

0.56% sulfate at Moosehorn Wilderness 

Area and Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park, 0.48% sulfate at 

Great Gulf Wilderness Area and 

Presidential Range—Dry River 

Wilderness Area, 0.55% sulfate at Lye 

Brook Wilderness Area, and 0.53% at 

Brigantine Wilderness Area. The impact 

of sulfate on visibility is discussed in 

greater detail below. 

The MANE–VU Class I States 

determined that any State contributing 

at least 2.0% of the total sulfate 

observed on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days in 2002 were contributors 

to visibility impairment at the Class I 

area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and the District of Columbia 

were determined to contribute less than 

2.0% of sulfate at any of the Class I 

areas in the Northeast. 

EPA is proposing to find that CT 

DEEP has adequately demonstrated that 

emissions from Connecticut sources do 

not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in nearby Class I Areas. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

According to 51.308(e), ‘‘The State 

must submit an implementation plan 

containing emission limitations 

representing BART and schedules for 

compliance with BART for each BARTeligible source that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I 

Federal area, unless the State 

demonstrates that an emissions trading 

program or other alternative will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions.’’ 

On October 13, 2006, EPA’s ‘‘Regional 

Haze Regulations to Provisions 

Governing Alternative to SourceSpecific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; 

Final Rule’’ (hereinafter known as the 

‘‘Alternative to BART Rule’’) was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

71 FR 60612. Connecticut chose to 

demonstrate that programs already 

developed by the State provide greater 

progress in visibility improvement than 

source-by-source BART determinations. 

A demonstration that the alternative 

program will achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would have resulted from 

the installation and operation of BART 

at all sources subject to BART in the 

state must be based on the following: 

(1) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

within the State. 

(2) A list of all BART-eligible sources 

and all BART source categories covered 

by the alternative program. 

(3) Determination of the BART 

benchmark. If the alternative program 

has been designed to meet a 

requirement other than BART, as in the 

case of Connecticut, the State may 

determine the best system of continuous 

emission control technology and 

associated emission reductions for 

similar types of sources within a source 

category based on both source specific 

and category-wide information, as 

appropriate. 

(4) An analysis of the projected 

emission reductions achieved through 

the alternative program. 

(5) A determination based on a clear 

weight of evidence that the alternative 

program achieves greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART at the covered sources. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5 Visibility Impact is measured in units of 

deciviews (dv). A deciview measures the 

incremental visibility change discernable by the 

human eye. The deciview values included in Table 

1 are from Attachment X of Connecticut’s 

November 18, 2009 SIP submittal. 

6CT RCSA Section 22a–175–22d maintains NOX

emission reductions required by the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule. Connecticut is subject to ozoneseason CAIR limits, however, the State was not 

included in the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule. 

See 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). Therefore 

Connecticut has proposed an intra-state trading 

program for NOX to make permanent these emission 

reductions. 

1. Identification of All BART Eligible 

Sources 

Determining BART-eligible sources is 

the first step in the BART process. 

BART-eligible sources in Connecticut 

were identified in accordance with the 

methodology in Appendix Y of the 

Regional Haze Rule, Guidelines for 

BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, Part II, How to 

Identify BART–Eligible Sources. See 70 

FR 39158. This guidance consists of the 

following criteria: 

• The unit falls into one of the listed 

source categories; 

• The unit was constructed or 

reconstructed between 1962 and 1977; 

and 

• The unit has the potential to emit 

over 250 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, 

volatile organic compounds, or 

ammonia. 

The BART Guidelines require States 

to address SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter. States are allowed to use their 

best judgment in deciding whether VOC 

or ammonia emissions from a source are 

likely to have an impact on visibility in 

the area. The State of Connecticut 

addressed SO2, NOX, and used 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM10) as an indicator for 

particulate matter to identify BART 

eligible units, as the BART Guidelines 

require. Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the State of Connecticut did 

not evaluate emissions of VOCs and 

ammonia in BART determinations due 

to the lack of impact on visibility in the 

area due to anthropogenic sources. The 

majority of VOC emissions in 

Connecticut are biogenic in nature. 

Therefore, the ability to further reduce 

total ambient VOC concentrations at 

Class I areas is limited. Point, area, and 

mobile sources of VOCs in Connecticut 

are already comprehensively controlled 

as part of an ozone attainment and 

maintenance strategy. With respect to 

ammonia, the overall ammonia 

inventory is very uncertain, but the 

amount of anthropogenic emissions at 

sources that were BART-eligible is 

relatively small, and no additional 

sources were identified that had greater 

than 250 tons per year ammonia and 

required a BART analysis. 

The identification of BART sources in 

Connecticut was undertaken as part of 

a multi-State analysis conducted by the 

NESCAUM. NESCAUM worked with CT 

DEEP licensing engineers to review all 

sources and determine their BART 

eligibility. CT DEEP identified ten 

sources as BART-eligible. Pfizer Inc. 

Boilers No. 5, No. 8, and the Organic 

Synthesis Plant 2 (OSP2) were originally 

included in the list of BART-eligible 

units. On March 10, 2006, the CT DEEP 

issued Consent Order No. 8262 to Pfizer 

Inc. which caps the actual aggregated 

emissions from the boilers and OSP2 to 

less than 250 tons per year for each of 

the air pollutants NOX, SO2, and PM10. 

Therefore, Pfizer’s facility is no longer 

considered BART-eligible. The final 

BART-eligible sources are listed below. 

TABLE 1—BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN CONNECTICUT

Source, unit and location Fuel BART source category 2002 Emissions 

(ton/yr) 

Highest 2002 

visibility 

impact 

dv) 5

Middletown Power LLC, Unit 3,* Middletown, CT .... Residual Oil, Natural Gas 240 MW EGU .................. SO2: 269 

NOX: 468 

0.11 

Middletown Power LLC, Unit 4,* Middletown, CT .... Residual Oil, Natural Gas 400 MW EGU .................. SO2: 308 

NOX: 145 

0.06 

Montville Power LLC, Unit 6, Montville, CT .............. Residual Oil Distillate Oil 410 MW EGU .................. SO2: 794 

NOX: 312 

0.16 

Norwalk Power LLC, Unit 2, Norwalk, CT ................ Residual Oil ..................... 172 MW EGU .................. SO2: 322 

NOX: 82 

0.08 

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, Bridgeport Harbor 

Station, Unit 3, Bridgeport, CT.

Coal, Residual Oil ........... 410 MW EGU .................. SO2: 4,024 

NOX: 1,689 

0.84 

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, New Haven Harbor 

Station, Unit 1, New Haven, CT.

Residual Oil, Distillate Oil, 

Natural Gas.

465 MW EGU .................. SO2: 4,010 

NOX: 1,143 

0.74 

Cascades Boxboard Group—CT LLC, PFI Boiler, 

Versailles, CT.

Residual Oil, Natural Gas 275 MMbtu/hr Industrial 

Boiler.

SO2: 0.5 

NOX: 215 

0.03 

* Located at a facility greater than 750 MW. 

2. Identification of All BART Source 

Categories Covered by the Alternative 

Program 

In crafting Connecticut’s alternative to 

BART demonstration, the State relied on 

SO2 emission reductions required by 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA section 22a–174–19a 

(Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

from Power Plant and Other Large 

Stationary Sources of Air Pollution). 

The Connecticut programs to reduce 

NOX emissions are RCSA Section 22a– 

174–22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions), and proposed RCSA Section 

22a–174–22d (Post-2011 Connecticut 

Ozone Season NOX Budget Program).6 A 

complete list of sources addressed can 

be found in Table 9.4 of Connecticut’s 

November 18, 2009 SIP submittal. All of 

the identified BART-eligible EGUs are 

included in Connecticut’s alternative to 

BART demonstration. 

3. Determination of the BART 

Benchmark 

According to the Alternative to BART 

Rule, in developing the BART 

benchmark, with one exception, States 

must follow the approach for making 

BART determinations under section 

51.308(e)(1). The one exception to this 

general approach is where the 

alternative program has been designed 

to meet requirements other than BART; 

in this case, States are not required to 

make BART determinations under 

51.308(e)(1) and may use a simplifying 

assumption in establishing a BART 

benchmark based on an analysis of what 

BART is likely to be for similar types of 

sources within a source category. Under 

either approach to establishing a BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17375 

benchmark, we believe that the 

presumptions for EGUs in the BART 

Guidelines should be used for 

comparison to a trading program or 

other alternative program, unless the 

State determines that such 

presumptions are not appropriate for a 

particular EGU. See 71 FR 60619. Even 

though Connecticut had the option of 

using the less stringent EPA 

presumptive limits, the State opted to 

use the MANE–VU recommended BART 

emission limits for non-CAIR EGUs and 

industrial boilers in setting the BART 

benchmark. These limits are listed in 

Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MANE–VU RECOMMENDED BART LIMITS

Category SO2 Limits NOX Limits 

Non-CAIR EGUs .................. Coal—95% control or 0.15 lb/MMbtu Oil—95% control 

or 0.33 lb/MMBtu (0.3% fuel sulfur limit.

In NOX SIP call area, extend use of controls to year 

round 0.1–0.25 lb/MMBtu depending on coal and 

boiler type. 

Industrial Boilers .................. 90% control, or 0.5% fuel sulfur limit (0.55 lb/MMBtu) ... 0.1–0.4 lb/MMBtu, depending on boiler and fuel type. 

4. Connecticut’s SO2 Alternative BART 

Program 

RCSA section 22a–174–19a (Control 

of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Power 

Plant and Other Large Stationary 

Sources of Air Pollution) was submitted 

to EPA as part of Connecticut’s 

November 18, 2008 PM2.5 attainment 

demonstration SIP revision. RCSA 

Section 22a–174–19a became effective 

December 28, 2000. It includes a twotiered timeframe for reducing SO2

emissions from large EGUs and 

industrial sources (approximately 59 

sources). Starting January 1, 2002, all 

sources subject to Connecticut’s Post 

2002–NOX Budget Program were 

required to: 

• Combust liquid fuel, gaseous fuel or 

a combination of each, provided that 

each fuel possesses a fuel sulfur limit of 

equal to or less than 0.5% sulfur, by 

weight; 

• Meet an average emission rate of 

equal to or less than 0.55 pounds of SO2

per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for 

an affected unit; or 

• Meet an average emission rate of 

equal to or less than 0.5 pounds of SO2

per MMBtu calculated for each calendar 

quarter, if such owner or operator 

averages the emissions from two or 

more affected units at the premises. 

Starting on January 1, 2003, all sources 

in Connecticut that are Acid Rain 

Sources under Title IV of the Clean Air 

Act and are subject to Connecticut’s 

Post-2002 NOX Budget Program were 

required to: 

• Combust liquid fuel, gaseous fuel or 

a combination of each, provided that 

each fuel possesses a fuel sulfur limit of 

equal to or less than 0.3% sulfur, by 

weight; 

• Meet an average emission rate of 

equal to or less than 0.33 pounds of SO2

per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for 

an affected unit at a premises; or 

• Meet an average emission rate of 

equal to or less than 0.3 pounds of SO2

per MMBtu calculated from two or more 

affected units at a premises. 

Prior to January 1, 2005, CT DEEP 

allowed sources subject to the January 1, 

2003 emission rates to meet such 

emission rates by using SO2 discrete 

emission reduction credits certified by 

CT DEEP or EPA’s SO2 Acid Rain 

Program allowances; also known as 

emissions credit trading. Connecticut 

General Statues (CGS) section 22a-198 

suspended SO2 emission credit trading 

starting January 1, 2005. 

The first phase of Connecticut’s SO2

controls plan commenced in January 1, 

2002, therefore, CT DEEP selected 2001 

as the base year for the alternative to 

BART demonstration. Likewise, since 

the second phase of Connecticut’s SO2

plan was fully implemented in 2005, 

Connecticut chose 2006 for comparison. 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL POTENTIAL (ALLOWABLE AT 8760 HOURS) EMISSIONS

[Tons per year] 

BART-eligible unit 2001 * 2002 * 2006 * 

MANE–VU 

BART 

workgroup 

presumptive 

BART 2012 

EPA 

presumptive 

BART 2012 

Middletown Unit 3 ............................................................................................ **5,709 5,709 3,426 3,426 11,419 

Middletown Unit 4 ............................................................................................ **11,284 11,284 6,770 6,770 22,568 

Montville Unit 6 ................................................................................................ 22,442 11,221 6,733 6,733 22,442 

Norwalk Unit 2 ................................................................................................. 8,557 4,278 2,567 2,567 8,557 

PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 ...................................................................... 18,212 9,877 5,926 2,694 ***2,694 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1 .................................................................... 20,508 10,282 6,169 6,169 20,508 

Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler ............................................................ 1,325 662 662 662 1,325 

Total .......................................................................................................... 88,037 53,313 32,253 29,021 89,513 

* Based on the lower of RCSA section 22a-174–19a regulatory limits or federally enforceable permit conditions. 

** Fuel sulfur limited to 0.5% in Consent Order no. 7024. 

*** While this level of control is not required by EPA Guidelines, it is recommended that such level of control be considered. 

Presumptive BART potential emission 

levels for 2012 (tons per year) in Table 

3 were calculated by multiplying the 

MANE–VU BART workgroup and EPA 

recommended BART emission rates in 

lb/MMBtu by the design capacity of the 

unit in MMBtu/hr by 8760 hrs/year as 

follows: 

• For Bridgeport Harbor 3, the sole 

coal-burning unit, 0.15 lb/MMBtu, the 

MANE–VU BART workgroup’s and 

EPA’s recommended SO2 emission rate 

for coal-burning units, was used. 

• For the five oil-burning EGUs, the 

MANE–VU BART workgroup’s and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s recommended BART emission 

rates of 0.33 lb/MMBtu and 1.1 lb/ 

MMBtu respectively, were used in the 

calculations. 

• MANE–VU BART workgroup postBART SO2 potential emissions for 

Cascades Boxboard Group were 

assumed not to change after 2002 

because the source became subject to 

RCSA section 22a 174–19a in 2002 

(0.55 lb/MMBtu) and the allowable SO2

limit did not change after that date so 

the 2006 potential emissions remain the 

same. 

Table 4 lists the actual 2001, 2002, 

and 2006 SO2 emissions from the 

Connecticut BART-eligible units. It 

should be noted that, for the most part, 

the actual emissions are well below the 

potential emission limits. 

TABLE 4—ACTUAL ANNUAL SO2 EMISSIONS

[Tons per year] 

BART-eligible Unit 2001 2002 2006 

Middletown Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 1,830 269 124 

Middletown Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 1,015 308 123 

Montville Unit 6 .................................................................................................................................................... 2,182 794 217 

Norwalk Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,701 322 374 

PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 .......................................................................................................................... 10,429 4,024 2,808 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1 ........................................................................................................................ 9,543 4,010 689 

Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler ................................................................................................................ 251 0.5 215 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 26,951 9,727 4,550 

As detailed in Attachment X of 

Connecticut’s SIP submittal, potential 

emissions from all sources subject to 

RCSA 22a–174–19a was 89,537 tons in 

2002 and 60,304 tons in 2006. As shown 

in Table 5, by comparing SO2 potential 

emission reductions since 2002 from all 

Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources 

subject to RCSA section 22a–174–19a 

(89,537 tons minus 60,304 tons equals 

29,233 tons) with SO2 potential postBART emission reductions from BARTeligible sources since 2002 (53,313 tons 

minus 29,021 tons equals 24,292), it is 

apparent that Connecticut’s existing SO2

regulatory requirements achieve 

approximately 4,841 tons of greater 

reductions than estimated reductions 

from BART alone. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF SO2 POTENTIAL EMISSIONS AND REDUCTIONS SINCE 2002 FROM ALL POST-2002 NOX

BUDGET PROGRAM SOURCES VS. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES ALONE

[Tons per year] 

Option 2002 2006 

Reduction in 

potential 

emissions 

SO2 potential emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources .............................................. 89,537 60,304 29,233 

SO2 potential emissions from BART-eligible sources alone ....................................................................... 53,313 29,021 24,292 

Additional reductions beyond BART-eligible sources alone ................................................................ ................ ................ 4,841 

In addition, Table 6 shows the 

reductions in actual SO2 emissions from 

all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program 

sources and all BART-eligible sources 

since 2001. Note the significant 

reduction in actual SO2 emissions 

starting in 2002 (effective year of Tier 1 

of RCSA section 22a–174–19a) and 

continuing in 2006 (Tier 2 of RCSA 

section 22a–174–19a was effective in 

2003). 

Furthermore, Attachment X of 

Connecticut’s November 18, 2009 

Regional Haze SIP submittal contains 

maps of the facility reductions in actual 

SO2 emissions since 2001 from all Post2002 NOX Budget Program sources as 

well as all BART-eligible sources (both 

Connecticut-specific and as related to 

Class I areas). These graphics 

demonstrate that the emission 

reductions resulting from RCSA section 

22a–174–19a are geographically 

comparable to the locations of the 

BART-eligible sources. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF SO2 ACTUAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS SINCE 2001 FROM ALL POST-2002 NOX BUDGET

PROGRAM SOURCES VS. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES ALONE

[Tons per year] 

Option 2001 2002 2006 

Reduction in 

actual 

emissions 

since 2001 

SO2 actual emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources .............................. 35,625 13,056 7,146 28,479 

SO2 actual emissions from BART-eligible sources alone ....................................................... 26,951 9,727 4,549 22,402 

Additional reductions beyond BART-eligible sources alone ............................................ ................ ................ ................ 6,077 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17377 

7RCSA section 22a–174–22a was approved by 

EPA on September 28, 1999. See 64 FR 52233. 

RCSA section 22a–174–22b was approved by EPA 

on December 27, 2000. See 65 FR 81743. With the 

finalization of Connecticut’s CAIR rule (RSCA 

section 22a–174–22c), Connecticut repealed both 

RCSA section 22a–174–22a (effective September 4, 

2007) and 22a–174–22b (effective May 1, 2010). 

RCSA section 22a–174–22c was approved by EPA 

on January 24, 2008. See 73 FR 4105. 

8www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/docs/ 

CAIRRemandOrder.pdf. 

9On March 12, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a letter 

to EPA clarifying that the Appendix to the 

November 18, 2008 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Attainment Demonstration should have included 

the regulatory text of RCSA section 22a–174– 

22(e)(3). All of the documentation necessary to 

satisfy the public participation requirements of 40 

CFR 51 was included in the Appendix. 

5. Connecticut’s NOX Alternative BART 

Program 

Most of the BART-eligible units in 

Connecticut installed NOX reduction 

technology during the early to mid 

1990s in response to Connecticut’s 

ozone reduction strategies, whereby 

lower NOX emission limits were 

promulgated. As described below, CT 

DEEP has concluded that the NOX

emission limits contained in the 

existing regulations are at least as 

stringent as BART. The CT DEEP 

alternative NOX program is comprised 

of ozone season emission limits and 

non-ozone season emission limits. 

Pursuant to the ozone reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, in 1995, CT DEEP 

adopted NOX control regulations (RCSA 

section 22a–174–22) achieving 

substantial reductions in 24-hour NOX

emission rates from a variety of sources, 

including the BART-eligible units. The 

maximum allowable 24-hour NOX

emission rate for cyclone furnaces 

(including Middletown Unit 3) was 

reduced by 52%, the maximum 

allowable 24-hour NOX emission rate for 

existing coal-fired boilers (Bridgeport 

Unit 3) was reduced by 58%, and the 

maximum allowable 24-hour NOX

emission rate for No. 6 oil-fired boilers 

(including Middletown Unit 4, 

Montville Unit 6, Norwalk Unit 2, New 

Haven Harbor Unit 1 and Cascades 

Boxboard’s PFI boiler) was reduced by 

17% when compared to previously 

adopted NOX limits. This regulation was 

approved into the Connecticut SIP on 

October 6, 1997. See 62 FR 52016. 

Since 1999, CT DEEP has adopted 

several NOX budget trading programs 

which progressively reduced allowances 

allocated to Connecticut’s NOX Budget 

Program sources (i.e., EGUs 15 MW and 

greater and certain large industrial 

sources) during the summer ozone 

season. RCSA section 22a–174–22a 

limited the summer NOX emissions 

budget to 5,866 tons beginning in 1999 

and RCSA section 22a–174–22b reduced 

the summer NOX budget further to 4,466 

tons beginning in 2003. All of 

Connecticut’s BART-eligible units are 

currently subject to the Post-2002 NOX

Budget Program and are also included 

in the CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program starting in 2009 pursuant to 

RCSA section 22a–174–22c. The CAIR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 

includes a NOX budget for Connecticut 

sources of 2,691 tons that is not to be 

exceeded during the ozone season (May 

1st through September 30th each year). 

Implementation of the CAIR Program 

will result in a 76% reduction from the 

estimated 11,203 tons of ozone season 

NOX emissions from NOX Budget 

Program sources in 1990. Each of these 

sections (i.e., RCSA section 22a–174– 

22a, RCSA section 22a–174–22b, and 

RCSA section 22a–174–22c) were 

previously approved into the 

Connecticut SIP.7

On December 23, 2008, CAIR was 

remanded without vacatur.8 On July 6, 

2011, EPA promulgated the Cross State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a 

replacement to the remanded CAIR 

Rule. See 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

Connecticut was not included in the 

final CSAPR. On December 15, 2011, CT 

DEEP held a public hearing on proposed 

22a–174–22d as a replacement to the 

remanded CAIR ozone season program 

for Connecticut (i.e., RCSA section 22a– 

174–22c). On February 24, 2012, CT 

DEEP submitted a request for parallel 

processing of this regulation. Under this 

procedure, EPA prepared this action 

before the State’s final adoption of 22a– 

174–22d. Connecticut has indicated that 

they plan to have a final adopted 

regulation by June 2012, prior to our 

final action on its Regional Haze SIP. 

EPA will review the finalized version of 

22a–174–22d to determine whether it 

differs from the proposed regulation. If 

the final regulation does differ from the 

proposed regulation, EPA will 

determine whether these differences are 

significant. Ordinarily, changes that are 

limited to issues such as allocation 

methodology would not be deemed 

significant for SIP approval purposes, 

assuming the methodology does not 

lead to allocations in excess of the total 

state budget. Based on EPA’s 

determination regarding the significance 

of any changes in the final regulation, 

EPA would then decide whether it is 

appropriate to prepare a final rule and 

describe the changes in the final 

rulemaking action, re-propose action 

based on Connecticut’s final adopted 

regulation, or other such action as may 

be appropriate. 

RCSA section 22a–174–22d limits 

Connecticut’s ozone season NOX budget 

to 2,691 tons, the same budget as 

included in the CAIR Ozone Season 

Trading Program. In addition, RCSA 

section 22a–174–22d only allows for 

intra-state trading which will insure that 

all reductions necessary to meet the 

ozone season NOX budget will occur in 

the state. 

In addition to the ozone season 

requirements for NOX Budget Program 

sources (i.e., EGUs 15 MW and greater 

and large industrial sources), 

Connecticut adopted subdivision 22a– 

174–22(e)(3) on October 30, 2000 which 

requires that, starting in October 2003, 

NOX Budget Program sources that are 

also subject to RCSA section 22a–174– 

22 meet a non-ozone seasonal NOX

emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. These 

revisions to RCSA section 22a–174–22 

were submitted to EPA as part of 

Connecticut’s November 18, 2008 PM2.5

attainment demonstration SIP revision.9

Therefore, all of Connecticut’s NOX

Budget Program sources, including all of 

Connecticut’s BART-eligible sources, 

are subject to year-round NOX emission 

restrictions. Pursuant to RCSA section 

22a–174–22, CT DEEP allows sources 

subject to the 24-hour and non-ozone 

season NOX emission limits to use NOX

discrete emission reduction credits or 

NOX Budget Program allowances to 

comply with the subject emission limits. 

Table 7 shows the NOX reductions in 

potential emissions between 2002 and 

2006 from all Post-2002 NOX Budget 

Program sources as compared with the 

reduction in NOX potential emissions 

from BART-eligible sources alone. The 

‘‘low end’’ and ‘‘high end’’ numbers 

referenced in the 2006 column in Table 

7 are based on the MANE–VU BART 

workgroup’s recommended emission 

limit range of 0.1 lb/MMBtu (low end) 

to 0.25 lb/MMBtu (high end) for NonCAIR EGUs and 0.1 lb/MMBtu (low end) 

to 0.4 lb/MMBtu (high end) for 

industrial boilers, depending on coal 

and boiler type. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10The deciview impact of each BART-eligible 

source, by pollutant, can be found in Attachment 

X of Connecticut’s November 18, 2009 SIP 

submittal. 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF NOX POTENTIAL EMISSIONS AND REDUCTIONS SINCE 2002 FROM ALL POST-2002 NOX

BUDGET PROGRAM SOURCES VS. BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES ALONE

[Tons per year] 

Option 2002 2006 Reduction in 

potential emissions 

NOX potential emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources ..... 46,188 34,833 ......................... 11,355. 

NOX potential emissions from BART-eligible sources alone ............................... 27,554 High End—24,434 .......

Low End—9,701 .........

High End—3,120. 

Low End—17,853. 

Connecticut noted that between 1994 

and 2006 NOX potential emissions from 

all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program 

sources were reduced from 89,812 tons 

to 34,833 tons (a difference of 54,979 

tons), whereas application of BART 

alone would have resulted in reductions 

between 19,225 tons (high end) and 

33,958 tons (low end). 

Connecticut cites three elements of its 

BART alternative program to support a 

finding that the clear weight of evidence 

demonstrates that its NOX BART 

alternative program achieves better than 

BART reductions: 

—Under RCSA section 22a–174–22 

sources that create trading credits 

must automatically retire 10% of 

those credits and sources using 

credits are required to retire 5% more 

than the need to meet emission 

obligations. 

—Connecticut’s budget under CAIR is a 

conservative allocation of emissions. 

After the initial budget determination, 

another source was added to the 

universe of sources subject to CAIR 

without increasing the budget. In 

addition, the CAIR budget was based 

on an outdated NOX SIP Call budget 

that did not incorporate changes due 

to a memorandum of understanding 

between Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

and Massachusetts. 

—Under its CAIR program, Connecticut 

changed the methodology for 

allocating allowances such that it is 

based on megawatt output instead of 

heat input. Thus, less efficient EGUs 

receive substantially fewer allowances 

than they received under 

Connecticut’s earlier NOX Budget 

Programs, thereby encouraging further 

NOX reducing measures such as 

controls and/or repowering. That 

same allocation methodology is also 

included in proposed RCSA section 

22a–174–22d. 

While CAIR is currently still in place, 

it is only effective pending review of 

CSAPR. However, Connecticut has 

proposed parallel processing of its 

replacement to CAIR, RCSA section 

22a–174–22d. This regulation as 

proposed maintains a cap of 2,691 tons 

per ozone season and allocates 

emissions credits to EGUs based in part 

on their megawatt generation. 

Furthermore, Attachment X of 

Connecticut’s November 18, 2009 

Regional Haze SIP submittal contains 

maps of the facility reductions in actual 

NOX emissions since 1994 from all Post2002 NOX Budget Program sources as 

well as all BART-eligible sources (both 

Connecticut-specific and as related to 

Class I areas). These graphics 

demonstrate that the emission 

reductions resulting from RCSA Section 

22a–174–22 including subdivision 22a– 

174–22(e)(3) and proposed RCSA 

section 22a–174–22d (the replacement 

for RCSA section 22a–174–22c) are 

geographically comparable to the 

locations of the BART-eligible sources. 

6. EPA’s Assessment of Connecticut’s 

Alternative to BART Program 

Demonstration 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Connecticut has adequately 

demonstrated that the potential and 

actual SO2 emission reductions from 

RCSA section 22a–174–19a provide 

greater emission reductions than the 

presumptive BART level. Connecticut 

has shown via Attachment X of the 

November 18, 2009 Regional Haze SIP 

submittal that for both SO2 and NOX

emissions, the geographic area covered 

by the Post-2002 NOX Budget Program 

sources is comparable to the geographic 

area covered by the BART-eligible units, 

therefore visibility modeling is not 

required, as noted in the Alternative to 

BART Rule. See 71 FR 60612. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to find that the SO2

alternative to BART program 

demonstration meets the requirements 

of our Alternative to BART Rule. 

As part the NOX alternative to BART 

program demonstration, Connecticut 

has presented a weight of evidence 

demonstration. EPA approved of the 

weight of evidence approach 

Connecticut has taken in our Alternative 

to BART Rule. See 71 FR 60621–22 (Oct. 

13, 2006). This approach was intended 

to provide flexibility for States who 

wished to pursue alternatives to BART 

but had difficulty directly showing that 

their alternative program would 

necessarily result in greater reasonable 

progress than the application of BART 

alone. Under the theoretical scenario 

where Connecticut would require the 

most stringent of the MANE–VU 

recommended controls for each and 

every one of its BART-eligible sources, 

it may be difficult or time consuming 

and expensive for Connecticut to show 

that its alternative program is at least as 

stringent as BART alone. However, we 

note that this scenario is not realistic for 

several reasons. First, unlike many 

BART-eligible sources, Connecticut’s 

BART-eligible sources have installed a 

variety of control equipment in order to 

meet Connecticut’s NOX Budget 

Program. As Connecticut noted, since 

1994, Connecticut’s NOX programs have 

resulted in over 55,000 tons per year of 

reductions from Post-2002 NOX Budget 

Program sources, well in excess of what 

application of BART alone would 

achieve. Moreover, Connecticut has 

demonstrated that the NOX emissions 

from the BART-eligible sources have a 

minimal impact on nearby Class I areas. 

As summarized in Table 8, the greatest 

impact that any BART-eligible source 

has on any Class I area due to NOX

emissions in 2002 is PSEG Bridgeport 

Unit 3 with an impact of only 0.31 dv. 

TABLE 8—HIGHEST VISIBILITY IMPACT

AT ANY CLASS I AREA DUE TO NOX

FROM EACH BART-ELIGIBLE

SOURCE IN CONNECTICUT

Facility 

Highest 

deciview impact 10

Middletown Unit 3 ..................... 0.06 

Middletown Unit 4 ..................... 0.03 

Montville Unit 6 ......................... 0.04 

Norwalk Unit 2 .......................... 0.01 

PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 0.31 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 

1 ............................................ 0.14 

Cascade Boxboard Group PFI 

Boiler ..................................... 0.03 

HadConnecticut conducted a sourceby-source BART analysis, the current 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17379 

11See Section 4.1 of the MANE–VU Five Factor 

Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources, Attachment W 

of Connecticut’s November 18, 2009 SIP submittal. 

12See Attachment Z of the Connecticut November 

18, 2009 SIP submittal. 

controls and the minimal impact from 

the BART-eligible sources would have 

been among the individualized factors 

that Connecticut would have 

considered. Based on these factors, we 

do not believe that the most stringent 

level of controls would have necessarily 

been appropriate for Connecticut’s 

BART-eligible sources, and therefore do 

not believe that the low end emission 

rates from the MANE–VU recommended 

BART limit reflect a realistic BART 

baseline. 

An additional piece of evidence for 

Connecticut’s alternative to BART 

program demonstration is that, while 

Connecticut does not have a firm statewide, year-round cap on emissions from 

EGUs, the firm cap during ozone season 

acts as an impediment to emissions 

growth during non-ozone season. 

In EPA’s Alternative to BART Rule, 

the included scenario was only 

intended to be demonstrative of those 

situations where a weight of evidence 

approach would be appropriate. 

Connecticut’s NOX alternative to BART 

program demonstration fits comfortably 

within the intent behind the weight of 

evidence approach. Given the extent of 

evidence—the controls already required 

prior to the baseline year, the minimal 

visibility impact of the BART-eligible 

sources, and the impediment of NOX

emission growth from new EGUs—we 

are proposing to find that Connecticut 

has shown by a clear weight of evidence 

that their NOX BART alternative which 

relies on RCSA Section 22a–174–22 

including subdivision 22a–174–22(e)(3), 

and RCSA section 22a–174–22d meets 

the requirements of our BART 

alternative rule. 

7. Connecticut’s PM BART 

Determinations 

EPA’s BART Guidelines for 750 MW 

and greater power plants do not contain 

presumptive emission limits for PM. 

The MANE–VU BART workgroup’s 

recommended BART emission limits for 

PM2.5 (measured as particles less than 

2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) are 

emission rate ranges of 0.02–0.04 lb/ 

MMBtu for non-CAIR EGUs and 0.02– 

0.07 lb/MMBtu for industrial boilers. 

Existing Controls at Sources 

Table 9 shows the visibility impact 

and existing PM controls at BARTeligible units in Connecticut. Several 

units have electrostatic precipitators 

(ESP) already in place. 

TABLE 9—THE VISIBILITY IMPACT AND EXISTING CONTROLS AT THE BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS

BART-eligible Unit 

Highest PM10

impact on 20% 

best days 

(deciview) 

Existing PM controls 

Middletown Unit 3 ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000 ESP 

Middletown Unit 4 ................................................................................................................................ 0.0025 None 

Montville Unit 6 .................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 None 

Norwalk Unit 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 0.0002 ESP 

PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 .......................................................................................................... 0.0035 ESP, Baghouse 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1 ........................................................................................................ 0.0012 ESP 

Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler ................................................................................................ 0.0004 None 

Middletown Unit 3, Norwalk Unit 2, 

PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3, and 

PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1 have 

existing ESP control. PSEG Bridgeport 

Harbor Unit 3 also installed a baghouse 

for mercury control in July 2008, 

thereby achieving concomitant PM 

reduction benefits. 

Visibility Improvement Reasonably 

Expected From Application of Controls 

MANE–VU’s 2002 individual unit 

modeling shows that none of 

Connecticut’s PM emissions from 

BART-eligible sources have a significant 

visibility impact on any Class I area. As 

can be seen in Table 9, the highest 

individual PM visibility impact (0.0035 

dv) is significantly less than the 0.1 

deciview individual impact MANE–VU 

warrants worthy of consideration of 

BART controls.11

Cost of Controls 

Table 10 shows the cost of PM 

controls per year for those BARTeligible units without PM controls as 

well as actual PM emissions for 2005. 

Numbers were calculated by using the 

range of control technologies and cost 

per actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) 

of gas flow values provided in 

NESCAUM’s Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART-Eligible 

Sources12 and ACFM values provided in 

the 2005 emission statement. 

TABLE 10—COST OF PM CONTROLS AND 2005 ACTUAL EMISSIONS

BART-eligible unit 

Capital cost 

ranges 

($) 

Fixed & Variable 

operation and maintenance 

cost ranges 

($/year) 

2005 Actual 

PM 

emissions 

(tons) 

Middletown Unit 4 ........................................................................................ $20,496,000–68,320,000 $683,200–3,416,000 46 

Montville Unit 6 ............................................................................................ 20,220,000–67,400,000 674,000–3,370,000 18 

Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler ........................................................ 120,000–4,800,000 48,000–324,000 42 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Remaining Useful Life of the Source 

The MANE–VU BART workgroup’s 

recommendation for sources which rely 

on the remaining useful life factor for 

the determination of BART is that these 

sources should either control emissions 

from the BART-eligible sources prior to 

2013 or accept a federally enforceable 

permit limitation or retirement date 

prior to each state’s public notice and 

hearing processes and FLM review of 

BART SIP elements. Similar to the other 

New England States, the Connecticut 

analysis did not weight this factor. 

Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts 

No significant energy or non-air 

quality environmental benefits or disbenefits associated with PM controls 

were identified. 

Connecticut’s Determination 

Given the very high cost per ton 

reduced for the remaining BARTeligible units without PM controls along 

with the lack of PM contribution 

evidence from MANE–VU’s modeling, 

Connecticut determined that the 

existing conditions with respect to PM 

control are equivalent to BART. 

EPA’s Assessment 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s determination that further 

primary PM control beyond the controls 

already implemented by Connecticut’s 

BART-eligible units is not warranted at 

this time as such measures are not costeffective and the visibility contribution 

from Connecticut’s BART-eligible units 

with respect to PM is insignificant. 

8. BART Enforceability 

EPA is proposing to approve RCSA 

Section 22a–174–19a and revisions to 

RCSA Section 22a–174–22, including 

new subdivision 22a–174–22(e)(3), with 

this rulemaking. In addition, pursuant 

to CT DEEP’s request for parallel 

processing, EPA is proposing approval 

of Connecticut’s proposed RCSA 

Section 22a–174–22d. After the State 

submits the adopted State Regulation 

RCSA 22a–174–22d (including a 

response to all public comments raised 

during the State’s public participation 

process), EPA will prepare a final 

rulemaking notice. If the State’s formal 

SIP submittal contains changes which 

occur after EPA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking, such changes must be 

described in EPA’s final rulemaking 

action. If the State’s changes are 

significant, then EPA must decide 

whether it is appropriate to re-propose 

our action with regard to the State’s SIP 

submittal. 

C. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of 

State-specific control measures relied on 

by the State to obtain its share of 

emission reductions to support the 

RPGs established by Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, 

the nearby Class I area States. 

Connecticut’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. Connecticut 

participated in the MANE–VU regional 

strategy development process and 

supported a regional approach towards 

deciding which control measures to 

pursue for regional haze, which was 

based on technical analyses 

documented in the following reports: (a) 

The Contribution Report; (b) 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas (available at www.marama.org/ 

visibility/RPG/FinalReport/ 

RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf); (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART-Eligible 

Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations 

(available at www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28- 

07.pdf); and (d) Assessment of Control 

Technology Options for BART–Eligible 

Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at 

www.nescaum.org/documents/bartcontrol-assessment.pdf). 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The State-wide emissions inventories 

used by MANE–VU in its regional haze 

technical analyses were developed by 

MARAMA for MANE–VU with 

assistance from Connecticut. The 2018 

emissions inventory was developed by 

projecting 2002 emissions forward 

based on assumptions regarding 

emissions growth due to projected 

increases in economic activity and 

emissions reductions expected from 

federal and State regulations. MANE– 

VU’s emissions inventories included 

estimates of NOX, coarse particulate 

matter (PM10), PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and 

NH3. The BART guidelines direct States 

to exercise judgment in deciding 

whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility 

in their Class I area(s). As discussed 

further in Section III.C.3 below, MANE– 

VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It 

was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3) 

non-road mobile sources, and (4) onroad mobile sources. The New York 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. Non-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways. On-road 

mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types, 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Connecticut 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs in the MANE–VU region were 

projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 at all of 

the MANE–VU Class I areas. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

reasonable progress goals, MANE–VU 

developed 2018 emissions projections 

called ‘‘Best and Final.’’ The emissions 

inventory provided by the State of 

Connecticut for the Best and Final 2018 

projections is based on expected control 

requirements. 

Connecticut relied on emission 

reductions from the following ongoing 

and expected air pollution control 

programs as part of the State’s long term 

strategy. For electrical generating units 

(EGUs), Connecticut relied on RCSA 

sections 22a–174–19a which limits SO2

emissions from all EGUs, proposed 

RCSA section 22a–174–22d which 

limits ozone season NOX for all EGUs, 

RCSA section 22a–174–22 which limits 

the non-ozone season NOX emissions for 

all EGUs, and Connecticut General 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17381 

Statues, section 22a–199 which limits 

mercury emissions for all coal-fired 

EGUs. Connecticut also relied on the 

following controls on non-EGU point 

sources in estimating 2018 emissions 

inventories: NOX SIP Call Phases I and 

II; NOX Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) in 1-hour Ozone 

SIP; NOX Ozone Transport Commission 

(OTC) 2001 Model Rule for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) 

Boilers; VOC 2-year, 4-year, 7-year and 

10-year Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards; 

Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process 

Heater MACT (also known as the 

Industrial Boiler MACT). 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

vacated and remanded the Industrial 

Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v. EPA, 

489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition 

rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur 

on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and 

issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 

(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA 

stayed the effective date of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT pending review 

by the DC Circuit or the completion of 

EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. See 

76 FR 28662. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

proposed reconsideration of the MACT 

standards for existing and new boilers at 

major (76 FR 80598) and area (76 FR 

80532) source facilities, and for 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 

9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia vacated EPA’s stay 

of the effectiveness date of the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, reinstating the original 

effective date and therefore requiring 

compliance with the current rule in 

2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 

11–1278, slip op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012). 

Even though Connecticut’s modeling 

is based on the old Industrial Boiler 

MACT limits, Connecticut’s modeling 

conclusions are unlikely to be affected 

because the expected reductions in SO2

and PM resulting from the vacated 

MACT rule are a relatively small 

component of the Connecticut inventory 

and the expected emission reductions 

from the final MACT rule are 

comparable to those modeled. In 

addition, the new MACT rule requires 

compliance by 2014 and therefore the 

expected emission reductions will be 

achieved prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the old and revised Industrial 

Boiler MACT emission limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Connecticut regional haze SIP. If there 

is a need to address discrepancies 

between projected emissions reductions 

from the old Industrial Boiler MACT 

and the Industrial Boiler MACT 

finalized in March 2011, we expect 

Connecticut to do so in its 5-year 

progress report. 

Controls on area sources expected by 

2018 include: the OTC VOC rules for 

consumer products (RCSA 22a–174–40); 

VOC control measures for architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings 

(RCSA 22a–174–41) and solvent 

cleaning (RCSA 22a–174–20(l)); VOC 

control measures for adhesive and 

sealants (RCSA 22a–174–44); VOC 

control measures for emulsified and 

cutback asphalt paving (RCSA 22a–174– 

20(k)); and VOC control measures for 

portable fuel containers (contained in 

EPA’s Mobile Source Air Toxics rule). 

Controls on mobile sources expected 

by 2018 include: On-board diagnostics 

testing for 1979 and new vehicles 

(RCSA 22a–174–27); Federal On-Board 

Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; 

Federal Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Requirements; Federal Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engine Emission Standards for 

Trucks and Buses; and Federal Emission 

Standards for Large Industrial SparkIgnition Engines and Recreation 

Vehicles. 

Controls on non-road sources 

expected by 2018 include the following 

federal regulations: Control of Air 

Pollution: Determination of Significance 

for Nonroad Sources and Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad 

Compression Ignition Engines at or 

above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306, June 

17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

(63 FR 56967, Oct. 23, 1998); Control of 

Emissions from Nonroad Large SparkIgnition Engines and Recreational 

Engines (67 FR 68241, Nov. 8, 2002); 

and Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines 

and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). 

Tables 11 and 12 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Connecticut. 

The 2018 estimated emissions include 

emissions growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies and reasonable 

progress goals. 

TABLE 11—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR CONNECTICUT

[Tons per year] 

Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

EGU Point ................................................ 303 6,150 461 627 ........................ 13,550 

Non-EGU Point ........................................ 4,604 6,773 822 990 ........................ 2,438 

Area .......................................................... 87,302 12,689 14,247 48,281 5,318 12,418 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 31,755 68,816 1,042 1,580 3,294 1,667 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 33,880 25,460 1,794 1,952 16.6 2,087 

Biogenics .................................................. 64,017 560 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 221,861 120,448 18,366 53,430 8,629 32,160 

TABLE 12—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR CONNECTICUT

[Tons per year] 

Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

EGU Point ................................................ 145 3,418 927 959 341 6,697 

Non-EGU Point ........................................ 4,227 7,501 937 1,104 ........................ 2,068 

Area .......................................................... 68,395 11,795 9,635 20,511 5,061 534 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 10,768 14,787 500 567 3,872 366 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 20,694 16,233 1,135 1,236 20 815 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR CONNECTICUT—Continued 

[Tons per year] 

Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Biogenics .................................................. 64,017 560 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 168,246 54,294 13,134 24,377 9,294 10,480 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast States and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and 

regional haze regulatory modeling 

studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that 

was primarily used to determine the 

attribution of sulfate species in the 

Eastern US via the species-tagging 

scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual States’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU States (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and States adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 

2007 (EPA–454/B–07–002, available at 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and 

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005 and updated 

November 2005 (EPA–454/R–05–001, 

available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Connecticut 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glide path and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA is proposing to find the 

MANE–VU technical modeling to 

support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress acceptable because the 

modeling system was chosen and used 

according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 

EPA agrees with the MANE–VU model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that CMAQ, REMSAD, and 

CALPUFF are appropriate tools for the 

regional haze assessments for the 

Connecticut LTS and regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 

percent worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17383 

13See Appendix E—‘‘Top Electrical Generating 

Unit List’’ of the Connecticut SIP submittal for a 

complete listing of the 167 stacks. 

14On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, 

among other States, Connecticut had failed to 

submit a Regional Haze SIP by the required 

deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent 

decree to resolve a deadline suit regarding this 

finding as well as the finding of failure for 36 other 

States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson, Civ. No. 1:11–cv–1548 (D.D.C. 2011). 

Because we do not believe a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy is necessary for Connecticut’s LTS during 

this first implementation period, EPA is moving 

forward with this proposed approval of the State’s 

SIP submittal in order to satisfy our obligations 

under the Clean Air Act. 

15Connecticut submitted Sec. 16a–21a as part of 

the November 18, 2009 Regional Haze SIP 

submittal. See Attachment GG. Sec. 16a–21a was 

subsequently amended, effective July 1, 2011, to 

include additional sulfur in fuel content reductions 

for number two home heating oil and number two 

off road diesel to 15 ppm at such time that New 

York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island adopt 

substantially similar provisions. EPA is not 

proposing action on this amendment in this 

rulemaking. 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as, 

or more than, 80 percent on the haziest 

days. For example, at the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area 

(the MANE–VU Class I area with the 

greatest visibility impairment), on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000—2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. On the best visibility 

days, sulfate accounts for 50 percent of 

the particle related visibility extinction. 

Organic carbon accounts for the next 

largest contribution of 40 percent of the 

visibility impairment on the clearest 

days. Nitrate, elemental carbon, and fine 

soil typically contribute less than 10 

percent of the visibility impairment 

mass on the clearest days. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goal 

Since the State of Connecticut does 

not have a Class I area, it is not required 

to establish RPGs. However, as a 

MANE–VU member State, Connecticut 

adopted the ‘‘Statement of MANE–VU 

Concerning a Request for a Course of 

Action by States Within MANE–VU 

Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress’’ 

on June 7, 2007. This document 

included four emission management 

strategies that will provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility at the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. These emission management 

strategies are collectively known as the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask,’’ and include: (a) 

Timely implementation of BART 

requirements; (b) a 90 percent reduction 

in SO2 emissions from each of the EGU 

stacks identified by MANE–VU 

comprising a total of 167 stacks;13 (c) 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and (d) continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

Connecticut will be controlling its 

BART sources with Connecticut’s 

alternative to BART program. This 

program is discussed in detail in 

Section III.B. Connecticut does not have 

any EGU stacks identified by MANE– 

VU as a top contributor to visibility 

impairment in any of the MANE–VU 

Class I areas. 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes: Phase I reduction of 

distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight 

(500 parts per million (ppm)) by no later 

than 2014; Phase II reductions of #4 

residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight 

by no later than 2018; #6 residual oil to 

0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 

2018; and further reduction of the sulfur 

content of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 

2018. 

The expected reduction in SO2

emissions by 2018 from the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ will yield corresponding 

reductions in sulfate aerosol, the main 

culprit in fine-particle pollution and 

regional haze. For Connecticut, the 

MANE–VU analysis demonstrates that 

the reduction of the sulfur content in 

fuel oil will lead to an average reduction 

of 0.13—0.18 ug/m3 in the 24 hour 

PM2.5 concentration within the State, 

improving health and local visibility. In 

addition, the use of low sulfur fuels will 

result in cost savings to owners/ 

operators of residential furnaces and 

boilers due to reduced maintenance 

costs and extended life of the units. 

EPA is today proposing approval of 

the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP for 

the first implementation period without 

Connecticut’s implementation of a low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy.14 As described in 

Section III.A of this notice, Connecticut 

neither causes nor contributes to 

visibility impairment in the closest 

Class I areas located in New Jersey, 

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. 

For each of these Class I areas, the 

contribution of Connecticut’s emissions 

to total sulfate is less than the 2% 

threshold set by the MANE–VU States to 

determine whether any State 

contributed to visibility impairment. 

While the SO2 reductions being 

achieved by Connecticut are somewhat 

less than the statewide reductions that 

were projected to result from adoption 

of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by 2012, 

this shortfall is not anticipated to 

interfere with the ability of other States 

to meet their respective reasonable 

progress goals. All emissions from 

Connecticut contribute no more than 

0.76% of total sulfate at any Class I area. 

In its November 18, 2009 SIP submittal, 

Connecticut states that it will review the 

details of its long term strategy in five 

years, coincident with Connecticut’s 

first regional haze SIP progress report. 

We encourage adoption of a low-sulfur 

fuel oil strategy by Connecticut and the 

surrounding States as such a strategy 

will have local air quality and some, 

limited visibility benefits. However, we 

do not believe it is a necessary 

component of an approvable Regional 

Haze SIP for Connecticut for the first 

implementation period. 

Despite our conclusion that a low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy is not a necessary 

component of its Regional Haze SIP for 

this first implementation period, 

Connecticut has adopted a partial low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy that is contingent 

on its neighboring states adopting 

similar policies. Section 16a–21a of the 

Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) 

limits sulfur content of heating distillate 

oil and off road diesel to 500 ppm as of 

the date on which the last of the States 

of New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island limit the sulfur content of such 

fuels. Currently, all three States have yet 

to adopt these measures. Connecticut 

has submitted CGS Section16a–21a for 

approval into its SIP.15 Actual emission 

reductions from CGS Section 16a–21a 

are not certain to occur because the 

neighboring States may never adopt 

their counterparts. Therefore, we are not 

relying upon any potential emissions 

reductions from CGS Section 16a–21a 

for the purposes of our approval of this 

revision to Connecticut’s SIP. See Safe 

Air for Everyone v. EPA, 475 F.3d 1096, 

1108 (9th Cir. 2007). However, the 

content of a State’s implementation plan 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16This document has been provided as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

17The Regulations are available at 

www.dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/mainregs.htm. 

18This document has been included as part of the 

docket to this proposed rulemaking. 

19See Attachment FF—Connecticut Smoke 

Management Policy Documentation 

is generally left to the discretion of the 

State so long as it meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. See 

Union Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 

(1976). Therefore, because CGS Section 

16a–21a does not weaken or impede 

implementation of the rest of the SIP, 

we are also proposing to approve CGS 

Section 16a–21a. 

5. Additional Considerations for the 

LTS 

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), States are 

required to consider the following 

factors in developing the long term 

strategy: 

a. Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment; 

b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

c. Emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; 

d. Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

e. Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these 

purposes; 

f. Enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

g. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the long 

term strategy. 

a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI 

Since Connecticut does not contain 

any Class I areas, the State is not 

required to address RAVI, nor has any 

Connecticut source been identified as 

subject to RAVI. A list of Connecticut’s 

ongoing air pollution control programs 

is included in Section III.B.1. 

b. Construction Activities 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

Connecticut to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities on regional haze. MANE–VU’s 

consideration of control measures for 

construction activities is documented in 

Technical Support Document on 

Measures to Mitigate the Visibility 

Impacts of Construction Activities in the 

MANE–VU Region, Draft, October 20, 

2006.16

The construction industry is already 

subject to requirements for controlling 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. For example, federal 

regulations require the reduction of SO2

emissions from construction vehicles. 

At the State level, Connecticut’s RCSA 

22a–174–18, ‘‘Control of particulate 

matter and visible emissions,’’ addresses 

the control of airborne particulate 

matter and fugitive particulate matter in 

subsections (c) and (d). These 

regulations, which include dust control 

measures and visible emissions from 

diesel powered mobile sources, apply to 

road building and construction 

activities.17

MANE–VU’s Contribution Report 

found that, from a regional haze 

perspective, crustal material generally 

does not play a major role. On the 20 

percent best-visibility days during the 

2000–2004 baseline period, crustal 

material accounted for 6 to 11 percent 

of the particle-related light extinction at 

the MANE–VU Class I Areas. On the 20 

percent worst-visibility days, however, 

the contribution was reduced to 2 to 3 

percent. Furthermore, the crustal 

fraction is largely made up of pollutants 

of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) 

that are not targeted under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal 

fraction at any given location can be 

heavily influenced by the proximity of 

construction activities; and construction 

activities occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of MANE–VU Class I area could 

have a noticeable effect on visibility. 

For this regional haze SIP, 

Connecticut concluded that its current 

regulations are currently sufficient to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities. Any future deliberations on 

potential control measures for 

construction activities and the possible 

implementation will be documented in 

the first regional haze SIP progress 

report in 2014. EPA proposes to find 

that Connecticut has adequately 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities. 

c. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance To Achieve the RPG 

In addition to the existing CAA 

control requirements discussed in 

Section III.C.1, Connecticut has 

legislation to implement a low sulfur 

fuel oil strategy consistent with the 

MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ at such time that New 

York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 

adopt a comparable sulfur in fuel oil 

limit. As described in Section III.C.4 

above, we do not believe inclusion of 

the low sulfur oil strategy is a necessary 

component of an approvable Regional 

Haze SIP for Connecticut. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Connecticut has satisfactorily 

considered emission limitations and 

schedules as part of the LTS. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedule 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) 

of the Regional Haze Rule, Connecticut 

is required to consider source retirement 

and replacement schedules in 

developing the long term strategy. 

Source retirement and replacement were 

considered in developing the 2018 

emissions. The sources in Connecticut 

that were shut down after the 2002 base 

year and therefore were not included in 

the 2018 inventory are: Devon Unit 7 

(109 MW EGU) and Devon Unit 8 (109 

MW EGU). The modeling used to 

develop the 2018 emission inventories, 

EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM), 

projected that several large EGUs in 

Connecticut, including five of the six 

BART-eligible EGUs would retire by 

2018 and be replaced by newer units to 

meet future electric growth. However, 

Connecticut did not directly rely on the 

closures of any particular plant in 

establishing the 2018 inventory upon 

which the reasonable progress goals 

were set. EPA is proposing to determine 

that Connecticut has satisfactorily 

considered source retirement and 

replacement schedules as part of the 

LTS. 

e. Smoke Management Techniques 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

States to consider smoke management 

techniques related to agricultural and 

forestry management in developing the 

long-term strategy. MANE–VU’s 

analysis of smoke management in the 

context of regional haze is documented 

in Technical Support Document on 

Agricultural and Smoke Management in 

the MANE–VU Region, September 1, 

2006, (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Smoke TSD’’).18

Connecticut currently regulates 

outdoor wood burning through a statute 

at CGS 22a–174(f) and a regulation at 

RCSA 22a–174–17. The open burning 

requirements limit the locations and 

times when open burning can take 

place. Although CT DEEP does not have 

a formal smoke management program 

(SMP), as a smoke management policy, 

CT DEEP’s Division of Forestry can only 

initiate prescribed burns when such 

activity has less significant impacts on 

air quality.19 SMPs are required only 

when smoke impacts from fires 

managed for resources benefits 

contribute significantly to regional haze. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 17385 

20Projected visibility improvements for each 

MANE–VU Class I area can be found in the 

NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ‘‘2018 

Visibility Projections’’ (www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13- 

08.pdf/). 

21The comments and CT DEEP’s responses have 

been included in the docket. 

The emissions inventory presented in 

the Smoke TSD indicates that 

agricultural, managed, prescribed, and 

open burning emissions are very minor; 

the inventory estimates that, in 

Connecticut, those emissions from those 

source categories totaled 30.8 tons of 

PM10 and PM2.5 in 2002, which 

constitute 0.06% and 0.17% of the total 

inventory for these pollutants, 

respectively. 

Source apportionment results show 

that wood smoke is a moderate 

contributor to visibility impairment at 

some Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

region; however, smoke is not a large 

contributor to haze in MANE–VU Class 

I areas on either the 20% best or 20% 

worst visibility days. Moreover, most of 

wood smoke is attributable to 

residential wood combustion. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or 

forestry management cause large 

impacts on visibility in any of the Class 

I areas in the MANE–VU region. On rare 

occasions, smoke from major fires 

degrades air quality and visibility in the 

MANE–VU area. However, these fires 

are generally unwanted wildfires that 

are not subject to SMPs. EPA proposes 

to approve Connecticut’s decision that 

an Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Plan to address visibility 

impairment is not required at this time. 

f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations 

and Control Measures 

Connecticut has asked, and we are 

proposing to process approval of RCSA 

Section 22a–174–22d in parallel with 

the approval of Connecticut’s Regional 

Haze SIP. Connecticut indicated that 

they plan to have a final adopted 

regulation by June 2012, prior to the 

finalization of this action. EPA will 

review the final regulation and 

determine whether it differs 

significantly from the proposed 

regulation. At the same time we take 

final action on Connecticut’s Regional 

Haze SIP, we will then take final action 

on RCSA 22a–174–22d, at which point 

it will be federally enforceable. 

Therefore, once today’s action is 

finalized, all emission limitations 

included as part of Connecticut’s 

Regional Haze SIP will be federally 

enforceable. EPA is proposing to find 

that Connecticut has adequately 

addressed the enforceability of emission 

limitations and control measures. 

g. The Anticipated Net Effect on 

Visibility 

MANE–VU used the best and final 

emission inventory to model progress 

expected toward the goal of natural 

visibility conditions for the first regional 

haze planning period. All of the MANE– 

VU Class I areas are expected to achieve 

greater progress toward the natural 

visibility goal than the uniform rate of 

progress, or the progress expected by 

extrapolating a trend line from current 

visibility conditions to natural visibility 

conditions.20

In summary, EPA is proposing to find 

that Connecticut has adequately 

addressed the LTS regional haze 

requirements. 

D. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional phase planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant 

Federal Land Managers were also in 

attendance. In addition to the 

conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 

were given the opportunity to review 

and comment on each of the technical 

documents developed by MANE–VU. 

On February 4, 2009, Connecticut 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided 

comments on the draft Regional Haze 

SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). The comments received 

from the FLMs were addressed and 

incorporated in Connecticut’s SIP 

revision. Most of the comments were 

requests for additional detail as to 

various aspects of the SIP. These 

comments and Connecticut’s response 

to comments can be found in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

On July 17, 2009, Connecticut 

proposed its Regional Haze SIP for 

public hearing. Comments were 

received from U.S. EPA, the National 

Park Service, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and a private citizen.21 To 

address the requirement for continuing 

consultation procedures with the FLMs 

under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Connecticut 

commits in its SIP to ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs on emission 

strategies, major new source permits, 

assessments or rulemaking concerning 

sources identified as probable 

contributors to visibility impairment, 

any changes to the monitoring strategy, 

work on the periodic revisions to the 

SIP, and ongoing communications 

regarding visibility impairment. 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Connecticut has addressed the 

requirements for consultation with the 

Federal Land Managers. 

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Connecticut has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas, located in 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 

New Jersey. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), CT 

DEEP is required to submit periodic 

revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by 

July 31, 2018, and every ten years 

thereafter. CT DEEP acknowledges and 

agrees to comply with this schedule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), 

CT DEEP will also make periodic 

updates to the Connecticut emissions 

inventory. CT DEEP proposes to 

complete these updates to coincide with 

the progress reports. Actual emissions 

will be compared to projected modeled 

emissions in the progress reports. 

Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), 

CT DEEP will submit a determination of 

adequacy of its regional haze SIP 

revision whenever a progress report is 

submitted. Connecticut’s regional haze 

SIP states that, depending on the 

findings of its five-year review, 

Connecticut will take one or more of the 

following actions at that time, 

whichever actions are appropriate or 

necessary: 

• If Connecticut determines that the 

existing State Implementation Plan 

requires no further substantive revision 

in order to achieve established goals for 

visibility improvement and emissions 

reductions, CT DEEP will provide to the 

EPA Administrator a negative 

declaration that further revision of the 

existing plan is not needed. 

• If CT DEEP determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in one or more other State(s) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

which participated in the regional 

planning process, Connecticut will 

provide notification to the EPA 

Administrator and to those other 

State(s). Connecticut will also 

collaborate with the other State(s) 

through the regional planning process 

for the purpose of developing additional 

strategies to address any such 

deficiencies in Connecticut’s plan. 

• If Connecticut determines that its 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources in another country, Connecticut 

will provide notification, along with 

available information, to the EPA 

Administrator. 

• If Connecticut determines that the 

implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress as a result of emissions from 

sources within the State, Connecticut 

will revise its implementation plan to 

address the plan’s deficiencies within 

one year from this determination. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Connecticut’s November 18, 2009 SIP 

revision as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Connecticut’s RCSA Section 22a–174– 

19a, ‘‘Control of sulfur dioxide 

emissions from power plants and other 

large stationary sources of air pollution’’ 

and revisions to RCSA Section 22a– 

174–22, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxides 

Emissions,’’ including subdivision 22a– 

174–22(e)(3), and CGS 16a–21a, ‘‘Sulfur 

content of home heating oil and off-road 

diesel fuel. Suspension of requirements 

for emergency.’’ Furthermore, pursuant 

to CT DEEP’s request under parallel 

processing, EPA is proposing approval 

of Connecticut’s proposed RCSA 

Section 22a–174–22d, ‘‘Post-2011 

Connecticut Ozone Season NOX Budget 

Program.’’ Under this procedure, EPA 

prepared this action before the State’s 

final adoption of this regulation. 

Connecticut has already held a public 

hearing on the proposed regulation and 

received public comment. Connecticut 

may revise the regulation in response to 

comments. After Connecticut submits 

its final adopted regulation, EPA will 

review this regulation to determine 

whether it is significantly different from 

the proposed regulation. EPA will 

determine whether it is appropriate to 

approve the final rule with a description 

of any changes since the proposal, 

re-propose action based on the final 

adopted regulations, or take other 

actions as appropriate. 

RCSA 22a–174–22d is a replacement 

for RCSA 22a–174–22c, ‘‘The Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program,’’ 

which is federally approved by EPA and 

currently being implemented in 

Connecticut. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

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, 2012. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7216 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0489; FRL–9341–6] 

RIN 2070–AJ88 

Significant New Use Rule for 

Hexabromocyclododecane and 

1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant 

new use rule (SNUR) under section 

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) for two chemical 

substances: Hexabromocyclododecane 

(Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CASRN) 25637–99–4) and 

1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane 

(CASRN 3194–55–6), hereinafter 

collectively referred to as HBCD. This 

proposed rule would designate ‘‘use in 

consumer textiles, other than for use in 

motor vehicles’’ as a significant new 

use. This action would require persons 

who intend to manufacture (including 

import) or process HBCD for use in 

covered consumer textiles to notify EPA 

at least 90 days before commencing that 

activity. The required notification 

would provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if appropriate, to prohibit or 

limit that activity before it occurs. For 

this proposed rule, the general SNUR 

article exemption for persons who 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS