[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17367-17386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7216]


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

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

[[Page 17368]]

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d8cbd7d6d5dd97d8d7d7dcf9dcc9d897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76170418191a1258171818133613061758111900">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640907130d08080d0509174a050a0a01240114054a030b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58353b2f3134343139352b763936363d183d2839763f37">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 SO<INF>2</INF> Alternative BART Program
    5. Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 17369]]

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (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. PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
long-term 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> that contribute to 
violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 
established emissions budgets for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. On 
October 13, 2006, EPA's ``Regional Haze Revisions to Provisions

[[Page 17370]]

Governing Alternative to Source-Specific 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> at 
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs). Many States relied on 
CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 17371]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (SO<INF>2</INF>), 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has 
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining 
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 
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

[[Page 17372]]

BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a 
facility that together comprises the BART-eligible 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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 17373]]

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 
mid-Atlantic 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 BART-eligible 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 Source-Specific 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.

[[Page 17374]]

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:
    <bullet> The unit falls into one of the listed source categories;
    <bullet> The unit was constructed or reconstructed between 1962 and 
1977; and
    <bullet> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and used 
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM<INF>10</INF>) 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>. 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Highest 2002
                                                         BART source      2002 Emissions  (ton/     visibility
   Source, unit and location            Fuel              category                 yr)             impact  (dv)
                                                                                                        \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power LLC, Unit 3,*   Residual Oil,       240 MW EGU........  SO2: 269                           0.11
 Middletown, CT.                  Natural Gas.                           NOX: 468
Middletown Power LLC, Unit 4,*   Residual Oil,       400 MW EGU........  SO2: 308                           0.06
 Middletown, CT.                  Natural Gas.                           NOX: 145
Montville Power LLC, Unit 6,     Residual Oil        410 MW EGU........  SO2: 794                           0.16
 Montville, CT.                   Distillate Oil.                        NOX: 312
Norwalk Power LLC, Unit 2,       Residual Oil......  172 MW EGU........  SO2: 322                           0.08
 Norwalk, CT.                                                            NOX: 82
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC,      Coal, Residual Oil  410 MW EGU........  SO2: 4,024                         0.84
 Bridgeport Harbor Station,                                              NOX: 1,689
 Unit 3, Bridgeport, CT.
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, New  Residual Oil,       465 MW EGU........  SO2: 4,010                         0.74
 Haven Harbor Station, Unit 1,    Distillate Oil,                        NOX: 1,143
 New Haven, CT.                   Natural Gas.
Cascades Boxboard Group--CT      Residual Oil,       275 MMbtu/hr        SO2: 0.5                           0.03
 LLC, PFI Boiler, Versailles,     Natural Gas.        Industrial Boiler. NOX: 215
 CT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are RCSA Section 22a-174-22 (Control of 
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions), and proposed RCSA Section 22a-174-22d (Post-
2011 Connecticut Ozone Season NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \6\ CT RCSA Section 22a-175-22d maintains NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission reductions required by the Clean Air Interstate Rule. 
Connecticut is subject to ozone-season 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 NO<INF>X</INF> to make permanent 
these emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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  In NOX SIP call
                               0.15 lb/MMbtu Oil--   area, extend use of
                               95% control or 0.33   controls to year
                               lb/MMBtu (0.3% fuel   round 0.1-0.25 lb/
                               sulfur limit.         MMBtu depending on
                                                     coal and boiler
                                                     type.
Industrial Boilers..........  90% control, or 0.5%  0.1-0.4 lb/MMBtu,
                               fuel sulfur limit     depending on boiler
                               (0.55 lb/MMBtu).      and fuel type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Connecticut's SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment demonstration SIP revision. RCSA Section 
22a-174-19a became effective December 28, 2000. It includes a two-
tiered timeframe for reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from large EGUs 
and industrial sources (approximately 59 sources). Starting January 1, 
2002, all sources subject to Connecticut's Post 2002-NO<INF>X</INF> 
Budget Program were required to:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 
0.55 pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for 
an affected unit; or
    <bullet> Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 0.5 
pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program were required to:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 
0.33 pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for 
an affected unit at a premises; or
    <bullet> Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 0.3 
pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> discrete emission reduction credits certified by CT DEEP 
or EPA's SO<INF>2</INF> Acid Rain Program allowances; also known as 
emissions credit trading. Connecticut General Statues (CGS) section 
22a-198 suspended SO<INF>2</INF> emission credit trading starting 
January 1, 2005.
    The first phase of Connecticut's SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> plan was fully 
implemented in 2005, Connecticut chose 2006 for comparison.

                          Table 3--Annual Potential (Allowable at 8760 Hours) Emissions
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      MANE-VU BART
                                                                                        workgroup        EPA
                 BART-eligible unit                    2001 *     2002 *     2006 *    presumptive   presumptive
                                                                                        BART 2012     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:
    <bullet> For Bridgeport Harbor 3, the sole coal-burning unit, 0.15 
lb/MMBtu, the MANE-VU BART workgroup's and EPA's recommended 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate for coal-burning units, was used.
    <bullet> For the five oil-burning EGUs, the MANE-VU BART 
workgroup's and

[[Page 17376]]

EPA's recommended BART emission rates of 0.33 lb/MMBtu and 1.1 lb/MMBtu 
respectively, were used in the calculations.
    <bullet> MANE-VU BART workgroup post-BART SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> limit did not 
change after that date so the 2006 potential emissions remain the same.
    Table 4 lists the actual 2001, 2002, and 2006 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> potential emission reductions since 2002 from 
all Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program sources subject to RCSA 
section 22a-174-19a (89,537 tons minus 60,304 tons equals 29,233 tons) 
with SO<INF>2</INF> potential post-BART emission reductions from BART-
eligible sources since 2002 (53,313 tons minus 29,021 tons equals 
24,292), it is apparent that Connecticut's existing SO<INF>2</INF> 
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reduction in
              Option                   2002       2006       potential
                                                             emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 potential emissions from all       89,537     60,304          29,233
 Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
 sources..........................
SO2 potential emissions from BART-     53,313     29,021          24,292
 eligible sources alone...........
                                   ------------
    Additional reductions beyond    .........  .........           4,841
     BART-eligible sources alone..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Table 6 shows the reductions in actual SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from all Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program sources and 
all BART-eligible sources since 2001. Note the significant reduction in 
actual SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions since 2001 from all Post-2002 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Reduction in
                                                                                                      actual
                             Option                                 2001       2002       2006       emissions
                                                                                                    since 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 actual emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program          35,625     13,056      7,146          28,479
 sources.......................................................
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17377]]

5. Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> Alternative BART Program
    Most of the BART-eligible units in Connecticut installed 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction technology during the early to mid 1990s in 
response to Connecticut's ozone reduction strategies, whereby lower 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits were promulgated. As described below, CT 
DEEP has concluded that the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits contained in 
the existing regulations are at least as stringent as BART. The CT DEEP 
alternative NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> control regulations (RCSA section 22a-174-
22) achieving substantial reductions in 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
rates from a variety of sources, including the BART-eligible units. The 
maximum allowable 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate for cyclone 
furnaces (including Middletown Unit 3) was reduced by 52%, the maximum 
allowable 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate for existing coal-fired 
boilers (Bridgeport Unit 3) was reduced by 58%, and the maximum 
allowable 24-hour NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limits. This 
regulation was approved into the Connecticut SIP on October 6, 1997. 
See 62 FR 52016.
    Since 1999, CT DEEP has adopted several NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
trading programs which progressively reduced allowances allocated to 
Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget to 5,866 tons beginning in 1999 and 
RCSA section 22a-174-22b reduced the summer NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
further to 4,466 tons beginning in 2003. All of Connecticut's BART-
eligible units are currently subject to the Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> 
Budget Program and are also included in the CAIR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Trading Program starting in 2009 pursuant to RCSA section 22a-
174-22c. The CAIR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Trading Program includes 
a NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ RCSA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/cair/docs/CAIRRemandOrder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RCSA section 22a-174-22d limits Connecticut's ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
will occur in the state.
    In addition to the ozone season requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> 
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, 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program sources that are also subject to RCSA 
section 22a-174-22 meet a non-ozone seasonal NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment demonstration SIP revision.\9\ Therefore, 
all of Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program sources, including 
all of Connecticut's BART-eligible sources, are subject to year-round 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission restrictions. Pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-
22, CT DEEP allows sources subject to the 24-hour and non-ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits to use NO<INF>X</INF> discrete emission 
reduction credits or NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program allowances to comply 
with the subject emission limits. Table 7 shows the NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions in potential emissions between 2002 and 2006 from all Post-
2002 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program sources as compared with the 
reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Non-CAIR EGUs and 0.1 lb/MMBtu (low end) to 0.4 
lb/MMBtu (high end) for industrial boilers, depending on coal and 
boiler type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On March 12, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a letter to EPA 
clarifying that the Appendix to the November 18, 2008 Fine 
Particulate Matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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.

[[Page 17378]]



 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Reduction in  potential
              Option                   2002                   2006                          emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX potential emissions from all        46,188  34,833.........................  11,355.
 Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
 sources.
NOX potential emissions from BART-      27,554  High End--24,434...............  High End--3,120.
 eligible sources alone.                        Low End--9,701.................  Low End--17,853.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Connecticut noted that between 1994 and 2006 NO<INF>X</INF> 
potential emissions from all Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Programs, thereby encouraging further 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions since 1994 from all Post-2002 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the geographic 
area covered by the Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> alternative to BART program 
demonstration meets the requirements of our Alternative to BART Rule.
    As part the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program. As Connecticut noted, since 1994, 
Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> programs have resulted in over 55,000 tons 
per year of reductions from Post-2002 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Program 
sources, well in excess of what application of BART alone would 
achieve. Moreover, Connecticut has demonstrated that the NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Highest
                          Facility                             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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Had Connecticut conducted a source-by-source BART analysis, the 
current

[[Page 17379]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The deciview impact of each BART-eligible source, by 
pollutant, can be found in Attachment X of Connecticut's November 
18, 2009 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional piece of evidence for Connecticut's alternative to 
BART program demonstration is that, while Connecticut does not have a 
firm state-wide, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission growth from new EGUs--we are 
proposing to find that Connecticut has shown by a clear weight of 
evidence that their NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
(measured as particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 
BART-eligible 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Highest PM10
                                                  impact on 20%
              BART-eligible Unit                    best days                   Existing PM controls
                                                    (deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section 4.1 of the MANE-VU Five Factor Analysis of 
BART-Eligible Sources, Attachment W of Connecticut's November 18, 
2009 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of Controls
    Table 10 shows the cost of PM controls per year for those BART-
eligible 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 Sources\12\ and ACFM values provided in the 
2005 emission statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Attachment Z of the Connecticut November 18, 2009 SIP 
submittal.

                             Table 10--Cost of PM Controls and 2005 Actual Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Fixed & Variable
                                                  Capital cost  ranges        operation and       2005 Actual PM
              BART-eligible unit                          ($)               maintenance  cost        emissions
                                                                             ranges  ($/year)         (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17380]]

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 
dis-benefits associated with PM controls were identified.
Connecticut's Determination
    Given the very high cost per ton reduced for the remaining BART-
eligible 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 cost-effective 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) Five-Factor 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/bart-control-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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>), 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF>. The BART 
guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC 
and NH<INF>3</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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) on-road 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from all EGUs, proposed RCSA section 22a-174-
22d which limits ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> for all EGUs, RCSA section 
22a-174-22 which limits the non-ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
for all EGUs, and Connecticut General

[[Page 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: 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call Phases I and II; NO<INF>X</INF> Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) in 1-hour Ozone SIP; NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Spark-
Ignition 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 Spark-Ignition 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

[[Page 17382]]

 
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 
Mid-Atlantic 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:
    <bullet> Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation 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 regional-
scale photochemical, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 
in-depth 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, PM<INF>2.5,</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles

[[Page 17383]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Appendix E--``Top Electrical Generating Unit List'' of 
the Connecticut SIP submittal for a complete listing of the 167 
stacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <greek-i>4 
residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018; 
<greek-i>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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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/m\3\ in the 24 hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 17384]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Connecticut 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This document has been provided as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction industry is already subject to requirements for 
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For 
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Regulations are available at www.dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/mainregs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This document has been included as part of the docket to 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 17385]]

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 PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 2002, which constitute 0.06% and 0.17% of the total 
inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Attachment FF--Connecticut Smoke Management Policy 
Documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Projected 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/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Inter-
RPO 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The comments and CT DEEP's responses have been included in 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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)

[[Page 17386]]

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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>