Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49701 

for the excise tax for failure to meet the 

community health needs assessment 

requirements for any taxable year to file 

Form 4720, ‘‘Return of Certain Excise 

Taxes Under Chapters 41 and 42 of the 

Internal Revenue Code.’’ The 

regulations also specify the due date for 

such returns. The text of those 

temporary regulations also serves as the 

text of these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing must 

be received by November 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–115300–13), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 

DC 20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–115300–13), 

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC, or sent electronically 

via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG– 

115300–13). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Amy F. Giuliano at (202) 622–6070; 

concerning submission of comments 

and request for hearing, 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 622– 

7180 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Explanation of 

Provisions 

Temporary regulations in the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register amend the existing 

regulations under sections 6011 and 

6071 to (1) specify the form that must 

be used to accompany payment of the 

excise tax imposed by section 4959 for 

failure to meet the community health 

needs assessment requirements of 

section 501(r)(3), and (2) provide the 

due date for filing the form. Section 

501(r) and section 4959 were enacted by 

section 9007 of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 

111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)). 

The text of those temporary 

regulations also serves as the text of 

these proposed regulations. The 

preamble to the temporary regulations 

explains the amendments. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, a regulatory 

assessment is not required. It also has 

been determined that section 553(b) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these 

regulations. It is hereby certified that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

certification is based on the fact that this 

rule merely provides guidance as to the 

timing and filing of Form 4720 for 

charitable hospital organizations liable 

for the section 4959 excise tax, and 

completing the applicable portion 

(Schedule M) of the Form 4720 for this 

purpose imposes little incremental 

burden in time or expense. The liability 

for the section 4959 excise tax is 

imposed by statute, and not these 

regulations. In addition, a charitable 

hospital organization may already be 

required to file the Form 4720 under the 

existing final regulations in sections 

53.6011–1 and 53.6071–1 if it is liable 

for another Chapter 41 or 42 excise tax. 

Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) is 

not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) 

of the Code, these proposed regulations 

were submitted to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for comment on their 

impact on small business, and no 

comments were received. 

Comments and Requests for Public 

Hearing 

Before these proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

comments that are submitted timely to 

the IRS as prescribed in this preamble 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rules. All comments will be 

available at www.regulations.gov or 

upon request. 

A public hearing will be scheduled if 

requested in writing by any person that 

timely submits written comments. If a 

public hearing is scheduled, notice of 

the date, time, and place for the public 

hearing will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

regulations is Amy F. Giuliano, Office of 

Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt 

and Government Entities). However, 

other personnel from the IRS and 

Treasury Department participated in 

their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 53 

Excise taxes, Foundations, 

Investments, Lobbying, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 53 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 53—FOUNDATION AND SIMILAR 

EXCISE TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 53 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 53.6011–1 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Redesignating paragraphs (c) 

through (e) as (d) through (f). 

■ 2. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (g). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 53.6011–1 General requirement of return, 

statement or list. 

* * * * * 

(c) [The text of paragraph (c) of this 

section is the same as the text of 

§ 53.6011–1T(c) published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

(g) [The text of paragraph (g) of this 

section is the same as the text of 

§ 53.6011–1T(g) published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register]. 

■ Par. 3. Section 53.6071–1 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Revising paragraph (h). 

■ 2. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 53.6071–1 Time for filing returns. 

* * * * * 

[The text of paragraphs (h) and (i) of 

this section is the same as the text of 

§§ 53.6071–1T(h) and (i)(1) and (2) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

Heather C. Maloy, 

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19930 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0469; A–1–FRL– 

9846–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Connecticut; 

Control of Visible Emissions, Record 

Keeping and Monitoring 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Connecticut on December 1, 2004. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to Connecticut’s 

visible and particulate-matter (PM) 

emissions, record keeping and 

monitoring regulations. These revised 

rules establish and require limitations 

on visible and PM emissions for 

stationary sources, and clarify reporting 

requirements for operation of airpollution-control and monitoring 

equipment. EPA is proposing approval 

of this SIP revision because the state has 

adequately demonstrated that it will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in 

Connecticut or any other applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 16, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0469 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0469,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0469. 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’’ systems, 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 Air Quality Planning 

Unit, 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 person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1684, fax number 

(617) 918–0684, email 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

In addition to the publicly available 

docket materials available for inspection 

electronically in the Federal Docket 

Management System at 

www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy 

available at the Regional Office, which 

are identified in the ADDRESSES section 

of this Federal Register, copies of the 

state submittal are also available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours, by appointment at the 

State Air Agency: Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for the proposal? 

III. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP revision 

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

submittal? 

A. Potential Emissions Increases 

Attributable to CT DEEP’s Revised 

Regulation 

B. Emissions Inventories and Ambient AirQuality Analysis 

C. Revisions to Existing Opacity Standards 

a. Alternative Emissions Limit Provisions 

b. Withdrawn Malfunction Emissions Limit 

Provision 

c. Exclusion of Sources Subject to NSPS 

D. Regional Haze 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49703 

1CT regulations use the term ‘‘opacity continuous 

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

However, EPA and others commonly refer to these 

monitors as ‘‘continuous opacity monitoring 

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

use the more common term ‘‘COMS.’’ 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

proposal? 

Visible emissions, also known as 

‘‘opacity,’’ provide a measure of the 

degree to which stack emissions from a 

stationary source (such as a power 

plant) reduce the transmission of light 

and obscure the view of an object in the 

background. See 40 CFR 60.2. In 

general, the more opaque the particles 

that pass through an emissions point, 

the more light that will be blocked, thus 

increasing the opacity percentage. 

Although opacity is not a criteria 

pollutant and there can be uncertainty 

in the relationship between opacity and 

the mass of particulate matter from a 

stack emission at any given source, 

opacity standards continue to be used as 

an indicator of the effectiveness of 

emission controls for PM emissions and 

to help implement and enforce emission 

standards for purposes of attaining the 

PM NAAQS. Connecticut, like many 

other states, has rules that limit opacity 

levels of emissions from certain sources 

to reduce pollutant releases. 

Connecticut first adopted regulations 

to limit visible and PM emissions from 

stationary sources, including electric 

generating units (EGUs) and boilers, in 

the early 1980s. In 1981, EPA approved 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) Section 19–508–18, 

‘‘Control of particulate emissions,’’ into 

the Connecticut SIP (47 FR 41958). 

Section 19–508–18 has since been 

recodified as RCSA Section 22a–174–18. 

In 2003, the Connecticut Department 

of Environmental Protection (now the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection or CT DEEP) 

proposed revisions to Section 22a–174– 

18 ‘‘Control of particulate matter and 

visible emissions’’ (herein called the 

‘‘visible emissions regulation’’) to 

address short-term excursions from 

maximum allowed opacity levels that 

may occur and be measured at some 

stationary sources with continuous 

opacity monitoring systems (COMS) 1

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

stack testing, soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes. 

Facilities covered under the new 

exceptions in Section 22a–174–18(j) 

include only those facilities that operate 

COMS. 

In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed 

revisions to several other RCSA 

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

Monitoring, record keeping, reporting 

and authorization of inspection of air 

pollution sources’’ (codified as RCSA 

Section 19–508–4 in the Connecticut 

SIP, and herein called the ‘‘record 

keeping regulation’’), and 22a–174–7, 

‘‘Air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment operation’’ 

(codified as RCSA Section 19–508–7 in 

the Connecticut SIP, and herein called 

the ‘‘monitoring regulation’’). CT DEEP 

held a public hearing on revisions to 

these three (as well as several other) 

regulations, on April 29, 2003. 

Subsequently, CT DEEP amended its 

visible emissions, record keeping, and 

monitoring regulations based on 

comments received from EPA and 

others, with an effective date of April 1, 

2004. 

On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP 

submitted the revised regulations to 

EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut 

SIP. This submittal included a provision 

providing exceptions from maximum 

opacity levels for startup, shutdown, 

stack testing, soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes, and 

malfunctions of stationary sources with 

COMs (Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)). 

However, on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent 

a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 

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

applies to malfunctions. 

Today’s action addresses RCSA 

Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 

22a–174–18. CT DEEP’s December 1, 

2004 SIP submittal also included three 

additional regulations. EPA has already 

taken action on these rules. Specifically, 

Section 22a–174–3b ‘‘Exemptions from 

permitting for construction and 

operation of external combustion units, 

automotive refinishing operations, 

emergency engines, nonmetallic mineral 

processing equipment and surface 

coating operations,’’ Section 22a–174– 

30 ‘‘Dispensing of gasoline/Stage I and 

Stage II vapor recovery,’’ and Section 

22a–174–43 ‘‘Portable fuel container 

spillage control’’ were approved into the 

Connecticut SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 

FR 51761). 

After reviewing CT DEEP’s December 

1, 2004 SIP submittal for Sections 22a– 

174–4, 22a–174–7, and 22a–174–18 

(including clarifying letters 

demonstrating consistency with 110(l) 

of the CAA and withdrawal of an 

exception provision for malfunctions), 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Connecticut SIP revision for RCSA 

Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 

22a–174–18 without the withdrawn 

portion, and is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice or on other relevant matters. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. Interested 

parties may participate in the federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

III. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP 

Revision 

On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP 

submitted to EPA amendments to 22a– 

174–4 (record keeping), 22a–174–7 

(monitoring) and 22a–174–18 (visible 

and PM emissions). Revisions to the 

record keeping and monitoring 

regulations clarify and improve 

enforceability of requirements currently 

in the Connecticut SIP. For example, 

revised 22a–174–4 includes specific 

data availability requirements and 

revised 22a–174–7 includes explicit, 

specific time frames for various 

notifications (such as ‘‘no later than two 

business days’’), as compared to prior 

requirements to notify the state 

‘‘promptly.’’ 

Connecticut’s revised visible and PM 

emissions regulation also contains new 

provisions concerning the emission 

limits applicable to sources, including 

alternative emission limits applicable to 

some sources during certain modes of 

source operation. 

The state’s pre-2004 regulation, which 

is currently in the Connecticut SIP 

(Section 19–508–18), prohibits 

stationary sources from emitting 

pollutants with more than 20 percent 

opacity at all times, except for up to five 

(5) aggregate minutes in a 60-minute 

period, during which emissions can 

have up to 40 percent opacity. The 

current regulation contains no 

impermissible exemptions for excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

malfunction or other periods. The state’s 

revised rule (Section 22a–174–18) 

includes new time-averaged opacity 

standards with specified compliance 

determination methods for sources both 

with and without COMs, and an 

alternative compliance option for 

sources that use COMs. The alternative 

compliance option provides an 

alternative emission limit applicable 

during certain modes of source 

operation. 

For sources both with and without 

COMs, the revised regulation limits 

opacity to 20 percent during any 6- 

minute block average or to 40 percent 

during any one-minute block average 

(Section 22a–174–18(b)(1) and (2)). For 

sources without COMs, compliance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49704 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA is unaware of any boilers in Connecticut 

that meet the applicability criteria for Subpart Da, 

nor any incinerators subject to Subparts Ea, Eb, or 

Ec. 

3Please note that our Section 110(l) analysis 

draws upon, but is not identical to, the analysis 

presented in CT DEEP’s letter. 

4Connecticut is designated as nonattainment 

under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but additional 

periods of higher opacity as a result of the SIP 

revision are not expected to result in increases of 

ozone precursors. 

with these limits is determined using 

EPA’s Reference Method 9, which is a 

standardized EPA method for visual 

determination of the opacity of 

emissions from stationary sources. 

For sources with COMs, the revised 

regulation includes an alternative 

emission limit during periods of startup, 

shutdown, stack testing, soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load change 

(Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)). During these 

periods, emissions can have up to 60 

percent opacity during any 6-minute 

block average. However, the period of 

time that the alternative emission limit 

can be used by the source cannot exceed 

one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of 

a facility’s total operating hours during 

any calendar quarter. In other words, 

the maximum time that the alternative 

emission limit can be used is slightly 

less than 11 hours under the scenario of 

a facility operating continuously for a 

three-month period. RCSA Section 22a– 

174–4, which is also proposed for 

approval herein, contains recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements that serve to 

ensure that records are available to 

provide evidence that elevated opacity 

occurs during specified modes of source 

operation, and that elevated opacity is 

restricted on a calendar quarter basis. 

Connecticut’s revised regulation also 

includes a new provision (Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(2)) that excludes emission 

sources that are separately subject to 

additional visible emissions standards 

under existing federal New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) set forth 

in 40 CFR part 60 from the Section 22a– 

174–18 visible emissions standards. We 

considered the various NSPS applicable 

to these types of sources. The most 

relevant for today’s discussion are the 

NSPS for boilers. In Connecticut, boilers 

subject to NSPS are mainly boilers 

subject to Subparts Db and Dc.2 During 

normal operating conditions, these 

NSPSs provide visible emission 

standards generally more stringent than 

Section 22a–174–18, limiting opacity to 

20 percent (6-minute average), except 

for one 6-minute period per hour of not 

more than 27 percent opacity. See 40 

CFR 60.43b(f) and 60.43c(c). However, 

these existing NSPSs include 

exemptions for emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. See 40 CFR 60.43b(g) and 

60.43c(d). It should be noted that these 

existing exemptions do not include 

other modes of source operation, such 

as stack testing, soot blowing, fuel 

switching, or sudden load change. 

Accordingly, the opacity limits of these 

NSPS continue to apply during such 

periods. 

PM emission standards currently in 

the Connecticut SIP (Section 19–508– 

18(d)) include limits of 0.10 pounds per 

million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) 

of heat input for stationary sources 

requiring a permit. Sources requiring 

permits are those with potential 

emissions of 15 tons per year (tpy) or 

more of any individual air pollutant. For 

smaller boilers that are required to 

register under Connecticut General 

Statute Chapter 540 Sec. 29–241 

(‘‘registration sources’’), PM emission 

standards were 0.14 lb/MMBtu for 

sources burning residual oil and 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu for all other registration sources. 

The state’s revised rule (Section 22a– 

174–18) retains the PM standard of 0.10 

lb/MMBtu for sources requiring a 

permit, but tightens the PM standards 

from 0.20 to 0.12 lb/MMBtu for 

registration sources that burn distillate 

oil (no. 2 oil), and from 0.20 to 0.10 lb/ 

MMBtu for registration sources that 

burn natural gas. 

EPA’s review of the SIP submittal 

indicates that all concerns that EPA has 

thus far expressed to CT DEEP about 

revisions to the state’s visible and PM 

emissions, record keeping, and 

monitoring regulations have been 

adequately addressed. Most of the 

concerns that EPA expressed were in 

regard to the visible emissions 

regulation, especially Section 22a–174– 

18(j), which provides exceptions from 

maximum opacity levels for stationary 

sources with COMS. To address these 

concerns, CT DEEP submitted a 

clarifying letter to its SIP submittal, 

which is discussed below, 

demonstrating that revisions to its 

visible emissions regulation are 

consistent with section 110(l) of the 

CAA, and withdrew Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) to the extent that it applies to 

malfunctions. See letter to EPA dated 

July 8, 2013, available in the docket for 

today’s action. 

In the process of reviewing 

Connecticut’s SIP revision and the 

addenda, EPA also considered other 

issues pertaining to the visible 

emissions regulation, including its 

relationship to EPA’s recently proposed 

revisions to its policy regarding limits 

applicable during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Connecticut’s submittal? 

On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP 

submitted revisions to its visible and 

PM emissions (Section 22a–174–18), 

record keeping (22a–174–4), and 

monitoring (22a–174–7) regulations. As 

previously noted, the record keeping 

and monitoring revisions clarify and 

improve enforceability of requirements 

currently in the Connecticut SIP. 

However, revisions to the visible and 

PM emissions regulation include new 

provisions that provide an alternative 

emission limit for maximum opacity 

levels for stationary sources with COMs 

during certain modes of source 

operation, and also excludes certain 

existing sources that are subject to NSPS 

visible-emissions standards from the 

SIP’s visible-emissions standards. CT 

DEEP submitted a clarifying letter to its 

SIP submittal to demonstrate that these 

provisions are consistent with section 

110(l) of the CAA. As described below, 

EPA reviewed the SIP submittal, which 

includes the letter, and is proposing to 

find that it is consistent with section 

110(l) of the CAA.3

The analysis below discusses the antibacksliding provisions of CAA Section 

110(l), since, as mentioned above, a 

previous version of the visible and PM 

emissions rule has already been 

approved into the Connecticut SIP. 

Section 193 of the CAA is not discussed 

because the entire State of Connecticut 

is attaining the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS 

for particulate matter.4 On July 19, 2013, 

EPA proposed to redesignate New 

Haven and Fairfield Counties to 

attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS (78 

FR 43096). EPA intends to finalize the 

redesignation action prior to taking final 

action on this proposal. 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: ‘‘The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ EPA interprets 

section 110(l) to apply to all 

requirements of the CAA and to all areas 

of the country, whether attainment, 

nonattainment, unclassifiable, or 

maintenance for one or more of the six 

criteria pollutants. EPA interprets 

section 110(l) to require a basis for 

concluding that the SIP revision will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS for all 

criteria pollutants whose emissions and/ 

or ambient concentrations may change 

as a result of the SIP revision. For areas 

designated as attainment for the relevant 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49705 

5These units are not subject to NSPSs with 

opacity standards, and are therefore not eligible for 

the exemption in Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). 

criteria pollutants, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to allow states to 

demonstrate that a SIP will not interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS by 

showing that, taking into consideration 

the change in emissions levels allowed 

under the SIP revision, there is a 

substantial margin of safety (i.e., 

‘‘headroom’’ or ‘‘cushion of 

compliance’’) between ambient 

concentrations and the applicable 

NAAQS. 

Alternatively, a state can show that a 

SIP revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS by demonstrating that the 

revision will not allow for an increase 

in emissions into the air over what is 

allowed under the existing EPAapproved SIP, taking into consideration 

SIP-approved measures that represent 

new emissions reductions achieved in a 

contemporaneous time frame to the 

change represented by the SIP revision. 

In addition to being contemporaneous, 

the emissions reductions must also be 

permanent and enforceable. States may 

also be able to demonstrate 

noninterference through alternative 

approaches, such as air quality analyses. 

For example, a maintenance plan may 

demonstrate that a control measure is no 

longer needed to maintain compliance 

with the NAAQS. 

We evaluated CT DEEP’s Section 

110(l) demonstration to ensure that 

revisions to the state’s visible and PM 

emissions regulation (Section 22a–174– 

18) will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of PM air quality 

standards, or any other applicable 

requirements of the CAA, as required by 

section 110(l) of the CAA. Our analysis, 

as set forth below, consists of several 

parts. 

First, we consider (although we do 

not quantify precisely) potential 

emissions increases that could result 

from CT DEEP’s revised regulation. 

These increases represent, very roughly, 

potential increases attributable to the 

relaxed alternative opacity limit, plus 

potential increases attributable to 

removing NSPS-subject sources from 

SIP opacity standards, minus other 

reductions within the rule itself (e.g., 

the tighter PM standards in some 

circumstances). 

Second, we discuss recent data 

regarding emissions inventories and 

ambient air quality to demonstrate that 

Connecticut’s emissions have declined 

substantially in recent years, and that its 

present air quality is well below the 

federal primary and secondary PM 

NAAQS. As part of this discussion, we 

describe certain regulations that EPA 

has approved into the Connecticut SIP 

and, therefore, result in permanent, 

federally enforceable emissions 

reductions. Our purpose in discussing 

these regulations is to support our 

analysis regarding current statewide 

inventories and air quality. 

Our analysis demonstrates that the 

current, relatively low emissions 

inventories are not solely attributable to 

non-regulatory factors (e.g., economic 

changes), but rather are, in significant 

part, attributable to the permanent, 

enforceable reductions achieved by 

Connecticut’s SIP and other federal 

CAA programs. The combination of 

these three facts—that Connecticut’s 

direct and precursor PM2.5 emissions 

have been reduced, that these 

reductions are largely permanent 

reductions attributable to federally 

enforceable CAA measures (including 

SIP requirements), and that the 

measured ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

are well below the NAAQS—persuade 

us that the weight of evidence shows 

that Connecticut’s SIP has a sufficient 

margin of safety. In other words, even if 

overall emissions do increase as a result 

of this revision, this increase will not 

interfere with maintenance of the PM 

NAAQS. 

Third, we discuss CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(A)’s requirement for 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations’’ in 

SIP provisions, which Section 302(k) 

defines as limiting emissions ‘‘on a 

continuous basis.’’ EPA has 

longstanding guidance for SIP 

provisions that pertain generally to 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. CT DEEP’s revision 

raises three subcategories of issues 

potentially relevant here. First, we 

discuss each of the seven criteria EPA 

recommends for the SIP provision that 

provides for an alternative emission 

limit during specific modes of source 

operation, such as startup and 

shutdown, to meet CAA SIP 

requirements, and why we believe that 

CT DEEP’s revision is consistent with 

these criteria. Second, we very briefly 

discuss an alternate limit for 

malfunction that was contained in CT 

DEEP’s original submission, that has 

since been withdrawn from 

consideration. Third, we discuss some 

unique issues regarding Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(2), and why our approval of 

this provision—which exempts sources 

subject to NSPS opacity standards from 

the current EPA-approved SIP-based 

opacity standard—is not inconsistent 

with CAA requirements applicable to 

SIP provisions. 

Fourth, we discuss why CT DEEP’s 

revision will not interfere with Regional 

Haze requirements. Our analysis here is 

very similar to that in the first and 

second sections. We discuss 

Connecticut’s Regional Haze plan and 

its modeled reductions and the 

‘‘compliance cushion’’ available, and 

explain why, overall, potential increases 

from the alternative emission limit and 

the exclusion of certain sources from the 

current SIP opacity standards in CT 

DEEP’s revised regulation will not 

interfere with Regional Haze 

requirements. 

A. Potential Emissions Increases 

Attributable CT DEEP’s Revised 

Regulation 

In this section, we discuss (although 

we do not quantify precisely) potential 

emissions increases that could result 

from CT DEEP’s revised regulation. 

These increases represent potential 

increases attributable to the relaxed 

alternative emission limit, plus 

potential increases attributable to 

removing NSPS-subject sources from 

SIP opacity standards, minus other 

reductions within the rule itself (e.g., 

the tighter PM standards in some 

circumstances). 

Emissions From Sources With COMS 

CT DEEP looked at the current 

operating status of 20 units for which 

the alternative emission limit during 

certain modes of source operation 

(Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)) was 

developed.5 As shown in Table 1 below, 

since adoption of the revised regulation, 

eight of the 20 units have been 

permanently removed from service. CT 

DEEP revoked registrations for the five 

Pratt and Whitney Units at the Andrew 

Willgoos Turbine Lab in East Hartford 

in 2004 and 2005. The status of these 

units as inoperable was verified by a 

field inspector. Pfizer rendered Boiler 

No. 8 inoperable and CT DEEP revoked 

the New Source Review (NSR) permit 

(No. 070–0001) on October 7, 2008. The 

shutdown of Boiler No. 8 is also 

included on Consent Order No. 8314. At 

Devon Station, CT DEEP revoked 

registrations for two utility boilers (Nos. 

7 and 8) in 2008. An inspection of the 

premises conducted by CT DEEP on 

May 13, 2008 verified that the units 

were inoperable. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49706 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ORIGINAL 20 UNITS WITH COMS. OPERATIONS BEFORE 2004 COMPARED WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS

Source/unit Town/county Pre-2004 fuel Current operating status & 

fuel Air pollution control 

Devon Station #7 ............... Milford/New Haven ............ Residual Oil/Natural Gas 

(NG).

Unit retired ........................ N/A. 

Devon Station #8 ............... Milford/New Haven ............ Residual Oil/NG ................ Unit retired ........................ N/A. 

Norwalk Station #1 ............ Norwalk/Fairfield ............... Residual Oil ....................... Operating Residual Oil ...... Electrostatic Precipitator, 

Selective Non-catalytic 

Reduction. 

Norwalk Station #2 ............ Norwalk/Fairfield ............... Residual Oil ....................... Operating Residual Oil ...... Electrostatic Precipitator, 

Selective Non-catalytic 

Reduction. 

Middletown Station #2 ....... Middletown/Middlesex ....... Residual Oil/NG ................ Operating NG/Residual Oil Electrostatic Precipitator, 

Overfire Air. 

Middletown Station #3 ....... Middletown/Middlesex ....... Residual Oil/NG ................ Operating NG/Residual Oil Electrostatic Precipitator, 

Water Injection, Selective Non-catalytic Reduction. 

Middletown Station #4 ....... Middletown/Middlesex ....... Residual Oil ....................... Operating Residual Oil ...... Best Engineering Practices: optimizing fuel-toair ratio. 

Montville Station #5 ........... Montville/New London ....... Residual Oil/NG ................ Operating Residual Oil/NG Electrostatic Precipitator. 

Montville Station #6 ........... Montville/New London ....... Residual Oil ....................... Operating Residual Oil ...... Best Engineering Practices: optimizing fuel-toair ratio. 

Bridgeport Harbor #2 ......... Bridgeport/Fairfield ............ Residual Oil ....................... Operating Residual Oil ...... Electrostatic Precipitator. 

Bridgeport Harbor #3 ......... Bridgeport/Fairfield ............ Coal/Oil ............................. Operating Adaro Coal/Residual Oil.Adaro Coal, Electrostatic 

precipitator, Activated 

carbon injection, Pulse 

jet fabric filter baghouse, 

Low NOX Burner Technology w/Separated 

Overfire Air. 

New Haven Harbor #1 ...... New Haven/New Haven .... Residual Oil/NG ................ Operating Residual Oil/NG Electrostatic Precipitator, 

Overfire Air, Flue Gas 

Recirculation, Waterwall 

Lances, Low NOX Burners. 

Pfizer #5 ............................ Groton/New London .......... Residual Oil/NG ................ Operating by Order can 

only combust NG.

Low NOX burner, Flue Gas 

Recirculation. 

Pfizer #8 ............................ Groton/New London .......... Residual Oil ....................... Unit rendered permanently 

inoperable.

N/A. 

Fusion Paperboard PFI 

Boiler.

Sprague/New London ....... NG/Residual Oil ................ Operating NG/Residual Oil Low NOX Burner Technology (Dry Bottom 

only). 

Pratt & Whitney Willgoos 

Labs Units 2–6.

E. Hartford/Hartford ........... Residual Oil ....................... All 5 units removed ........... N/A. 

Moreover, three of the units 

(Middletown Station no. 2 and 3 and 

Pfizer no. 5) have changed their primary 

fuel from residual oil to natural gas, 

resulting in a reduction in emissions of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. On April 

26, 2010, CT DEEP issued a consent 

order (No. 8306; included in docket for 

today’s action) to NRG Energy, Inc., 

which included their Middletown 

facility. The order contains an ozoneseason (May 1st through September 30th 

each year) restriction (Paragraph B.6) 

that, depending on fuel availability and 

supply, requires NRG facilities to burn 

the lowest NOX-emitting fuel possible. 

NRG can trade to meet the seasonal 

limit, but to minimize use of Discrete 

Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs), it 

is typically in NRG’s best interest to 

burn natural gas as often as possible. 

Each DERC is equivalent to 1 ton of NOX

emissions and may be used for 

emissions trading in accordance with 

Connecticut regulations. For the nonozone season, SIP-approved Section 

22a–172–22 (described in more detail 

below) sets a seasonal emission limit of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu for sources in the NOX

Budget Program (described in more 

detail below). In sum, although use of 

natural gas is not a permanent and 

enforceable requirement for the two 

Middletown units, a combination of 

requirements make it likely that this is, 

and will remain, the fuel of choice. 

On May 4, 2012, CT DEEP issued a 

consent order to Pfizer Inc. (No. 8314; 

included in docket for today’s action), 

which contains an enforceable provision 

(paragraph B.1.) requiring Pfizer to 

combust only natural gas in boiler 5. 

For purposes of examining potential 

emissions increases from Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1), we focus on the remaining 

nine facilities. Emissions at these 

sources during startup and shutdown 

can only be roughly characterized 

because the time it takes to ‘‘warm up’’ 

a given unit depends on whether it is a 

single-cycle or combined-cycle unit, and 

on the make and model of the unit. 

Emissions also depend on whether the 

startup is a cold, warm, or hot startup, 

with higher emissions levels and longer 

startup times generally associated with 

cold startups. In addition, because 

emissions during startup periods are not 

steady-state emissions, they tend to be 

more variable than under steady-state 

operation. Although Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) authorizes emissions levels to be 

higher during startup, shutdown, stack 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49707 

6We discuss later the fact that certain older NSPS 

subparts exempt visible emissions during 

malfunctions, and the implications of this for 

approval of Connecticut’s SIP revision. For now, the 

point is only to characterize possible emissions 

increases that could result from approval of the 

revision. 

7The focus here on Fairfield and New Haven 

Counties is because they are the only two counties 

in Connecticut that were designated nonattainment 

for the PM2.5 standards. All other counties were 

designated attainment for the PM2.5 standards. 

testing, soot-blowing, fuel switching or 

sudden load changes, the regulation also 

imposes a strict limit on the amount of 

time that the alternative emission limit 

can apply (less than 11 hours during 

any calendar quarter). Revisions to 

Section 22a–174–4 provide 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that serve to ensure that 

sources use the alternative emission 

limit only during appropriate modes of 

operation and for the requisite time per 

quarter. Moreover, revisions to Section 

22a–174–18 reduces potential PM 

emissions by tightening PM standards 

for units that burn natural gas. These 

tightened PM standards apply at all 

times. 

Additionally, Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2) exempts facilities that are 

subject to an NSPS visible emissions 

standard from the Connecticut SIP’s 

visible emissions standards. Like the 

non-NSPS facilities in Table 1, NSPS 

facilities are expected to have higher 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunctions.6 These higher 

emissions can only be roughly 

characterized because of differences in 

the make, model, and operation of the 

combustion units, as previously 

discussed. On the other hand, the SIP 

revision may reduce PM emissions from 

NSPS-subject facilities that are also 

subject to the PM emissions standards of 

Section 22a–174–18(e)(2). As noted 

before, the revision tightens the PM 

standards for registration sources that 

burn distillate oil from 0.20 lb to 0.12 

lb/MMBtu, and the SIP’s PM standards 

apply at all times. In contrast, for 

example, NSPS Subpart Db’s PM 

emissions standard for oil-burning units 

is 0.10 lb/MMBtu, but with an 

exemption for startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. While the NSPS provides 

a more stringent steady-state PM 

emissions limit, Connecticut’s SIP has 

provided a PM emissions limit that 

applies at all times, including startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, and this 

revision tightens that limit. Sources 

must comply with all limits that apply 

during a given time. Again, because of 

differences in the make, model, and 

operation of the combustion units, it is 

difficult to characterize the extent to 

which a source could increase its PM 

emissions due to the higher opacity 

limit without violating the reduced PM 

emissions limit. 

Neither the state nor EPA has 

attempted to quantify the exact increase 

in PM emissions that could be allowed 

under this SIP revision. However, taking 

into consideration the universe of 

sources subject to the revised opacity 

standard, the fuels and emissions limits 

applicable to those sources (including 

those that are more stringent under the 

revision), and nature of the alternative 

emission limit (which only allows an 

increase from 40% to 60% opacity 

during certain modes of source 

operation with a limit of just under 11 

hours per quarter), EPA believes that 

while there may be an increase in PM 

emissions associated with this SIP 

revision, any such increase would be 

small. 

B. Emissions Inventories and Ambient 

Air Quality Analysis. 

Connecticut’s statewide emissions 

inventories have declined substantially 

in recent years. These reductions are in 

large part attributable to federally 

enforceable CAA measures, some of 

which we summarize. These measures 

have resulted in decreases in ambient 

pollutant concentrations that, as we 

explain below, provides an adequate 

‘‘compliance cushion’’ below the 

NAAQS. 

For example, Table 2 shows the 

decline in emissions of SO2 and NOX for 

point sources (and other sectors) 

between 2002 and 2007 for Fairfield and 

New Haven Counties.7 The table 

appears to show an increase in pointsource PM2.5 between 2002 and 2007. 

However, this increase most likely 

reflects a change in the method used to 

estimate PM2.5 emissions rather than a 

true increase in PM2.5. The 2002 

estimates include only primary (or 

filterable) PM2.5, whereas the 2007 

estimates also include condensable 

emissions. EPA agrees with CT DEEP 

that estimates for 2002 would likely be 

higher if the condensable portion of 

PM2.5 was included. 

TABLE 2—CHANGE IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS 2002 TO 2007 FOR THE CONNECTICUT PORTION OF THE NY/NJ/CT PM2.5

NONATTAINMENT AREA

[Fairfield and New Haven Counties] * 

2002 

(tons) 

2007 

(tons) 

Change 

2002–2007 

(tons) 

PM2.5: 

Point .......................................................................................................................... 392.8 456.7 63.9 

Area .......................................................................................................................... 4,775.7 3,891.8 ¥883.9 

Onroad ...................................................................................................................... 487.2 794.0 306.8 

Nonroad .................................................................................................................... 949.9 970.5 20.6 

Total ................................................................................................................... 6,605.6 6,113.0 ¥492.6 

SO2: 

Point .......................................................................................................................... 10,582.4 4,344.3 ¥6,238.1 

Area .......................................................................................................................... 5,800.5 7,625.0 1,824.5 

Onroad ...................................................................................................................... 753.1 176.1 ¥577.0 

Nonroad .................................................................................................................... 1,363.4 1,470.7 107.3 

Total ................................................................................................................... 18,499.4 13,616.1 ¥4,883.3 

NOX: 

Point .......................................................................................................................... 6,196.8 5,606.2 ¥590.6 

Area .......................................................................................................................... 6,070.8 6,024.9 ¥45.9 

Onroad ...................................................................................................................... 31,854.4 23,391.6 ¥8,462.8 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49708 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8This date is relevant because the state 

regulation’s tightened PM limits became effective as 

a matter of state law, and it is useful to examine 

how it may have impacted emissions. Obviously, 

sources could not legally take advantage of the 

alternative compliance option in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) nor the exemption for NSPS sources in 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) at this time, since these 

exemptions are not effective under federal law 

unless and until approved as a SIP revision. 

TABLE 2—CHANGE IN ACTUAL EMISSIONS 2002 TO 2007 FOR THE CONNECTICUT PORTION OF THE NY/NJ/CT PM2.5

NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued 

[Fairfield and New Haven Counties] * 

2002 

(tons) 

2007 

(tons) 

Change 

2002–2007 

(tons) 

Nonroad .................................................................................................................... 14,985.8 15,316.3 330.5 

Total ................................................................................................................... 59,107.8 50,339.0 ¥8,768.8 

* 2002 emissions are from CT DEEP’s November 2008 PM2.5 NAAQS Attainment Demonstration. 2007 emissions are from CT DEEP’s June 

2012 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP submission. 

Monitored PM2.5 Levels 

Significantly, monitored levels of 

PM2.5 have declined since April 1, 2004, 

when the revision of Section 22a–174– 

18 became effective.8 As shown in Table 

3, air quality design values (DVs) for 

Fairfield and New Haven Counties, the 

two counties proposed for redesignation 

to attainment and at most risk of future 

PM2.5 nonattainment, are well below the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 

35 mg/m3. (All other Connecticut 

counties were designated as attaining 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.) 

Likewise, although EPA has not yet 

issued designations for the 2013 annual 

NAAQS, the design values in Table 3 

indicate that recent (2009–2011) 

monitoring data are well below the 2013 

annual NAAQS of 12 mg/m3. 

TABLE 3—AIR-QUALITY (PM2.5) DESIGN VALUES (μg/m3) FOR FAIRFIELD AND NEW HAVEN COUNTIES

County 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2007–2009 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2008–2010 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2009–2011 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2007–2009 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2008–2010 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2009–2011 

Fairfield .................................................... 11.3 10.0 9.4 31 28 26 

New Haven .............................................. 11.4 10.3 9.6 31 29 28 

TABLE 4—MAXIMUM 24-HOUR PM10 CONCENTRATION (μg/m3) FOR FAIRFIELD, HARTFORD, LITCHFIELD, AND NEW HAVEN

COUNTIES

County 

Max 24-hr 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

2008 

Max 24-hr 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

2009 

Max 24-hr 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

2010 

Max 24-hr 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

2011 

Max 24-hr 

PM10 (μg/m3) 

2012 

Fairfield ................................................................................ 76 45 42 33 54 

Hartford ................................................................................ 36 32 26 24 23 

Litchfied ................................................................................ 19 25 24 

New Haven .......................................................................... 63 61 56 55 39 

Regarding PM10, Table 4 shows the 

maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations 

for all Connecticut counties with PM10

monitors. As shown in the table, all four 

counties have PM10 levels well below 

the 1997, 2006 and 2012 24-hour PM10

NAAQS of 150 mg/m3. Connecticut has 

not recorded a 24-Hr PM10

concentration in excess of the 150 mg/m3

since 1994. 

In addition, emission projections from 

the maintenance plan for CT’s 

redesignation request indicate that there 

is a substantial margin of safety that 

ensures maintenance of the NAAQS 

even if small increases in emissions 

were to occur (see Table 5). 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 SO2, NOX, AND DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE

SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA (FAIRFIELD AND NEW HAVEN COUNTIES) 

[In tpy] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2007 (attainment) ..................................................................................... 13,615.9 50,339.1 6,113.0

2017 (interim) ........................................................................................... 7,909.0 29,501.3 5,029.1 

2025 (maintenance) ................................................................................. 7,783.7 24,192.2 4,741.7 

2007 to 2025 (change) ............................................................................ ¥5,832.2 (¥43%) ¥26,146.9 (¥55%) ¥1,371.2 (¥22%) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49709 

9The ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter’’ is 

available in the docket for today’s rulemaking 

action. 

10The final rulemaking notice approving CT’s 

Section 22a–174–19a was signed by the Regional 

Administrator on April 26, 2013 but has not yet 

been published in the Federal Register. A copy of 

the signed notice is available in the docket for 

today’s action. 

11The final rulemaking notice approving CT’s 

Section 22a–174–22(e)(3) was signed by the 

Regional Administrator on April 26, 2013 but has 

not yet been published in the Federal Register. A 

copy of the signed notice is available in the docket 

for today’s action. 

12The status of CAIR generally, and Connecticut 

Section 22a-174–22c in particular, is complex and 

is discussed in detail at 78 FR 5158. Because 

Connecticut’s proposal does not critically depend 

on CAIR or Section 22a-174–22c, it is not necessary 

to repeat that analysis here. For purpose of today’s 

proposal, it suffices to note that, while CAIR has 

been remanded by the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, EPA has been ordered 

to continue to administer CAIR until a replacement 

has been developed, and that Section 22a–174–22c 

will remain in effect for some time. 

Furthermore, modeling analysis 

conducted for the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 9 indicates that DVs in 

southwestern Connecticut are expected 

to continue to decline through 2020. In 

the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

highest annual DV projected for 2020 is 

8.79 mg/m3 for Fairfield County and 8.62 

mg/m3 for New Haven County. The 

highest 24-hour DV projected for 2020 is 

22.27 mg/m3 for Fairfield County and 

21.78 mg/m3 for New Haven County. 

Given that precursor emissions are 

projected to decrease through 2025, it is 

reasonable to conclude that monitored 

PM2.5 levels in this area will also 

continue to decrease through 2025. 

These reductions are in large part 

attributable to permanent, federally 

enforceable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act. These permanent and 

enforceable measures, which are 

discussed below, include RCSA 

Sections 22a–174–19a (‘‘Control of 

sulfur dioxide emissions from power 

plants and other large stationary sources 

of air pollution’’), 22a–174–22 (‘‘Control 

of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions’’), and 

22a–174–22c (‘‘The Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Ozone Season Trading Program’’). 

RCSA Section 22a–174–19a 

In 2000, CT DEEP adopted RCSA 

section 22a–174–19a and revised RCSA 

section 22a–174–22. These regulations 

now require large EGUs and industrial 

boilers to reduce SO2 emissions by 30 to 

50 percent and NOX emissions by 20 to 

30 percent. 

Section 22a–174–19a, which became 

effective December 28, 2000 and has 

been approved into the Connecticut 

SIP,10 includes a two-tiered timeframe 

for reducing SO2 emissions from large 

EGUs and industrial sources (about 59 

sources). Starting January 1, 2002, every 

industrial boiler or EGU subject to 

Connecticut’s post-2002 NOX Budget 

Program was required to: 

• Combust liquid fuel, gaseous fuel or 

a combination of each, provided that 

each fuel possesses a fuel sulfur limit of 

equal to or less than 0.5 percent sulfur, 

by weight; 

• Meet an average SO2 emission rate 

of equal to or less than 0.55 lb/MMBtu 

for each calendar quarter for an affected 

unit; or 

• Meet an average SO2 emission rate 

of equal to or less than 0.5 lb/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 that are subject to 

Connecticut’s Post-2002 NOX Budget 

Program were required to: 

• Combust liquid fuel, gaseous fuel or 

a combination of each, provided that 

each fuel possesses a fuel sulfur limit of 

equal to or less than 0.3 percent sulfur, 

by weight; 

• Meet an average SO2 emission rate 

of equal to or less than 0.33 lb/MMBtu 

for each calendar quarter for an affected 

unit at a premises; or 

• Meet an average SO2 emission rate 

of equal to or less than 0.3 lb/MMBtu 

calculated from two or more affected 

units at a premise. 

Before January 1, 2005, Connecticut 

allowed sources subject to the January 1, 

2003 emission rates to meet such 

emission rates by using SO2 discrete 

emission reduction credits certified by 

CT DEEP or EPA’s SO2 Acid Rain 

Program allowances (also known as 

emissions credit trading). Connecticut 

General Statutes (CGS) section 22a–198 

suspended SO2 emission credit trading 

starting January 1, 2005. 

The effectiveness of Section 22a–174– 

19a is detailed in Attachment X of CT 

DEEP’s November 2009 Regional Haze 

SIP submittal (see docket EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0919). In that submittal, CT 

DEEP estimates that potential emissions 

from all sources statewide subject to 

RCSA 22a–174–19a were reduced from 

89,537 tons in 2002 to 60,304 tons in 

2006, a reduction of 29,233 tons. 

RCSA Section 22a–174–22 

Pursuant to the ozone reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, CT DEEP adopted RCSA 

Section 22a–174–22 in 1995, achieving 

substantial reductions in NOX emission 

rates from a variety of sources. For 

example, the maximum allowable NOX

emission rate for cyclone furnaces was 

reduced by 52 percent, the maximum 

allowable NOX emission rate for existing 

coal-fired boilers was reduced by 58 

percent, and the maximum allowable 

NOX emission rate for No. 6 oil-fired 

boilers was reduced by 17 percent when 

compared to previously adopted NOX

limits. Section 22a–174–22 was 

approved into the Connecticut SIP on 

October 6, 1997. See 62 FR 52016. 

CT DEEP also made revisions to 

Section 22a–174–22 that had a 

compliance date of October 1, 2003. 

New Section 22a–174–22(e)(3) required 

NOX Budget Program sources subject to 

Section 22a–174–22 to meet a nonozone seasonal NOX emission rate of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu.11 In the first year of 

implementation, CT DEEP estimates that 

this non-ozone season limit resulted in 

NOX emissions being reduced by 3,483 

tons compared to 1999 emissions. 

NOX Budget Trading Programs 

Since 1999, CT DEEP has adopted 

several NOX budget trading programs 

which have progressively reduced 

allowances allocated to Connecticut’s 

NOX Budget Program sources (i.e., EGUs 

15 MW and greater and certain large 

industrial sources) during the ozone 

season (May 1 through September 30). 

Section 22a–174–22a limited the ozoneseason NOX emissions budget to 5,866 

tons beginning in 1999. Section 22a– 

174–22b reduced the ozone-season NOX

budget further to 4,466 tons beginning 

in 2003. Sections 22a–174–22a and 22a– 

174–22b were superseded by Section 

22a–174–22c, the CAIR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program (approved into 

the Connecticut SIP in January 2008 (73 

FR 4105)). The CAIR program includes 

a NOX budget for Connecticut sources of 

2,691 tons that is not to be exceeded 

during the ozone season.12

The effectiveness of the state’s NOX

budget trading programs is detailed in 

Attachment X of CT DEEP’s November 

2009 Regional Haze SIP submittal. In 

that submittal, CT DEEP noted that 

between 1994 and 2006, NOX potential 

emissions from all Post-2002 NOX

Budget Program sources were reduced 

from 89,812 tons to 34,833 tons (a 

difference of 54,979 tons). 

In addition to CT DEEP’s 

demonstration that the revision of 

Section 22a–174–18, along with other 

regulations addressing SO2 and NOX

emissions, will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of air quality 

standards as required by section 110(l) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49710 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13See Memorandum entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 

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

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional 

Administrators, Regions I–X on September 20,1999. 

14See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule,’’ 78 FR 12459 (Feb, 22, 2013). 

of the CAA, CT DEEP notes that revised 

Section 22a–174–18 has improved CT 

DEEP’s ability to enforce visibleemissions requirements by identifying a 

standardized method for determining 

compliance for sources without COMS 

(Method 9). Notably, within six months 

of the effective date of the revision 

(April 1, 2004), CT DEEP had taken 

enforcement action against three sources 

based on submitted data from COMS. 

These actions were resolved by orders 

that required the sources to develop 

opacity compliance plans. Analysis by 

CT DEEP shows that, between 2002 and 

2008, total opacity excursions and 

opacity excursions as a percent of 

operating hours dropped dramatically 

for these facilities. 

In addition, the SIP revision requires 

more stringent PM emission limits for 

registered (i.e., non-permitted) boilers 

that burn distillate oil and natural gas 

than are required by the previously 

EPA-approved rule. Although NSPS 

boilers are specifically excluded from 

the opacity standards of Section 22a– 

174–18, they remain subject to the PM 

emission standards in the state’s rule 

that apply at all times, even during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

In sum, Connecticut’s monitored 

ambient PM concentrations are well 

below the NAAQS. This is attributable 

in large part to permanent, federally 

enforceable reductions of direct and 

precursor particulate emissions. Thus, 

Connecticut has a substantial ‘‘margin of 

safety’’ or ‘‘compliance cushion’’ such 

that small emissions increases would 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA 

concludes that these factors, taken 

together, ensure that potential PM 

emissions increases that could result 

from revisions to Section 22a–174–18 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM10 or PM2.5

NAAQS in Connecticut. 

C. Revisions to Existing Opacity 

Standards 

a. Alternative Emission Limitation 

Provisions 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that SIPs 

contain ‘‘enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques . . . as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of [the CAA].’’ 

Section 302(k) defines the term 

‘‘emission limitation’’ as ‘‘a requirement 

that limits the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants on a continuous basis.’’ For 

this reason, EPA interprets the CAA to 

preclude SIP provisions that include 

exemptions for emissions that occur 

during periods such as startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction. While 

emission limitations in SIPs must be 

continuous to meet CAA requirements, 

they do not necessarily have to be 

continuous at the same level during all 

modes of source operation. Thus, for 

example, it may be appropriate to 

establish an emission limit that allows 

one level of emissions during ordinary 

day to day source operation and a 

different, higher level of emissions 

during other specific modes of source 

operation, such as during startup or 

shutdown. All such limits, however, 

must meet basic CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions. 

EPA has longstanding SIP guidance 

that recommends criteria relevant to 

development of alternative emission 

limits or other control measures that 

apply during specific modes of source 

operation such as startup and 

shutdown.13 EPA has also recently 

reiterated these criteria in a proposed 

rulemaking relevant to its interpretation 

of CAA requirements applicable to SIP 

provisions.14 These criteria are intended 

to ensure that emission limitations or 

other control measures or techniques in 

SIPs that apply during specific modes of 

source operation, such as startup or 

shutdown, are designed to minimize 

emissions in order to provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and meet other CAA 

requirements (e.g., enforceability). 

Therefore, EPA will analyze the 

alternative emission limit established by 

CT DEEP in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) for 

facilities with COMS according to the 

specific criteria enumerated in EPA’s 

guidance for such SIP provisions. 

Because the alternative emission 

limitation applies during startup, 

shutdown, stack testing, soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load changes, 

EPA will evaluate the revision with 

respect to these modes of source 

operation. Each of the seven (7) criteria 

is discussed below. 

(1) The revision must be limited to 

specific, narrowly defined source 

categories using specific control 

strategies (e.g., cogeneration 

facilities burning natural gas and 

using selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR)) 

As described in IV.1 and as listed in 

Table 1 above, the specific source 

categories eligible to use the alternate 

emission limits under Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) include sources (mostly EGUs) 

with a capacity greater than 250 

MMBtu/hr that are not subject to the 

federal NSPS set forth in 40 CFR part 

60. The universe of existing sources 

affected by this revision is listed in 

Table 1. Most of the units in Table 1 use 

some combination of electrostatic 

precipitators, selective non-catalytic 

reduction, and/or low NOX burners. 

Two of the affected units, (Montville 

Station #4 and Montville Station #6) do 

not have control measures comparable 

to the other sources, but they are subject 

to numerical PM emission limitations in 

the SIP and in their permits. Operators 

of these units use best engineering 

practices to ensure compliance with the 

SIP. This entails optimizing the fuel-toair ratio in a manner that minimizes 

emissions. As discussed under criterion 

(3) below, optimization is more difficult 

to achieve during startup, shutdown, 

stack testing, soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes. 

(2) Use of the control strategy for this 

source category must be technically 

infeasible during startup, shutdown, 

or other periods 

CT DEEP established a workgroup in 

1997 to recommend visible-emissions 

limits for a small number of sources (see 

Table 1). See letter to EPA dated January 

14, 2013, in the docket for today’s action 

summarizing workgroup effort. The 

workgroup considered technical issues 

that make it difficult for some facilities 

to consistently meet opacity limits that 

apply during normal steady-state 

operating conditions (i.e., 20 percent 

during any 6-minute block average or 40 

percent during any one-minute block 

average) during periods such as startup 

and shutdown. For example, 

combustion turbines may have higher 

emissions during startup than during 

steady-state operation, and postcombustion control systems, such as 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 

systems for reducing NOX (a precursor 

of PM2.5), work most effectively after 

operating temperatures are reached. In 

addition, the duration of an individual 

startup event, and the emissions levels 

during such an event, depend on the 

amount of time since a unit has 

operated, with cold startups (about 3 

days since shutdown) resulting in 

higher initial emission levels than warm 

or hot startups. Such factual 

considerations are appropriate for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49711 

15 During CT DEEP’s public comment period for 

Section 22a–174–18, one commenter argued that 

the 60 percent opacity limit over a 6-minute average 

was excessively stringent. The commenter noted 

that power boilers can be subject to malfunctions 

such as a boiler tube blowout, a precipitator fire or 

a plugged oil gun, and that in such events, 

equipment operators must shut the unit down as 

quickly as possible, but safely. The commenter 

argued that in certain cases, shutdown may take 

longer than six minutes, and that a 60% opacity 

limit over a 6-minute period ‘‘could force the 

operators to bring the unit’s load down too quickly, 

possibly causing additional damage to the 

equipment and jeopardizing personal safety.’’ CT 

DEEP Hearing Report (Apr. 29, 2003), at 21–22. 

After considering this comment, CT DEEP decided 

to retain the 60% opacity limit in its final rule. 

consideration in establishing an 

alternative emission limit that applies 

during such periods in a SIP provision, 

as long as the limit meets other CAA 

requirements. 

In addition to startup and shutdown 

operations, Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) 

allows for an alternative emission limit 

during these other types of operations: 

Stack testing, soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes. 

Sudden load changes are similar to 

startup and shutdown operations in that 

the emission unit is subject to large load 

swings during a short time period, 

which makes it difficult to optimize unit 

operation, and can lead to short-term 

higher emission rates. 

Fuel switching can also result in 

short-term emission increases. For 

example, fuel switching in a combustion 

unit makes it difficult to optimize the 

oxygen/fuel ratio for efficiency as well 

as for minimizing emissions. The 

sources currently subject to 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) are combustion units that 

produce steam. These types of units 

operate by injecting more air than is 

required for stoichiometric purposes for 

complete combustion. However, there is 

a balance regarding how much excess 

air can be added without adversely 

impacting emissions and efficiency. Too 

much excess air generally results in 

increases in NOX, whereas not enough 

excess air can result in unburned 

carbon. Sudden changes in operation 

due to fuel switching can make it 

difficult for a source to optimize its 

operations by changing the air-to-fuel 

ratio. For soot blowing, a facility injects 

high-pressure steam into a combustion 

unit in order to clean the outside of the 

steam tubes. The injection of steam 

dramatically increases water vapor in 

the combustion unit. Water vapor can 

interfere with the opacity reading in 

EPA’s performance specifications for 

COMS, causing a higher opacity reading 

than would be obtained using EPA’s 

Reference Method 9 for opacity. 

(3) The frequency and duration of 

operation in startup, shutdown, or 

other modes must be minimized to 

the maximum extent practicable 

The frequency and duration of 

periods of startup, shutdown, stack 

testing, soot-blowing, fuel switching or 

sudden load changes depend on the 

type, age, and operational 

characteristics of a given combustion 

unit. For example, modern combinedcycle units generally have shorter 

startup times than older units and can 

respond more quickly to load changes 

than older units. As noted above, the 

duration of operation in startup or 

shutdown mode depends on whether a 

unit is single-cycle or combined-cycle, 

and whether the startup is a cold, warm, 

or hot startup, with higher emissions 

levels and longer startup times generally 

associated with cold startups. 

As discussed under criterion (2) 

above, other modes of operation, 

including stack testing, soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load changes 

can also result in short-term higher 

emission levels and operational 

difficulties. Operators of the units listed 

in Table 1 use best engineering practices 

to optimize the fuel-to-air ratio in a 

manner that minimizes emissions. 

Based on COMS data (1-minute and 6- 

minute averages) for the combustion 

units listed in Table 1, as well as on 

information about the make, model, age, 

and operation of the units, the 

aforementioned workgroup 

recommended a 60 percent opacity limit 

(during any 6-minute block average) for 

periods of startup, shutdown, stack 

testing, soot-blowing, fuel switching or 

sudden load change.15

In its revised regulation, to minimize 

the frequency and duration of operation 

in a startup, shutdown, stack testing, 

soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden 

load change mode, CT DEEP set a strict 

limit on the cumulative amount of time 

per calendar quarter (less than 11 hours) 

that a facility can be subject to the 

alternative emission limit under Section 

22a–174–18(j)(1). The recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in sections 

22a–174–4 and 22a–174–7, which are 

proposed for approval herein, will serve 

to assure that these sources will be 

subject to the alternative emission limit 

only during the relevant periods and 

within the applicable time. 

(4) As part of its justification of the SIP 

revision, the state should analyze 

the potential worst-case emissions 

that could occur during startup and 

shutdown 

CT DEEP’s workgroup (described 

above) determined the periods of 

highest opacity, which represent worstcase conditions, based on submitted 

COMS data from 20 combustion units in 

various state locations. These periods 

tend to occur during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and other specific modes of 

operation described in Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(1). 

The worst-case emissions scenario 

that could occur during startup and 

shutdown would be if all twelve of the 

subject units (see Table 1) 

simultaneously emitted at the maximum 

allowed under Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1)’s alternative emission limit by 

all (1) Engaging in startup, shutdown, or 

other listed modes of operation, (2) for 

the same full nearly-11-hour period, and 

(3) at the uppermost allowed 60% 

opacity. Even under this worst-case 

emissions scenario, however, emissions 

would continue to be limited by the 

federally applicable PM emissions 

standards in Section 22a–174–18(e), 

which apply at all modes of operation, 

including startup and shutdown. 

In such a worst-case scenario, the 

applicable PM emissions standards 

would be 0.20 pounds of particulate 

matter per million BTU of heat input for 

the one subject unit (Bridgeport Harbor 

#3) authorized to burn coal, 0.14 pounds 

of particulate matter per million BTU 

for the ten subject units authorized to 

burn residual oil, and 0.10 pounds of 

particulate matter per million BTU for 

the subject unit (Pfizer #5) that by order 

can only combust natural gas. These PM 

emissions limits are federally 

enforceable under the CAA, and apply 

during startup, shutdown, or other 

modes of source operation. Thus, they 

represent the worst-case emissions 

scenario under Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1)’s alternative emissions limit. In 

sum, the likely worst-case emissions 

scenario would be that, for a 

simultaneous period of almost 11 hours 

in a given calendar quarter, all twelve 

subject sources emit at 60% opacity, 

with ten units emitting 0.14 pounds of 

particulate matter per million BTU, one 

unit emitting 0.20 pounds of particulate 

matter per million BTU, and one unit 

emitting 0.10 pounds of particulate 

matter per million BTU. 

Even under this worst-case scenario, 

various other federally enforceable 

restrictions ensure that overall PM 

emissions in Connecticut keep ambient 

PM levels well below all federal PM 

NAAQS. These other restrictions, the 

state emissions inventories, and an 

analysis of ambient concentration trends 

are explained in detail in Section IV.A 

of this document. In the event that these 

elevated emissions were to cause future 

violations of the PM NAAQS, EPA has 

additional authorities under the CAA to 

address any such potential problems. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49712 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16See, e.g., National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 

54970 (Sept. 9, 2010). 

17See, Memorandum entitled ‘‘Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, 

and Malfunctions,’’ from Kathleen M. Bennett, 

Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and 

Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, Regions 

I–X on Sept. 28, 1982. 

18EPA’s 1999 guidance addressed this issue most 

comprehensively. See, Memorandum entitled State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 

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

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional 

Administrators, Regions I–X on Sept. 20, 1999. 

19See, e.g., Michigan Dept. of Envt. Quality v. 

Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir, 2000). 

20See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule,’’ 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013). EPA notes that 

the comment period on that proposal has closed 

and that it is not reopening comment on that 

proposal here. 

(5) All possible steps must be taken to 

minimize the impact of emissions 

during startup and shutdown on 

ambient air quality 

RCSA Section 22a–174–4, which is 

proposed for approval herein, requires 

submission of all COMS data quarterly, 

along with a quarterly quality-assurance 

audit, which can occur at any time, 

including startup, shutdown, stack 

testing, soot-blowing, fuel switching or 

sudden load periods. This regulation 

also requires submission of corrective 

actions for a failed audit. 

In addition, the exception in Section 

22a–174–18(j)(1) is designed to 

minimize emissions during startup, 

shutdown, stack testing, soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load change. 

The operator must limit the time period 

during which the alternative emission 

limit applies to less than 11 hours per 

calendar quarter, and must limit opacity 

levels during such periods to no more 

than 60% opacity during any 6-minute 

block average. Furthermore, the PM 

emissions standards in Section 22a– 

174–18(e) continue to apply during 

startup, shutdown, stack testing, sootblowing, fuel switching or sudden load 

change. 

(6) At all times, the facility must be 

operated in a manner consistent 

with good practice for minimizing 

emissions, and the source must 

have used best efforts regarding 

planning, design, and operating 

procedures to meet the otherwise 

applicable emission limitation 

The alternative emission limit in 

Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) is designed to 

minimize emissions at all times by 

limiting the time period during which 

the higher opacity limits are used on a 

calendar quarter basis, and by limiting 

opacity emissions during periods when 

the alternative emission limit applies to 

60% opacity during any 6-minute block 

average. As discussed under criterion 

(2) above, during startup, shutdown and 

other modes of operation, including 

stack testing, soot-blowing, fuel 

switching or sudden load changes, 

operators of all the units listed in Table 

1 use best engineering practices to 

optimize the fuel-to-air ratio in a 

manner that minimizes emissions. 

(7) The owner or operator’s actions 

during startup, shutdown, or other 

periods must be documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs, or other relevant 

evidence 

RCSA section 22a–174–4 requires all 

sources with COMS to submit quarterly 

reports to CT DEEP. These reports must 

contain all relevant information for 

determining compliance with emissions 

limits, including information for periods 

when a source claims to have been 

operating in one of the modes stated in 

22a–174–18(j)(1) (i.e., startup, 

shutdown, stack testing, soot-blowing, 

fuel switching or sudden load change). 

During these periods, opacity readings 

may be above 40% but, for compliance, 

must be less than 60% (for 6-minute 

block averages). The COMS data from 

the affected sources is available to verify 

the opacity during the different modes 

of source operation during the relevant 

periods and, thus, provide a mechanism 

for compliance assurance. In addition, 

all of the sources that are regulated by 

22a–174–18(j)(1) are also regulated by 

22a–174–33 for Connecticut’s title V 

program. This means that all of the 

quarterly reports must be signed by a 

responsible official and are subject to 

the due diligence clause of title V of the 

CAA. 

b. Withdrawn Malfunction Emission 

Limit Provision 

CT DEEP’s December 1, 2004 SIP 

submittal included a provision that 

provides an alternative emission limit 

for sources during malfunctions. 

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

July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent a letter to 

EPA withdrawing Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) to the extent that it applies to 

malfunction. 

c. Exclusion of Sources Subject to NSPS 

In addition to revising applicable 

emission limits, Connecticut’s SIP 

revision also removes certain sources 

from coverage under existing SIP 

opacity standards if those sources are 

also separately regulated under existing 

EPA NSPS regulations. EPA notes that 

one practical effect of this revision is 

that these sources will now only be 

subject to the existing opacity limits of 

NSPS regulations and that within these 

regulations there may be exemptions 

from emission limits for excess 

emissions during certain startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction events. The 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia has indicated 

that exemptions from emission 

limitations during such periods are not 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA, in particular with the 

requirements of section 112 and section 

302. See Sierra Club v. Johnson, 551 

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA has 

concluded that such exemptions from 

emission limitations are also 

inappropriate in NSPS regulations 

under section 111. Accordingly, new 

NSPS regulations promulgated by EPA 

do not have such exemptions.16

EPA has long interpreted the CAA to 

prohibit exemptions for excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction in SIP provisions. 

Since 1982, EPA guidance has stated 

that such exemptions are inconsistent 

with CAA requirements for SIPs.17 That 

guidance was reiterated in 1983, 1999, 

and 2001.18 EPA has applied this 

guidance in numerous actions on SIP 

revisions and courts have upheld this 

interpretation of the CAA.19 In addition, 

EPA recently proposed action upon a 

petition for rulemaking in which it 

reiterated this guidance for SIP 

provisions.20 Because of the 

implications with respect to treatment 

of excess emissions from the sources 

that Connecticut is excluding from 

coverage under the SIP opacity 

standards, EPA also evaluated whether 

this revision is consistent with 

fundamental CAA requirements for 

purposes of SIP provisions, beyond the 

issue of potential impacts on attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS for 

purposes of section 110(l) discussed 

above. EPA specifically considered 

whether relying on existing NSPS 

regulations in lieu of the prior SIP 

emission limitation for visible emissions 

is inconsistent with CAA requirements 

governing SIP provisions. 

As noted above, NSPS subparts Db 

and Dc apply to the sources that the 

state is removing from coverage under 

the SIP for purposes of opacity 

standards. These NSPS currently 

contain exemptions for excess emissions 

during startup, shutdown, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49713 

21Moreover, as noted above, SIP particulate 

emissions standards apply to these sources at all 

times. 

malfunction. These subparts were 

originally promulgated in the 1980s and 

apply to sources that were constructed, 

modified, or reconstructed since 1984 or 

1989, respectively. Thus, these NSPS 

predate the court’s decision in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, and have not been revised, 

and the existing sources would likely 

not be affected by any future revisions 

to the NSPS with respect to opacity 

standards for new sources. Section 22a– 

174–18(j)(2) of CT DEEP’s revised 

regulation exempts sources that are 

separately subject to NSPS visible 

emissions standards from any SIP-based 

visible emissions standards. EPA 

evaluated Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) to 

determine whether this revision to 

exclude these sources from coverage is 

consistent with CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions, and, in particular, if it 

is consistent with CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(A)’s requirement for ‘‘emission 

limitations,’’ which Section 302(k) 

defines as limiting emissions ‘‘on a 

continuous basis.’’ 

In this context, we have determined 

that Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) is best 

analyzed not as an exemption for 

emission from sources during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction for Subpart 

Db and Dc boilers in a SIP provision, 

but rather as an exclusion for a category 

of sources (i.e., sources subject to NSPS 

visibility standards) from SIP visibility 

standards.21 In other words, CT DEEP’s 

revision is best seen not as exempting 

these sources from Section 110 visibility 

limits in particular circumstances that 

may raise questions under Section 

110(a)(2)(A) and Section 302(k), but 

rather as exempting these sources from 

Section 110 visibility limits altogether 

because they are regulated by Section 

111 visibility limits. Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(2), therefore, does not interfere 

with Section 110(a)(2)(A)’s requirement 

that emission limitations must apply on 

a continuous basis. Our approval of CT 

DEEP’s revision to exclude these 

sources from the SIP opacity standards, 

therefore, does not suggest that CT DEEP 

could add new exemptions for excess 

emissions from startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction events to its SIP. Rather, it 

means only that EPA has determined 

that it is within CT DEEP’s discretion to 

structure its SIP and determine which 

sources require SIP opacity limits, and, 

for the reasons discussed earlier, EPA 

has concluded that the pre-existing 

opacity limits are not necessary for 

these sources to ensure that Connecticut 

meets the NAAQS and other applicable 

CAA requirements. 

EPA emphasizes that approval of the 

revision to Connecticut’s SIP to exclude 

certain sources from coverage under a 

SIP emission limit when such sources 

are separately covered by an NSPS does 

not constitute approval of the NSPS, 

and any exemptions they may contain, 

into the state’s SIP. Approval of new SIP 

provisions with such exemptions into 

the SIP would be inconsistent with CAA 

requirements for SIP. Instead, EPA 

believes that Connecticut has 

adequately addressed the requirements 

of section 110(l) to justify exclusion of 

these sources from coverage under the 

SIP opacity standards. 

D. Regional Haze 

Connecticut’s Regional Haze program 

is based on reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs) for Class I areas for each 

(approximately) 10-year planning 

period, and an alternative to BART 

demonstration that relies on SO2

emission reductions required by RCSA 

Section 22a–174–19a (Control of Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions from Power Plant 

and Other Large Stationary Sources of 

Air Pollution) and on NOX emissions 

reductions required by Section 22a– 

174–22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions), as well as Section 22a–174– 

22c (Connecticut’s CAIR rule). See 77 

FR 17367 and 78 FR 5158. Also see 

descriptions of these RCSA Sections 

below. 

As set forth in more detail at 77 FR 

17367, actual emissions of SO2 from all 

post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources 

are estimated to have been reduced from 

35,625 tpy in 2001 to 7,146 tpy in 2006, 

a reduction of 28,479 tpy. The 

significant reduction in actual SO2

emissions started in 2002, the effective 

year of Tier 1 of Section 22a–174–19a, 

and continued in 2006 (Tier 2 of RCSA 

section 22a–174–19a was effective in 

2003). 

Potential emissions of NOX from all 

post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources 

are estimated to have been reduced from 

46,188 tpy in 2002 to 34,833 tpy in 

2006, a reduction of 11,355 tpy. CT 

DEEP attributes these reductions largely 

to implementation of RCSA Sections 

22a–174–22 and 22a–174–22c. 

Today’s proposed approval does not 

modify any of the measures relied upon 

in Connecticut’s Regional Haze 

program. Furthermore, the alternative 

emission limit (Section 22a–174–18 

(j)(1)) has a sufficient margin of safety, 

as discussed in IV.2 above, that the 

potential increases attributable to CT 

DEEP’s revised regulation would not 

imperil Connecticut’s trend towards 

meeting its RPGs. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

concludes that revisions to Section 22a– 

174–18 ‘‘Control of Particulate Matter 

and Visible Emissions,’’ are approvable 

under section 110(l) of the CAA. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve and 

incorporate into the Connecticut SIP 

three regulations submitted by the State 

of Connecticut on December 1, 2004. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve CT DEEP’s revised RCSA 

Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of 

particulate matter and visible 

emissions,’’ except for the phrase ‘‘or 

malfunction’’ in Section 22a–174– 

18(j)(1) which CT DEEP has withdrawn. 

EPA is also proposing to approve CT 

DEEP’s revised RCSA Section 22a–174– 

4 ‘‘Source monitoring, record keeping 

and reporting,’’ and Section 22a–174–7 

‘‘Air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment operation.’’ 

These latter two regulations strengthen 

monitoring, record keeping, and 

reporting requirements, which improve 

the state’s ability to detect violations of 

emissions limits. 

Revised Section 22a–174–18 

establishes and requires limitations on 

visible and PM emissions from certain 

stationary sources, identifies a 

standardized method for determining 

compliance for sources without COMS, 

and establishes an alternative emission 

limit of up to 60 percent opacity (during 

any 6-minute block average) during 

certain modes of operation for sources 

with COMS. In addition, the revised 

regulation sets a strict limit on the 

amount of time (0.5 percent of a 

facility’s total operating hours during 

any calendar quarter) that sources with 

COMS can operate under the alternative 

emission limit. As described above, the 

state has adequately demonstrated that 

the revision of Section 22a–174–18 will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of air quality standards or 

other applicable CAA requirements as 

required by section 110(l) of the CAA. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49714 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

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

Dated: July 31, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19606 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 312 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0513; FRL–9845–8] 

Amendment to Standards and 

Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the Standards and Practices for All 

Appropriate Inquiries to reference a 

standard practice recently made 

available by ASTM International, a 

widely recognized standards 

development organization. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to amend the All 

Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule to 

reference ASTM International’s E1527– 

13 ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 

I Environmental Site Assessment 

Process’’ and allow for its use to satisfy 

the requirements for conducting all 

appropriate inquiries under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by September 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2013–0513 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: superfund.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Superfund Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Headquarters 

West Building, Room 3334, located at 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

EPA Headquarters Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013– 

0513. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Certain types of information 

claimed as CBI, and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material, such 

as ASTM International’s E1527–13 

‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment 

Process’’ will not be placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket but will be 

publicly available only in printed form 

in the official public docket. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the HQ EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room at this 

docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding federal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Superfund 

Docket is (202) 566–9744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the 

CERCLA Call Center at 800–424–9346 or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS