Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0469-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgations: Connecticut; Control of Visible Emissions, Record Keeping and Monitoring
Posted Date: 2013-08-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49701-49714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19606]

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

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.

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

[[Page 49702]]

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 air-pollution-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 Air-Quality 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.

[[Page 49703]]

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

    \1\ CT 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 49704]]

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

    \2\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Please note that our Section 110(l) analysis draws upon, but 
is not identical to, the analysis presented in CT DEEP's letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis below discusses the anti-backsliding 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Connecticut 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 49705]]

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 EPA-approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These units are not subject to NSPSs with opacity standards, 
and are therefore not eligible for the exemption in Section 22a-174-
18(j)(2).

[[Page 49706]]

          Table 1--Original 20 Units With COMS. Operations Before 2004 Compared With Current Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Current operating     Air pollution
           Source/unit                Town/county        Pre-2004 fuel       status & fuel          control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Station 7........  Milford/New Haven.  Residual Oil/       Unit retired......  N/A.
                                                       Natural Gas (NG).
Devon Station 8........  Milford/New Haven.  Residual Oil/NG...  Unit retired......  N/A.
Norwalk Station 1......  Norwalk/Fairfield.  Residual Oil......  Operating Residual  Electrostatic
                                                                           Oil.                Precipitator,
                                                                                               Selective Non-
                                                                                               catalytic
                                                                                               Reduction.
Norwalk Station 2......  Norwalk/Fairfield.  Residual Oil......  Operating Residual  Electrostatic
                                                                           Oil.                Precipitator,
                                                                                               Selective Non-
                                                                                               catalytic
                                                                                               Reduction.
Middletown Station 2...  Middletown/         Residual Oil/NG...  Operating NG/       Electrostatic
                                   Middlesex.                              Residual Oil.       Precipitator,
                                                                                               Overfire Air.
Middletown Station 3...  Middletown/         Residual Oil/NG...  Operating NG/       Electrostatic
                                   Middlesex.                              Residual Oil.       Precipitator,
                                                                                               Water Injection,
                                                                                               Selective Non-
                                                                                               catalytic
                                                                                               Reduction.
Middletown Station 4...  Middletown/         Residual Oil......  Operating Residual  Best Engineering
                                   Middlesex.                              Oil.                Practices:
                                                                                               optimizing fuel-
                                                                                               to-air ratio.
Montville Station 5....  Montville/New       Residual Oil/NG...  Operating Residual  Electrostatic
                                   London.                                 Oil/NG.             Precipitator.
Montville Station 6....  Montville/New       Residual Oil......  Operating Residual  Best Engineering
                                   London.                                 Oil.                Practices:
                                                                                               optimizing fuel-
                                                                                               to-air ratio.
Bridgeport Harbor 2....  Bridgeport/         Residual Oil......  Operating Residual  Electrostatic
                                   Fairfield.                              Oil.                Precipitator.
Bridgeport Harbor 3....  Bridgeport/         Coal/Oil..........  Operating Adaro     Adaro Coal,
                                   Fairfield.                              Coal/Residual Oil.  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       Residual Oil/NG...  Operating Residual  Electrostatic
                                   Haven.                                  Oil/NG.             Precipitator,
                                                                                               Overfire Air,
                                                                                               Flue Gas
                                                                                               Recirculation,
                                                                                               Waterwall Lances,
                                                                                               Low NOX Burners.
Pfizer 5...............  Groton/New London.  Residual Oil/NG...  Operating by Order  Low NOX burner,
                                                                           can only combust    Flue Gas
                                                                           NG.                 Recirculation.
Pfizer 8...............  Groton/New London.  Residual Oil......  Unit rendered       N/A.
                                                                           permanently
                                                                           inoperable.
Fusion Paperboard PFI Boiler....  Sprague/New London  NG/Residual Oil...  Operating NG/       Low NOX Burner
                                                                           Residual Oil.       Technology (Dry
                                                                                               Bottom only).
Pratt & Whitney Willgoos Labs     E. Hartford/        Residual Oil......  All 5 units         N/A.
 Units 2-6.                        Hartford.                               removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ozone-season (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 non-ozone 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

[[Page 49707]]

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

    \6\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 point-source 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.

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] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change  2002-
                                                               2002 (tons)       2007 (tons)       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

[[Page 49708]]

 
    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 [mu]g/m\3\ and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. (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 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This 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 3--Air-Quality (PM2.5) Design Values ([mu]g/m\3\) for Fairfield and New Haven Counties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1997 annual     1997 annual     1997 annual     2006 24-hr      2006 24-hr      2006 24-hr
                         County                             NAAQS 2007-     NAAQS 2008-     NAAQS 2009-     NAAQS 2007-     NAAQS 2008-     NAAQS 2009-
                                                               2009            2010            2011            2009            2010            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 ([mu]g/m\3\) for Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, and New Haven
                                                    Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Max 24-hr PM10  Max 24-hr PM10  Max 24-hr PM10  Max 24-hr PM10  Max 24-hr PM10
             County                ([mu]g/m\3\)    ([mu]g/m\3\)    ([mu]g/m\3\)    ([mu]g/m\3\)    ([mu]g/m\3\)
                                       2008            2009            2010            2011            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 [mu]g/m\3\. Connecticut has not recorded a 
24-Hr PM10 concentration in excess of the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 
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%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 49709]]

    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 [mu]g/m\3\ for Fairfield 
County and 8.62 [mu]g/m\3\ for New Haven County. The highest 24-hour DV 
projected for 2020 is 22.27 [mu]g/m\3\ for Fairfield County and 21.78 
[mu]g/m\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 non-ozone 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
ozone-season 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)

[[Page 49710]]

of the CAA, CT DEEP notes that revised Section 22a-174-18 has improved 
CT DEEP's ability to enforce visible-emissions 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 September 20,1999.
    \14\ See, ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-to-air 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 post-combustion 
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

[[Page 49711]]

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 combined-cycle 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 worst-case 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.

[[Page 49712]]

(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, 
soot-blowing, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \17\ See, 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.
    \18\ EPA'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.
    \19\ See, e.g., Michigan Dept. of Envt. Quality v. Browner, 230 
F.3d 181 (6th Cir, 2000).
    \20\ See, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 49713]]

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

    \21\ Moreover, as noted above, SIP particulate emissions 
standards apply to these sources at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 49714]]

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