Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41427 

1CT regulations use the term ‘‘opacity continuous 

emissions monitoring systems’’ or ‘‘Opacity CEMS.’’ 

However, EPA and others commonly refer to these 

monitors as ‘‘continuous opacity monitoring 

systems’’ or ‘‘COMS.’’ Throughout this notice, we 

use the more common term ‘‘COMS.’’ 

minimize any impact caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 2, 2014. 

D.H. Sulouff, 

District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16608 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0469; A–1–FRL– 

9910–12–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Connecticut; 

Control of Visible Emissions, 

Recordkeeping and Monitoring 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Connecticut 

on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA 

is approving revisions to Connecticut’s 

visible and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions, recordkeeping and 

monitoring regulations. These revised 

rules establish and require limitations 

on visible and PM emissions for 

stationary sources, and clarify reporting 

requirements for operation of airpollution-control and monitoring 

equipment. EPA is approving this SIP 

revision because EPA has determined 

that it will not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) in 

Connecticut or with any other 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

This action is being taken in 

accordance with the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0469. All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action 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: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1684, fax number 

(617) 918–0684, email simcox.alison@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

Connecticut first adopted regulations 

to limit visible and PM emissions from 

stationary sources, including, among 

other sources, electric generating units 

(EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s. 

In 1972, EPA approved ‘‘Control of 

particulate emissions,’’ into the 

Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). That 

regulation has since been recodified as 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a–174–18. 

See Section II of EPA’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), dated 

August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), for a 

brief discussion of the relationships 

among ‘‘visible emissions,’’ ‘‘opacity’’ 

and ‘‘particulate matter.’’ 

In 2003, the Connecticut Department 

of Environmental Protection (now the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection or CT DEEP) 

proposed under state law revisions to 

Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of 

particulate matter and visible 

emissions’’ (herein referred to as the 

‘‘visible emissions regulation’’) to 

address short-term excursions from 

maximum allowed opacity levels that 

may occur and be measured at some 

stationary sources with continuous 

opacity monitoring systems (COMS) 1

during periods of startup, shutdown or 

malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load changes. 

Facilities covered under these new 

exceptions in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) 

include only those facilities that operate 

COMS. CT DEEP’s revisions also 

excluded sources subject to opacity 

limits under a federal new source 

performance standard (NSPS) from the 

opacity limits contained in the state 

regulations. See Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2). 

In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed 

revisions to several other RCSA 

sections, including 22a–174–4, ‘‘Source 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting’’ (codified as RCSA Section 

19–508–4 in the Connecticut SIP, and 

herein referred to as the ‘‘recordkeeping 

regulation’’), and 22a–174–7, ‘‘Air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment operation’’ 

(codified as RCSA Section 19–508–7 in 

the Connecticut SIP, and herein referred 

to as the ‘‘monitoring regulation’’). 

CT DEEP held a public hearing on 

revisions to these three (as well as 

several other) regulations on April 29, 

2003. Subsequently, CT DEEP amended 

its visible emissions, recordkeeping, and 

monitoring regulations based on 

comments received from EPA and 

others, with an effective date of April 1, 

2004. 

On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP 

submitted the revised regulations to 

EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut 

SIP. This submittal included a provision 

in the visible emissions regulation 

providing alternate opacity limits for 

periods of source operation consisting of 

startup, shutdown or malfunctions; 

stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes. 

These alternate opacity limits only 

apply to stationary sources that use 

COMs (Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)). 

However, on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2See Section 19–508–18, ‘‘Control of Particulate 

Emissions’’ posted at http://www.epa.gov/region1/

topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html. 

a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 

22a–174–18(j)(1) to the extent that it 

applies to malfunctions; all other 

aspects of Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) were 

retained as originally submitted. Thus, 

EPA is not acting on the submission 

with respect to the revised opacity 

limits applicable during malfunctions 

and is not approving an alternative 

emissions limit applicable during 

malfunctions. 

Connecticut’s December 1, 2004 

submittal also included a provision that 

excluded sources subject to opacity 

limits under a federal NSPS from the 

opacity limits contained in the state 

regulations (Section 22a–174–18(j)(2)). 

However, on March 27, 2014, CT DEEP 

sent a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 

22a–174–18(j)(2), which excluded 

emissions units that are subject to a 

visible emissions standard pursuant to a 

new source performance standard set 

forth in 40 CFR 60 from the visible 

emissions standards in Sections 22a– 

174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, EPA is 

not acting on the submission with 

respect to Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). In 

correspondence between EPA and CT 

DEEP it was discussed that if 

Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2) from its SIP submission, 

stationary sources subject to visible 

emissions standards under a federal 

NSPS will continue to be exempt from 

the visible emissions standards in 

Sections 22a–174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2) of 

the state regulation, as a matter of state 

law, but will remain subject to the 

opacity limits contained in ‘‘Control of 

particulate emissions’’ under the SIP 

(See 37 FR 10842).2 Moreover, it should 

be noted that the NSPS sources subject 

to visible emissions standards are not 

eligible for the alternate opacity limits 

for non-steady-state modes of source 

operation contained in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1) of Connecticut’s regulations 

and being approved into the 

Connecticut SIP. The reason for this is 

that Connecticut never intended for 

those NSPS-subject sources to be able to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

alternate opacity limits in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1). Thus, the opacity limits 

contained ‘‘Control of particulate 

emissions,’’ which had earlier been 

approved by EPA into Connecticut’s SIP 

prior to today’s SIP revision, will 

continue to apply to stationary sources 

subject to visible emissions standards 

under a federal NSPS. 

CT DEEP’s December 1, 2004 SIP 

submittal included a total of six 

regulations. EPA approved three of 

these regulations into the Connecticut 

SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761). 

They are: RCSA Section 22a–174–3b 

‘‘Exemptions from permitting for 

construction and operation of external 

combustion units, automotive 

refinishing operations, emergency 

engines, nonmetallic mineral processing 

equipment and surface coating 

operations;’’ RCSA Section 22a–174–30 

‘‘Dispensing of gasoline/Stage I and 

Stage II vapor recovery;’’ and RCSA 

Section 22a–174–43 ‘‘Portable fuel 

container spillage control.’’ Today’s 

action addresses the remaining three 

regulations contained in the December 

1, 2004 SIP submittal, namely RCSA 

Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 

22a–174–18 (except for the portions of 

Section 22a–174–18, noted earlier, 

which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its 

SIP submittal). As stated in our August 

15, 2013 NPR, these three regulations 

amend earlier versions of certain 

recordkeeping, monitoring, and visible 

and PM emissions regulations. 

On August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), 

EPA proposed approval of RCSA 

Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 

22a–174–18 (without the withdrawn 

portion relating to malfunctions). After 

our August 15, 2013 NPR, CT DEEP 

withdrew Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) as 

we noted above. Specific details of 

Connecticut’s December 1, 2004 SIP 

submittal and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed approval are explained in the 

August 15, 2013 NPR and will not be 

restated in this notice, except to the 

extent relevant to our responses to 

public comments we received on our 

proposal. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received comments on our 

August 15, 2013 NPR from the following 

entities: NRG Energy, Inc. and Montville 

Power LLC (collectively referred to 

herein as NRG); PSEG Services 

Corporation; the Conservation Law 

Foundation (CLF) Massachusetts; and 

the Sierra Club. The public comments 

received are contained in the docket for 

today’s final action. We summarize and 

respond to all of those comments below. 

NRG Energy’s Comments 

NRG noted that although Middletown 

Station #3 employs ‘‘water injection’’ at 

its facility, water injection is not used 

for compliance purposes, an inference 

that may have been drawn from the 

information contained in Table 1 of our 

August 15, 2013 NPR. EPA 

acknowledges NRG’s factual assertion, 

but also notes that NRG’s point does not 

impact in one way or the other the 

substance of EPA’s final action today. 

NRG also noted a typographical error in 

Section IV.C.a(1) of our August 15, 2013 

NPR. NRG noted that the reference in 

that section to ‘‘Mountville Station #4’’ 

actually should be a reference to 

‘‘Middletown Station #4.’’ EPA 

acknowledges that typographical error, 

but also notes that NRG’s point does not 

impact in one way or the other the 

substance of EPA’s final action today. 

PSEG’s Comments 

PSEG’s comments were supportive of 

our proposed action, stating that as an 

owner and operator of sources regulated 

by the SIP revisions in question the 

company is ideally situated to provide 

comments. Among other things, PSEG 

noted that EPA had determined that the 

revised visible emission regulations 

would not result in interference with 

maintenance of the PM NAAQS in 

Connecticut, and that certain aspects of 

the revised regulations would actually 

enhance protection of air quality 

through improved control of visible 

emissions due, in part, to the 

requirement to use COMS. While EPA 

believes that the revisions to 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–18 

(visible emissions regulation) may allow 

slight emission increases, EPA agrees 

with PSEG that the revisions will not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS and is 

otherwise consistent with the CAA. 

Sierra Club’s Comments 

Comment 1: The Sierra Club 

commented that the proposed revisions 

to Connecticut’s SIP opacity regulations 

violate the anti-backsliding requirement 

of section 193 of the CAA because 

portions of Connecticut were designated 

nonattainment for particulate matter at 

the time of EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with Sierra 

Club’s assertion that the revisions to 

Connecticut’s opacity regulations 

violate the anti-backsliding 

requirements of CAA section 193. By its 

own terms, CAA section 193 only 

applies in areas designated 

nonattainment for a NAAQS. Opacity 

limits in SIPs are intended to assure 

attainment and maintenance of 

particulate matter standards, thus, the 

only NAAQS relevant to our action 

today are the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. 

All areas in Connecticut are now 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for the 

PM10 NAAQS, thus, CAA section 193 

does not apply to today’s final action. 

On July 19, 2013, EPA proposed to 

redesignate New Haven and Fairfield 

counties in Connecticut to attainment 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 43096). All other 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41429 

3EPA recognizes that this redesignation was not 

final at the time of the proposal. However, EPA 

noted in the proposal that it intended to take final 

action on the proposed redesignation before taking 

final action on Connecticut’s visible emissions SIP 

revision. 

4EPA has not yet designated nonattainment areas 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5The RIA is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

6Although opacity is not a criteria pollutant and 

increases in opacity do not always correlate 

precisely with increases in mass emissions, opacity 

standards are established as an independent 

requirement for effective PM emissions control, 

opacity is used as an indicator of increased PM 

emissions (due both to changes in process and in 

the effectiveness of emission controls), and opacity 

limits supplement the implementation and 

enforcement of PM emission standards. See, e.g., 

Utility Air Regulatory Group v, EPA, No. 12–1166 

(D.C. Cir., Mar. 11, 2014). 

counties in Connecticut were at that 

time already designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not 

receive any public comments on its July 

19, 2013 proposal to redesignate New 

Haven and Fairfield counties, and our 

final approval of Connecticut’s 

redesignation request for those counties 

was published on September 24, 2013, 

with an effective date of October 24, 

2013 (78 FR 58467).3

In addition, as noted in EPA’s July 19, 

2013 proposed approval of 

Connecticut’s redesignation request, air 

quality design values (DVs) for the years 

2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 2009–2011 

show that both New Haven and Fairfield 

counties are well below the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) and the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. DVs for 

those counties also indicate that recent 

monitoring data from 2009–2011 are 

well below the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 12 mg/m3.4 Attainment of the 

24-hour PM10 standard is based on the 

expected number of annual exceedances 

of the level of the standard (averaged 

over a three-year period) being equal to 

or less than one. EPA revoked the 

annual PM10 NAAQS in 2006. The last 

time there was an exceedance of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut was 

in 1994. 

Furthermore, modeling analyses 

conducted by EPA in relation to the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

associated with the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 5 indicates that DVs in 

southwestern Connecticut (where New 

Haven and Fairfield counties are 

located) are expected to continue to 

decline through 2020. The RIA shows 

that, for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, for 

New Haven and Fairfield counties, the 

highest annual DV projected for 2020 is 

8.79 mg/m3 for Fairfield County and 8.62 

mg/m3 for New Haven County. The RIA 

also indicates that the highest 24-hour 

DV projected for 2020 for New Haven 

and Fairfield counties is 22.27 mg/m3 for 

Fairfield County and 21.78 mg/m3 for 

New Haven County. 

In summary, as the entire State of 

Connecticut is currently designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

for the applicable PM NAAQS (see 40 

CFR 81.307), section 193 of the CAA is 

not applicable or relevant to our 

analysis of the SIP revisions. 

Comment 2: The Sierra Club 

commented that even if EPA were 

correct that the only applicable antibacksliding provision is the one found 

in section 110(l) the proposed revisions 

must still be rejected. The Sierra Club 

asserted that because neither EPA nor 

Connecticut attempted to quantify the 

impact of the proposed SIP revisions on 

air emissions, EPA’s section 110(l) 

analysis ‘‘was fatally flawed.’’ The 

Sierra Club asserted that EPA failed to 

show that the proposed SIP revisions 

would meet either of two tests EPA 

assesses when conducting a section 

110(l) analysis. These two tests are (1) 

allowing a state to show that a SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS by demonstrating that the 

revision will not allow for an increase 

in emissions into the air over what is 

allowed under the existing EPAapproved SIP, taking into consideration 

SIP-approved measures that represent 

new emissions reductions achieved in a 

contemporaneous time frame to the 

change represented by the SIP revision; 

or (2) allowing a state to show that a SIP 

revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS by showing that, taking into 

consideration the change in emissions 

levels allowed under the SIP revision, 

there is a substantial margin of safety 

(i.e., ‘‘headroom’’ or ‘‘cushion of 

compliance’’) between ambient 

concentrations and the applicable 

NAAQS (in this instance the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS). The Sierra Club also 

asserted that Table 4 of EPA’s August 

15, 2013 NPR shows that Fairfield 

County’s maximum 24-hour PM10

concentration increased from 33 to 54 

mg/m3 from 2011 to 2012, which Sierra 

Club claims ‘‘contradicts EPA’s 

assertion of a substantial margin of 

safety’’ and ‘‘is also not consistent with 

permanent and legally enforceable 

emissions reductions.’’ The Sierra Club 

also stated that EPA’s approach to the 

section 110(l) analysis was not 

appropriate because not all portions of 

Connecticut were designated attainment 

for the applicable PM NAAQS at the 

time we proposed approval of the SIP 

revisions. 

Response 2: As stated in our response 

to Comment 1 above, all portions of 

Connecticut are currently designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

for the applicable PM2.5 and PM10

NAAQS. Therefore, as also explained in 

our August 15, 2013 NPR, EPA’s 

analysis of the proposed SIP revision 

under section 110(l) takes into account 

that Connecticut is designated 

attainment or unclassifiable/attainment 

for the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. We 

noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that 

CT DEEP submitted a clarifying letter to 

its SIP submittal to demonstrate that the 

SIP provisions we are approving today 

are consistent with CAA section 110(l). 

In order to better assess the State’s 

demonstration, EPA determined it 

would be helpful to conduct its own 

section 110(l) analysis which drew 

upon, but is not identical to, the 

analysis presented in the CT DEEP’s 

letter (78 FR 49704). 

EPA requires an evaluation whether 

changes to SIP-approved opacity limits 

are likely to interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM NAAQS 

pursuant to section 110(l). Generally, to 

satisfy section 110(l), EPA does not 

require a full attainment demonstration 

showing that the change will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. For 

nonattainment areas, in the absence of 

air quality modeling, EPA requires that 

the revision at least maintain status quo 

air quality, by offsetting any emissions 

increases with additional 

contemporaneous emissions reductions. 

For attainment areas, EPA requires a 

basis for concluding that any emissions 

increases will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, e.g., by illustrating that any 

change in the emission inventory is so 

small relative to the margin between 

ambient concentrations and the NAAQS 

that it is unlikely that the change would 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In the case of changes to 

opacity limits, EPA applies these 

requirements taking into consideration 

that limits on opacity are a means of 

assuring control of PM emissions.6

For these SIP revisions, EPA has 

assessed the likelihood of interference 

with the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in 

Connecticut by attempting to quantify 

the total emissions associated with the 

sources that would be covered by the 

changes to opacity requirements. EPA’s 

approach assumes that relaxing the 

opacity requirements will result in an 

increase in PM emissions (we refer to 

this as the ‘‘worst case scenario’’). The 

110(l) analysis looks to the additional 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41430 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7See www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/

2011inventory.html. 

increment of emissions associated with 

the SIP revision, which would be a 

portion of the emissions during the time 

for which the opacity standard has been 

loosened. In turn, the operating periods 

when the opacity standard is loosened 

is a portion of the total operating time 

for these sources. Finally, we look at the 

total emissions from these sources at all 

operating times in relation to the total 

emissions inventory and current 

ambient concentrations. We estimate 

that the total emissions of these sources 

(at all times) represents about only 11 

tons per year of PM2.5, out of a total 

statewide inventory of 17,151 tons per 

year of PM2.5 and about 17 tons per year 

of PM10 out of a total statewide 

inventory of 38,995 tons per year. 

Furthermore, as noted in EPA’s 

proposed approval of Connecticut’s 

section 22a–174–18 (78 FR 49701; 

August 15, 2013), emission projections 

from the maintenance plan for 

Connecticut’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request indicate that there is a 

substantial margin of safety that ensures 

maintenance of the NAAQS even if 

small increases in emissions were to 

occur. As illustrated in Table 5 of that 

notice, PM2.5 emissions in Fairfield and 

New Haven counties are projected to 

drop by 22% from 2007—when the area 

was attaining the NAAQS—to 2025, 

including over 1,000 tons per year of 

reductions in the period from 2007 to 

2017 (and over 300 tons per year of 

reductions from 2017–2025). Thus, in 

EPA’s technical judgment, although we 

assume that these SIP changes will 

result in some emissions increases, in 

light of the size of these sources and the 

nature of the changes, such increases 

would be quite small in comparison 

with the large margin of compliance 

with the NAAQS and the ongoing 

projected reductions in the emissions 

inventory. 

Taking into consideration the small 

amount of total PM2.5 and PM10

emissions from these sources relative to 

the statewide inventories, the nature of 

the revisions (including the more 

stringent PM limits for certain sources), 

and the large ‘‘margin of compliance’’ 

between ambient concentrations and the 

PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut, 

EPA concludes that these changes will 

not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10

NAAQS in Connecticut. 

Our August 15, 2013 NPR (beginning 

at 78 FR 49705) contains an analysis of 

the section 110(l) demonstration and 

data supporting CT DEEP’s and EPA’s 

conclusion that the requirements of 

section 110(l) have been met. A 

summary of that analysis is provided 

here, with additional information 

quantifying the potential emissions 

increases that might be associated with 

the SIP revisions, added in response to 

the Sierra Club’s comment. 

First, in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we 

considered and evaluated (although we 

stated that we did not precisely 

quantify) potential emissions increases 

that could result from the SIP revisions 

(78 FR 49705–49707). As noted, we 

considered emissions increases that 

potentially might occur as a result of the 

relaxation of the SIP’s opacity limits 

during periods of source operation 

limited to startup or shutdown; stack 

testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or 

sudden load changes. We noted that, of 

the 20 units (all of which utilized 

COMS) for which the state originally 

designed the alternative opacity limit in 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), eight of those 

units are now permanently removed 

from service and three additional units 

have since switched their primary fuel 

from residual oil to natural gas 

(resulting in significant reductions of 

emissions of PM and PM precursors 

during operation). Thus, our August 15, 

2013 NPR noted that for purposes of 

examining potential emission increases 

that may arise from the alternative 

opacity limit in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1), our focus would be limited to 

the potential impacts of increased 

opacity at the remaining nine of the 

original 20 units. We also noted in our 

August 15, 2013 NPR that the 

requirements of section 110(l) were 

satisfied with respect to Connecticut’s 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) affecting 

stationary sources separately subject to 

a federal NSPS; however, as noted 

earlier in this notice, CT DEEP has since 

withdrawn Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) 

from its SIP submission and, thus, we 

do not include in this notice a section 

110(l) analysis of the effect of that 

provision. In addition, another aspect of 

our air quality impact analysis 

considered and evaluated the reductions 

in PM emissions that would arise due to 

other aspects of the SIP revisions, i.e., 

the fact that more stringent PM limits 

will apply at all times to sources that 

burn natural gas and to ‘‘registration 

sources’’ that burn distillate oil. 

We concluded in our August 15, 2013 

NPR that ‘‘taking into consideration the 

universe of sources subject to the 

revised opacity standard, the fuels and 

emissions limits applicable to those 

sources (including those that are more 

stringent under the revision), and the 

nature of the alternative opacity limit 

(which only allows an increase from 

40% to 60% opacity during certain 

limited modes of source operation 

during a maximum period of time just 

under 11 hours per calendar quarter), 

that while there may be an increase in 

PM emissions associated with this SIP 

revision, any such increase would be 

small, especially in relation to the 

applicable attainment margin. It is also 

critical to note that Connecticut’s 

revised rule includes an important 

check on any potential increase in 

emissions that could occur, even under 

the alternative opacity limit. The 

revised regulation restricts the amount 

of time that sources with COMS may 

operate under the alternate opacity limit 

to 0.5 percent of a facility’s total 

operating hours during any calendar 

quarter, or slightly less than 11 hours. 

EPA believes that these changes to the 

opacity limit may result in increased 

PM emissions, and considered whether 

those increased emissions would 

interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5

and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut in 

light of the nature and scope of those 

changes and current air quality (i.e., 

margin of compliance with all existing 

PM NAAQS). At the same time, 

however, EPA believes that the limited 

nature of the alternate opacity limit 

(including that opacity may only 

increase to 60%, as well as the limits on 

periods of operation during which the 

alternate limit applies) means that the 

opacity standard will continue to assist 

with SIP implementation of the NAAQS 

by continuing to identify (as violations) 

changes in process and in the 

effectiveness of emission controls that 

result in more significant increases in 

PM emissions. 

We believe that our discussion in the 

August 15, 2013 NPR is sufficient to 

address any concerns under section 

110(l); however, in response to the 

Sierra Club’s statement that we failed to 

quantify those potential emissions 

increases, we provide more detailed 

information. With respect to the 

alternate opacity limit available during 

specific non-steady-state modes of 

operation, the total amount of PM 

emissions from the nine units that we 

earlier identified as being relevant to the 

emissions increase analysis (a subset of 

the units identified in our Table 1 to our 

August 15, 2013 NPR) is small. More 

specifically, the total PM2.5 emissions 

from these nine units is approximately 

11 tons per year (as reported in the 2011 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 7), 

as compared to statewide emissions of 

PM2.5 from all sources of 17,151 tons per 

year. The total PM10 emissions from 

these nine units (which includes PM2.5

emissions) is about 17 tons per year 

(estimated from the 2011 NEI), 

compared to statewide emissions of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41431 

8We also note here that we discussed in our 

August 15, 2013 NPR a Regional Haze program 

analysis that was a fourth component of our 

section110(l) analysis. Sierra Club did not comment 

on that aspect of our analysis, therefore our analysis 

will not be repeated here. 

9See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule,’’ 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2013). 

PM10 from all sources of 38,995 tons per 

year. Moreover, because the worst case 

scenario analysis (consistent with the 

roughly 11 hours of operation per 

quarter limitation contained in the 

regulation for the applicability of the 

alternate opacity limit) only includes a 

small fraction of these sources’ total 

annual hours of operation, the total 

increase in emissions from these nine 

units under the worst-case scenario 

would most likely be only a fraction of 

the approximately 11 tons per year of 

PM2.5 and the 17 tons per year of PM10, 

an even smaller amount of emissions 

compared to the annual statewide 

emissions noted above. In light of the 

wide margin of compliance with all of 

the PM NAAQS, any potential increase 

in PM2.5 or PM10 emissions from the 

nine units in question during the worstcase scenario under the alternate 

opacity emissions limits in the SIP 

revision should not interfere with the 

maintenance of the applicable PM 

NAAQS in Connecticut. 

Our August 15, 2013 NPR also 

contained a separate CAA section 110(l) 

analysis in relation to Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2) of Connecticut’s regulation. 

However, as noted earlier in this notice, 

CT DEEP has since withdrawn Section 

22a–174–18(j)(2) and, thus, we do not 

include here a section 110(l) analysis of 

that regulatory provision. 

In addition to the analysis above of 

specific potential emissions increases 

associated with the SIP revisions, as 

noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we 

also considered recent data from 

emissions inventories and ambient airquality monitoring to show that 

Connecticut’s statewide emissions have 

declined substantially in recent years, 

and that the state’s current air quality is 

well below the federal primary and 

secondary PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. As 

part of that discussion, we described 

certain regulations that EPA has 

approved into the Connecticut SIP that 

have resulted in permanent, federally 

enforceable emissions reductions. Our 

purpose in discussing the effect of these 

regulations was to lend additional 

support to our section 110(l) analysis by 

demonstrating that current statewide 

emissions inventories and air quality in 

Connecticut show that these other 

pollution-control measures have 

resulted in an adequate ‘‘compliance 

cushion’’ below the PM2.5 and PM10

NAAQS that can easily accommodate 

any potential emissions increases of 

PM2.5 and PM10 that might arise as a 

result of the SIP revisions. Our analysis 

demonstrated that the current, relatively 

low, emissions levels in Connecticut are 

not solely attributable to non-regulatory 

factors (e.g., economic changes) but, 

rather, are, in significant part, 

attributable to the permanent, 

enforceable reductions achieved by 

Connecticut’s SIP and other federal 

CAA programs. The combination of 

three facts—that Connecticut’s PM2.5

and PM10 emissions (and emissions of 

precursor pollutants) have been 

reduced, that these reductions are 

largely permanent reductions 

attributable to federally enforceable 

CAA measures (including SIP 

requirements), and that the measured 

ambient PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations 

are well below the NAAQS—persuade 

us that the weight of evidence shows 

that Connecticut’s SIP has a sufficient 

margin of safety with respect to the PM 

NAAQS throughout the state. We 

conclude based on this analysis that 

even if overall emissions were to 

increase somewhat as a result of this 

revision, any such increase would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10

NAAQS in Connecticut. For a more 

detailed discussion of these measures 

and air quality in Connecticut, see 78 

FR 49707–49710. 

As to the Sierra Club’s comment that 

Table 4 of our August 15, 2013 NPR 

shows that Fairfield County’s maximum 

24-hour PM10 concentration increased 

from 33 to 54 mg/m3 from 2011 to 2012, 

there are several important things to 

note. First, and most important, the 

referenced increase in PM10 is, in EPA’s 

judgment, more likely related to 

emissions associated with roadways or 

construction activities than to any 

increases in stationary point-source 

emissions. Emissions of PM2.5 tend to be 

more prevalent than emissions of PM10

from stationary sources in Connecticut 

and, as mentioned above, PM2.5 DVs 

decreased during this same time period. 

For example, 2011 NEI data for Fairfield 

County show that approximately 76% of 

the PM10 emissions inventory derives 

from the following categories of sources: 

(1) Dust associated with paved and 

unpaved roads; (2) construction 

activities; and (3) burning of residential 

wood heaters and stoves. Moreover, the 

PM10 increase referenced by the Sierra 

Club is, in any event, well below the 

level of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, 

which is 150 mg/m3; this lends further 

support for EPA’s contention that there 

is an adequate ‘‘cushion of compliance’’ 

for the PM10 NAAQS.8

The SIP revisions we are approving in 

this action, which apply to emissions 

from stationary sources, are unlikely to 

add substantially to ambient PM10 levels 

in Fairfield County because, as 

explained in detail above, the total 

amount of increased PM2.5 and PM10

emissions that might be expected to 

arise from the sources subject to Section 

22a–174–18(j)(1) is very small, 

particularly in comparison to the 17,151 

and 38,995 tons per year of PM2.5 and 

PM10 emissions, respectively, from all 

sources in Connecticut. 

As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, 

our CAA section 110(l) analysis also 

included a discussion of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A)’s requirement that SIPs 

contain ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques . . . as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of [the CAA].’’ 

We included in that same section of our 

NPR a related discussion of CAA section 

302(k)’s definition of the term ‘‘emission 

limitation’’ as ‘‘a requirement that limits 

the quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ We discussed EPA’s 

position, set forth in well-established 

guidance, that the CAA precludes SIP 

provisions that include exemptions for 

emissions that occur during periods of 

source operation such as startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. In the 

context of EPA’s guidance, we then 

analyzed the alternative opacity limits 

in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1). (We also 

analyzed separately the NSPS-subject 

source exclusion in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2) of Connecticut’s regulations, 

which raises different issues than the 

alternate opacity limits provision in 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), but CT DEEP 

subsequently withdrew that provision 

from its SIP submission.) Given that the 

Sierra Club commented on whether the 

SIP revisions are consistent with EPA’s 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM) guidance and related proposed 

SIP Call 9 separately from its comments 

on Connecticut’s and EPA’s section 

110(l) demonstrations, EPA addresses 

the former specific set of comments in 

Responses #3 and #4, below. 

Comment 3: The Sierra Club 

commented extensively on our 

application of EPA’s criteria relevant to 

development of alternative emission 

limits in SIPs, as those criteria relate to 

the alternative opacity limits submitted 

by Connecticut as SIP revisions in 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(1). Specifically, 

Sierra Club asserted that our evaluation 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10See Memorandum entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 

and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A, Herman, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional 

Administrators, Regions I–X on September 20, 

1999. 

of these alternative emissions limits was 

flawed in light of our 1999 SSM Policy 

guidance for SIP provisions and our 

February 2013 proposed SIP Call. 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

Sierra Club’s assertion that our 

evaluation of Connecticut’s SIP 

revisions is flawed in light of EPA’s 

1999 SSM Policy guidance and 

proposed SIP Call. We have 

longstanding SIP guidance 

recommending criteria for development 

of alternative emission limits in SIP 

provisions, including opacity limits (or 

other control measures) that may be 

appropriate during specific modes of 

source operation such as startup and 

shutdown.10 If sources cannot meet the 

otherwise applicable SIP emissions 

limit during certain modes of operation, 

these criteria serve to assure that the 

alternative emission limits that states 

may elect to adopt for these periods of 

operation meet CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions. We recently reiterated 

those criteria in our February 2013 

proposed SIP Call. The basic thrust of 

those criteria is to ensure that emission 

limitations apply continuously, 

including during certain modes of 

source operation (i.e., startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction), in such a 

manner that emissions are properly 

minimized in order to ensure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS and to 

meet other CAA requirements (e.g., 

enforceability). EPA analyzed the higher 

opacity limits established by CT DEEP 

for certain sources in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) in relation to the seven criteria 

for alternative emissions limits 

recommended in our SSM guidance for 

SIP provisions and reiterated in our 

proposed SIP Call. That analysis was set 

forth in our August 15, 2013 NPR. We 

address below the Sierra Club’s specific 

comments regarding EPA’s evaluation of 

Connecticut’s SIP revision in relation to 

EPA’s SSM Policy guidance and 

proposed SIP Call. Please refer to our 

August 15, 2013 NPR for EPA’s original 

analysis and additional detailed 

information (beginning at 78 FR 49710). 

EPA’s Criterion #1 

The Sierra Club’s comment: The 

Sierra Club states that EPA did not fully 

address criterion #1 because 

Connecticut’s revision to its visible 

emissions regulation must be ‘‘limited 

to specific, narrowly defined source 

categories using specific control 

strategies’’ and asserted that 

Connecticut’s SIP revision is not so 

limited. 

EPA’s response: As identified and 

discussed in our August 15, 2013 NPR, 

the sources to which the alternate 

opacity emission limit will apply are 

mostly electric generating units (EGUs); 

and all of the sources are boilers with 

a heat input capacity greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr. We also noted in our August 

15, 2013 NPR that most of these units 

use some combination of electrostatic 

precipitators, selective non-catalytic 

reduction, and/or low NOX burners. 

(Two of the affected units (Middletown 

Station #4 and Montville Station #6) do 

not have control measures comparable 

to the other sources, but they are subject 

to numerical PM emission limitations in 

the Connecticut SIP and in their 

permits.) Finally, as noted earlier in this 

notice, the universe of existing units in 

Connecticut from which potential 

increases in emissions may arise 

(realistically) is limited to nine. Since 

Connecticut adopted the revised 

regulation in question, eight of the 20 

units potentially covered have been 

permanently removed from service, and 

three of the units have changed their 

primary fuel from residual oil to natural 

gas (resulting in a significant reduction 

in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors during source operation). In 

our judgment, based on the facts 

described above, these remaining nine 

boilers (i.e., those that will be subject to 

Connecticut’s alternate opacity emission 

limit) sufficiently meet what EPA’s 

guidance and related rulemaking 

intended to fall within the notion of 

‘‘specific, narrowly defined source 

categories.’’ Finally, it is also important 

to note that any new stationary sources 

in the future (beyond the existing nine 

units) would separately be regulated by 

any opacity limits contained in a new 

source review permit required under 

Connecticut’s SIP. The CT DEEP has 

informed us that its new source review 

permits require best available control 

technology (BACT) for opacity and for 

PM. Emission limits based on BACT 

cannot be less stringent than NSPS 

under the CAA and CT DEEP’s current 

practice is to include a 10% opacity 

limit in its new source review permits 

applicable during all periods of 

operation (including startup and 

shutdown). Any such future new 

sources also would be subject to any 

opacity limits that might be applicable 

under newly promulgated NSPS 

regulations (not the NSPS discussed 

herein) that would contain opacity 

limits during startup, shutdown, and 

other specific modes of source 

operation. 

EPA’s Criterion #2 

The Sierra Club’s comment: The 

Sierra Club asserts that EPA’s 

conclusion that Connecticut’s SIP 

revision satisfies criterion #2 is flawed, 

because ‘‘nothing prevents a source 

from starting up or shutting down with 

a cleaner fuel or employing other 

measures during periods of startup and 

shutdown that would reduce particulate 

emissions from the boiler’’ and because 

‘‘[n]o determination has been made that 

more stringent control is ‘technically 

infeasible’ during specified periods for 

any sources in Connecticut.’’ 

EPA’s response: First, EPA notes that 

the Sierra Club has not addressed in its 

comment exactly how it concluded that 

it would be feasible for the specific 

boilers in question to use ‘‘a cleaner fuel 

or employ[ ] other measures during 

periods of startup and shutdown’’ that 

would reduce PM emissions. Sierra 

Club, although critical of EPA’s 

evaluation of this criterion in the 

proposal, did not provide specific facts 

concerning what other measures the 

state could or should have required of 

these sources. 

Second, EPA is evaluating this 

criterion based upon factual information 

developed by the state to support the 

higher alternative emission limits 

applicable to the affected sources. Our 

August 15, 2013 NPR explains the 

difficulties that some sources may have 

in meeting the otherwise applicable 

opacity emissions limits during nonsteady-state modes of source operation, 

such as startup and shutdown. Included 

in EPA’s explanations of such technical 

challenges was a reference to a CT DEEP 

workgroup provided to EPA by letter 

dated January 14, 2013 (included in the 

docket for this action). As noted in our 

August 15, 2013 NPR, the CT DEEP 

workgroup considered technical issues 

that make it difficult for some facilities 

to consistently meet, during periods of 

operation such as startup and 

shutdown, opacity limits that apply 

during normal steady-state operating 

conditions. The CT DEEP workgroup 

based its recommendations for an 

alternate emissions limit on the 

technology, normal operating 

procedures, and type of fuels used, as 

well as a review of historical opacity 

data for the sources in question (see 

Table 1 of EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR). 

The units considered for an alternative 

opacity limit were older and less 

efficient than new units that would be 

installed today. The workgroup took 

into account the fact that older 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41433 

combustion units may take longer than 

modern units to reach optimum 

temperatures for efficient operation of 

control systems, such as Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems for 

reducing NOX (a precursor of PM2.5), or 

may have higher emissions than modern 

units during cold startups. They also 

assessed whether the older units 

experienced more short-term load 

swings than would be expected from 

modern units. These swings make it 

more difficult to optimize unit operation 

and to continuously stay within the 20 

percent and 40 percent averages that 

apply during normal, steady-state 

operations. These can be appropriate 

considerations relevant to development 

of alternative emission limits, so long as 

other CAA requirements are met. For 

further details of EPA’s explanation, see 

our August 15, 2013 NPR. (78 FR 

49710–49711). 

EPA’s Criterion #3 

The Sierra Club’s comment: The 

Sierra Club states that EPA did not fully 

address criterion #3 because ‘‘the 

proposed SIP revision does not limit the 

frequency or duration of operation in 

startup, shutdown or other modes to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ in that the 

alternative opacity limit applies equally 

to all units regardless of age or specific 

unit characteristics. 

EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with 

the Sierra Club’s assertion that criterion 

#3 has not been met. As discussed in 

our August 15, 2013 NPR, the frequency 

and duration of periods of startup, 

shutdown or malfunction; stack testing; 

soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden 

load changes for the units in question 

(see Table 1 in our August 15, 2013 

NPR) were taken into account by CT 

DEEP’s workgroup and were a part of 

the analysis that resulted in the 

alternate opacity limit. In any event, 

however, the most important limitation 

in the SIP revision on the frequency and 

duration of opacity levels that may 

exceed those allowed during normal, 

steady-state operations is the 

regulation’s strict limit on the amount of 

time per calendar quarter (less than 11 

hours) that a facility may operate under 

an alternative opacity limit (i.e., 60% 

opacity during any 6-minute block 

average). We believe that this limitation 

will help to ensure that the emissions 

units in question will be required to 

limit the frequency and duration of the 

relevant modes of operation and to 

restrict their emissions to an appropriate 

level consistent with criterion #3. 

Additionally, because fuel is a 

significant operational cost at EGUs it is 

also generally the case that EGUs have 

an economic incentive to optimize their 

fuel-to-air ratio consistent with best 

engineering practices so as to combust 

their fuel source most efficiently. 

Finally, the Connecticut SIP’s revised 

recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements serve as an additional, 

supplemental compliance tool that will 

help to ensure that the units emit at the 

alternative opacity limit only during the 

allowed modes of operation and within 

the allowed periods of time. As we 

stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the 

revisions to Connecticut’s 

recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements clarify and improve 

enforceability of SIP requirements. For 

example, revised 22a–174–4 includes 

specific data availability requirements 

and revised 22a–174–7 includes 

explicit, specific time frames for various 

notifications (such as ‘‘no later than two 

business days’’), as compared to prior 

requirements to notify the state 

‘‘promptly.’’ 

EPA Criterion #4 

The Sierra Club’s comment: Regarding 

criterion #4, the Sierra Club asserts that 

‘‘[c]riterion (4) requires that ‘‘[a]s part of 

its justification of the SIP revision, the 

state would analyze the potential worstcase emissions that could occur during 

startup and shutdown.’’ The Sierra Club 

asserts that EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR 

acknowledged that neither the state nor 

EPA attempted to quantify the exact 

increase in PM emissions that could be 

allowed under this SIP revision. Sierra 

Club also objected to EPA’s rational for 

approval of the revision that, if elevated 

emissions levels were to cause future 

violations of the PM NAAQS, EPA has 

additional authority under the CAA to 

address such potential problems. 

EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with 

the Sierra Club’s comments on this 

point. Our August 15, 2013 NPR 

included an analysis under criterion #4 

of the worst-case-emissions scenario. As 

we noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, 

that worst-case scenario would occur 

(albeit extremely unlikely) if all nine 

currently operating units (i.e., those that 

we earlier noted were relevant to the 

analysis of potential emissions increases 

and that are subject to the alternative 

opacity limit), simultaneously were to: 

(1) Engage in startup, shutdown, or any 

of the other listed modes of operation 

for which the alternative opacity limit is 

allowed; (2) for exactly the same nearly 

11-hour period; and (3) at the 

uppermost allowed level of 60% 

opacity. The most important limitation 

on any additional emissions resulting 

from this SIP revision, even under this 

unlikely worst-case scenario, is the 

strict limit set by CT DEEP on the 

amount of time per calendar quarter 

(less than 11 hours) that a facility may 

lawfully operate up to the 60% 

alternative opacity limit. 

Furthermore, in response to the Sierra 

Club’s assertion that EPA and 

Connecticut failed to attempt to quantify 

any potential worst-case scenario 

increase in emissions, we do so here. 

The total amount of annual PM2.5

emissions (11 tons per year, as reported 

in the 2011 NEI) from the nine units 

collectively (which we earlier noted 

were part of our analysis of potential 

increased emissions that may arise from 

the alternate opacity limit) is an 

extremely small percentage of the total 

PM2.5 emissions statewide, both in 

comparison to stationary point-source 

emissions (436 tons per year) and to 

PM2.5 emissions from all sources (17,151 

tons per year). The total amount of 

annual PM10 emissions from the nine 

units collectively (17 tons, as reported 

in the 2011 NEI) is an extremely small 

percentage of the total PM10 emissions 

statewide, both in comparison to 

stationary point-source emissions (494 

tpy) and to PM10 emissions from all 

sources (38,995 tpy). Consequently, any 

potential annual increase in PM2.5 and 

PM10 emissions from these nine units 

during the highly unlikely worst-case 

scenario would most likely be only a 

portion of that small percentage, 

because the relevant analysis concerns 

an assessment of maximum potential 

increases in emissions from these 

sources during a maximum of just under 

11 hours per calendar quarter when 

there is a potential increase from 40% 

opacity to 60% opacity. While it is 

difficult to quantify the precise amount 

of additional PM2.5 and PM10 emissions 

that could occur during such periods of 

elevated opacity, we think that the 

additional PM2.5 and PM10 is likely to be 

relatively small in light of the fact that 

the total PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from 

the affected sources are currently such 

a small amount relative to other sources. 

As explained in detail earlier in this 

notice, our section 110(l) analysis shows 

that any potential increases will easily 

be accommodated by the wide 

‘‘compliance cushion’’ in Connecticut 

between the PM2.5, and PM10 NAAQS 

and air quality concentrations of PM2.5, 

and PM10. 

Finally, our August 15, 2013 NPR 

statement about the availability of 

additional CAA authorities that EPA 

could use to address any future 

problems in relation to the PM NAAQS 

was not intended to indicate that we 

anticipate there will be such a problem 

and, as we have explained in this 

notice, we have no reason to expect that 

such a problem will arise. We only 

intended to point out that the CAA 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

11See Memorandum entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 

and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A. Herman, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional 

Administrators, Regions I–X on September 20, 

1999. 

12See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule,’’ 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2013). 

provides remedies to address any 

unexpected problems that could arise as 

a result of this SIP revision, even though 

we anticipate that such problems are 

highly theoretical in this instance. We 

emphasize, however, that our section 

110(l) analysis strongly demonstrates 

that any such problems are not expected 

to arise as a result of this SIP revision. 

EPA Criterion #5 

Sierra Club’s comment: For criterion 

#5, the Sierra Club claims that the 

proposed SIP revision includes nothing 

that will minimize emissions impacts 

on ambient air quality during periods of 

startup and shutdown. The Sierra Club 

also asserts that, although EPA 

identified reporting requirements 

contained in Connecticut’s SIP, prompt 

reporting does not minimize air-quality 

impacts and does not rise to the level of 

taking ‘‘all possible steps’’ to minimize 

the impact of the emissions. 

EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with 

the Sierra Club’s comments about 

criterion #5 for the following reasons. 

As we explained in our August 15, 2013 

NPR, RCSA Section 22a–174–4, which 

is being approved as part of EPA’s 

action today, requires submission of all 

COMS data on a quarterly basis, along 

with a quarterly quality-assurance audit, 

and the submitted data would be 

required to include data during periods 

of startup, shutdown or malfunction; 

stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes. The 

sources are not exempt from the opacity 

standards during such periods and all 

emissions that occur during such 

periods will be counted in the context 

of the SIP, such as for emissions 

inventories, modeling demonstrations, 

and other regulatory purposes. 

Alternative emissions limits for nonsteady-state modes of operation are not 

equivalent to exemptions. We also 

emphasize that this regulation requires 

a facility to submit a corrective action 

plan for a failed audit. We believe that 

prompt reporting and the requirement to 

submit a corrective action plan (if 

demonstrated to be necessary by an 

audit) helps to minimize air-quality 

impacts by alerting the CT DEEP to 

possible operational issues so that the 

CT DEEP may then work with the 

facility to implement corrective actions. 

In addition, we note that the quarterly 

reporting requirement is aligned with 

the regulation’s quarterly maximum 

limit on use of the alternative opacity 

limit (slightly less than 11 hours). 

Moreover, the exception in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1) itself is designed on its face 

to minimize emissions during startup 

and shutdown; stack testing; sootblowing, fuel switching or sudden load 

changes. That is, the source operator 

must limit the time period during which 

the alternative opacity limit applies to 

less than 11 hours per calendar quarter, 

and must limit opacity levels during 

such periods to no more than 60% 

opacity during any 6-minute block 

average. 

EPA Criterion #6 

The Sierra Club’s comment: The 

Sierra Club’s comments on criterion #6 

are related to those for criterion #5. 

Specifically, the Sierra Club claims that 

EPA does not point to anything that 

requires continuous minimization of 

emissions. 

EPA’s response: We incorporate by 

reference here the entirety of our 

responses (above) to the Sierra Club’s 

comments on EPA criterion #5 due to 

the similarity of the Sierra Club’s 

comments on criteria #5 and #6. 

EPA Criterion #7 

The Sierra Club did not submit an 

adverse comment on criterion #7, noting 

that the criterion ‘‘is met by 

Connecticut’s proposed opacity SIP 

revisions.’’ Accordingly, no response 

from EPA is necessary or provided here. 

Comment 4: The Sierra Club claims 

that EPA’s evaluation of the 

‘‘exemption’’ in Connecticut’s revised 

Section 22a–174–18 (visible emissions 

regulation) for sources subject to federal 

NSPS set forth in 40 CFR 60 is flawed 

and that the ‘‘exemption’’ is unlawful. 

The Sierra Club argued that EPA’s 

approval of a SIP revision that 

eliminates the currently applicable 

opacity standard from certain categories 

of sources has the ‘‘practical and legal 

effect’’ of exempting those sources for 

emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

Response 4: As noted earlier, by letter 

dated March 27, 2014, CT DEEP 

withdrew from its SIP submission 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). Thus, without 

conceding Sierra Club’s arguments 

about the legality of Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2), EPA provides no response to 

those arguments because the SIP is not 

being revised to include that regulatory 

provision. 

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) 

Comment: CLF asserts that the 

provision in Connecticut’s SIP revision 

that allows deviations from otherwise 

applicable visible emissions limits 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and other discrete periods of routine 

operations, like those set forth in RCSA 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), is illegal. CLF 

further commented that if EPA 

determines that this provision does not 

violate the CAA and approves it, such 

approval should clearly state that (1) the 

SIP revision is effective prospectively, 

beginning on the date that EPA officially 

approves it; and (2) for that reason, 

approval of the exemption for periods of 

startup, shutdown, and other listed 

modes of operation into the federallyenforceable SIP has no retroactive effect 

on past violations. CLF’s September 16, 

2013 comment letter included, as an 

attachment, other comments that CLF 

submitted to the CT DEEP on February 

14, 2012 regarding Bridgeport Harbor 

Station’s CAA Title V operating permit 

renewal (2012) which, in relevant part, 

addresses Connecticut’s visible 

emissions rule and RCSA Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1), which CLF asserts is illegal 

under the CAA. Also attached to CLF’s 

September 16, 2013 letter were 

comments submitted by CLF to EPA 

regarding EPA’s proposed SIP Call. 

Response: EPA disagrees with CLF’s 

assertion that the alternative emission 

limits for opacity during modes of 

operation such as startup, shutdown, 

and others contained in RCSA Section 

22a–174–18(j)(1), which differ from 

opacity limits that apply during normal 

steady-state operating conditions, are 

illegal under the CAA. In fact, as 

discussed in our August 15, 2013 NPR, 

EPA has longstanding SIP guidance that 

recommends criteria relevant to 

development of such alternative opacity 

limits or other control measures that 

may apply during specific modes of 

source operation such as startup and 

shutdown, if properly supported and 

established.11 EPA has also recently 

reiterated these criteria in a proposed 

rulemaking relevant to its interpretation 

of CAA requirements applicable to SIP 

provisions.12 These criteria are intended 

to ensure that opacity limits or other 

control measures or techniques in SIPs 

that apply during specific modes of 

source operation, such as startup or 

shutdown, are designed to minimize 

emissions in order to provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and meet other CAA 

requirements (e.g., enforceability). As 

discussed above, we believe that these 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41435 

criteria have been met with respect to 

the revisions at issue in today’s action. 

In response to CLF’s comments about 

the effective date of our approval of 

Connecticut’s SIP revision and the 

relationship of these specific revisions 

to factual circumstances that pre-date 

the effective date of the SIP revisions, 

the SIP revisions we are approving 

today are effective on August 15, 2014. 

EPA’s approval of these SIP revisions 

does not change the legal requirements 

that applied under the SIP, prior to this 

action. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving and incorporating 

into the Connecticut SIP three 

regulations submitted by the State of 

Connecticut on December 1, 2004. 

Specifically, EPA is approving revised 

RCSA Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of 

particulate matter and visible 

emissions,’’ except for the phrase ‘‘or 

malfunction’’ in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2), which CT DEEP has withdrawn 

from its SIP submission. EPA is also 

approving revised RCSA Section 22a– 

174–4 ‘‘Source monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting,’’ and 

revised RCSA Section 22a–174–7 ‘‘Air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment operation.’’ 

These latter two regulations strengthen 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, which improve 

the state’s ability to detect violations of 

emissions limits. As noted earlier, 

because Connecticut withdrew Section 

22a–174–18(j)(2) from its SIP 

submission, stationary sources subject 

to a federal NSPS will remain subject to 

the opacity limits contained in ‘‘Control 

of particulate emissions’’ under the SIP 

(See 37 FR 10842). 

Revised Section 22a–174–18 

establishes and requires limitations on 

visible and PM emissions from certain 

stationary sources, identifies a 

standardized method for determining 

compliance for sources without COMS, 

and establishes an alternative opacity 

limit of up to 60 percent opacity (during 

any 6-minute block average) during 

certain non-steady-state modes of 

operation for sources with COMS. In 

addition, the revised regulation sets a 

strict limit on the amount of time (0.5 

percent of a facility’s total operating 

hours during any calendar quarter) that 

sources with COMS can operate under 

the alternative opacity limit. As 

described earlier in this notice, we 

believe that the revision of Section 22a– 

174–18 will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS or other applicable CAA 

requirements, and thus is approvable 

with respect to section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 15, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 8, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on July 9, 2014. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52— APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(104) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on December 

1, 2004. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Letter from the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

dated December 1, 2004 submitting a 

revision to the Connecticut State 

Implementation Plan. 

(B) Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies, Section 22a–174, Abatement 

of Air Pollution Regulations, amended 

April 1, 2004: 

(1) Section 22a–174–4 ‘‘Source 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting.’’ 

(2) Section 22a–174–7 ‘‘Air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring 

equipment operation.’’ 

(3) Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of 

particulate matter and visible 

emissions,’’ with the exception of the 

phrase ‘‘or malfunction’’ in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2), which CT DEEP withdrew from 

the SIP submittal. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Letter from CT DEEP dated 

January 14, 2013, entitled ‘‘Information 

to Support EPA’s Approval of 

Connecticut’s Requirements for 

Opacity.’’ 

(B) Letter from CT DEEP dated July 8, 

2013, withdrawing from CT DEEP’s 

December 1, 2004 SIP revision the 

phrase ‘‘and malfunction’’ from 

Subsection (j)(1) of RCSA Section 22a– 

174–18. 

(C) Letter from CT DEEP dated March 

27, 2014, withdrawing from CT DEEP’s 

December 1, 2004 SIP revision Section 

22a–174–18(j)(2). 

■ 3. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is 

amended by adding new entries to 

existing state citations for 22a–174–4, 

22a–174–7, and 22a–174–18 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut 

regulations. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

Connecticut 

state 

citation 

Title/subject 

Dates 

Federal Register 

citation 

Section 

52.370 

Comments/ 

description Date 

adopted 

by State 

Date 

approved 

by EPA 

*******

22a–174–4 .... Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal Register 

Citation].

(c)(104) 

*******

22a–174–7 .... Air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment operation.

4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal Register 

Citation].

(c)(104) 

*******

22a–174–18 .. Control of particulate 

matter and visible 

emissions.

4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal Register 

Citation].

(c)(104) All of Section 22a–174–18 is 

approved, with the exception of the phrase ‘‘or malfunction’’ in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174–18(j)(2), 

which CT DEEP withdrew 

from the SIP submittal. Because Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2) from its SIP submission, stationary sources 

subject to a federal NSPS 

will remain subject to the 

opacity limits contained in 

‘‘Control of particulate 

emissions’’ under the SIP 

(See 37 FR 10842). See 

Section 19–508–18, ‘‘Control of Particulate Emissions’’ posted at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html. 

*******


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41437 

[FR Doc. 2014–16469 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072; FRL–9913–62– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Section 110(9)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving two State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Maryland 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Whenever new or revised National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements, including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The State of 

Maryland has made submittals 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by 

email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, EPA 

substantially strengthened the primary 

and secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS), revising the level 

of the primary (health-based) standard 

from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter 

(ug/m3) to 0.15 ug/m3, measured as total 

suspended particles (TSP) and not to be 

exceeded with an averaging time of a 

rolling three month period. EPA also 

revised the secondary (welfare-based) 

standard to be identical to the primary 

standard, as well as the associated 

ambient air monitoring requirements. 

See 40 CFR 50.16. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. The contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affect the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs and section 

110(a)(2) requires states to address basic 

SIP elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. More specifically, section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. 

For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states 

typically have met many of the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous lead NAAQS. Nevertheless, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states have to review and revise, 

as appropriate, their existing lead 

NAAQS SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are 

adequate to address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this 

statutory requirement, EPA issued 

guidance on October 14, 2011, entitled, 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

Required Under sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ which lists the basic 

elements that states should include in 

their SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25059), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland proposing approval of 

Maryland’s January 3, 2013 and August 

14, 2013 submittals to satisfy several 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In the 

NPR, EPA proposed approval of the 

following infrastructure elements: 

Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or 

portions thereof. This action does not 

include any action on section 

110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains 

to the nonattainment requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA, because this 

element is not required to be submitted 

by the 3-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be 

addressed in a separate process if 

necessary. The rationale which supports 

EPA’s proposed action, including the 

scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, 

is explained in the NPR and the 

technical support document (TSD) 

accompanying the NPR and will not be 

restated here. The TSD is available 

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072. 

No comments were received on this 

rulemaking action. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving two revisions to the 

Maryland SIP, Maryland’s January 3, 

2013 and August 14, 2013 submittals for 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS, that address the 

following infrastructure elements: 

Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This 

rulemaking action does not include 

section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which 

pertains to the nonattainment 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA, since this element is not required 

to be submitted by the three year 

submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a 

separate process. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES