Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919-0054
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Regional Haze
Posted Date: 2014-07-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39322-39330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16071]

[[Page 39322]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919 ; A-1-FRL-9810-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing 
regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018 that 
was submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
(now known as Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection or CT DEEP) on November 18, 2009, and March 12, 2012. These 
submittals address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future, and remedy any 
existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located 
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the regional haze 
program). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available 
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at 
the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 
02109--3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments on the March 26, 2012 Proposed Rulemaking
III. Response to Comments on the January 11, 2013 Supplemental 
Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On March 26, 2012, (77 FR 17367), EPA published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for the State of Connecticut in which we proposed 
to approve a Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal as 
meeting the applicable requirements of the Regional Haze Rule found at 
40 CFR 51.308 for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. The 
SIP had been submitted by CT DEEP on November 18, 2009, with additional 
submittals on February 24, 2012 and March 12, 2012.
    In the SIP addressing regional haze submitted on November 18, 2009 
(``Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final, November 2009'') (CT 
RH SIP),\1\ Connecticut chose to demonstrate that programs already 
developed by the State would provide greater reasonable progress in 
visibility improvement than source-by-source Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART). The State's demonstration was made in accordance 
with specific criteria for determining if an alternative measure 
achieves greater reasonable progress than BART as set out in the 
Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3). Connecticut's 
Alternative to BART demonstration relied on three components: (1) 
Connecticut's Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 
22a-174-19a (``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants 
and other large stationary sources of air pollution'') (Section 19a); 
(2) revisions to RCSA Section 22a-174-22 (``Control of nitrogen oxides 
emissions'') (Section 22), including subparagraph 22a-174-22(e)(3); and 
(3) RCSA Section 22a-174-22c (``The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program'') 
(Section 22c). Section 22c implemented the NOX trading 
program of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. At the time that Connecticut 
submitted its initial submission, reliance on the annual CAIR program 
in lieu of BART for electrical generating units (EGUs) had been 
demonstrated by EPA to achieve greater reasonable progress towards the 
national visibility goal than BART and the regional haze regulations 
have been revised to give the States the option of relying on CAIR to 
meet BART requirements. (70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005)). In its Regional 
Haze SIP, however, Connecticut did not rely on this demonstration by 
EPA but rather on its own State-specific demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Docket No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919-0006 and associated 
attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in greater detail in our March 26, 2012 proposal 
notice and later in this notice, CAIR subsequently was found to be 
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. See North Carolina v. 
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). To replace CAIR, EPA subsequently 
adopted the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which did not 
impose any ozone season NOX emission limits for EGUs in 
Connecticut. To address this deficiency in their alternative to BART, 
CT DEEP proposed to adopt RCSA 22a-174-22d (Section 22d) as a 
replacement for Section 22c. Section 22d, once adopted, would have 
maintained the ozone season NOX emission reductions that 
were required under the CAIR program.
    On February 24, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a request for parallel 
processing of Section 22d. Under the parallel processing procedure, EPA 
proposed to take action on Section 22d before the State's final 
adoption of the regulation. At that time, the EPA was under a consent 
decree to take final action on the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP by 
July 13, 2012. Connecticut indicated that they planned to have a final 
adopted regulation by June 2012, prior to the deadline for EPA's final 
action. Based on the substance and the intended timeline for adoption 
of the proposed regulation, EPA proposed approval of Connecticut's 
proposed

[[Page 39323]]

regulation Section 22d establishing an intrastate NOX 
trading program as a CAIR replacement rule as one component of the 
State's Alternative to BART demonstration. Following a decision by the 
D.C. Circuit Court vacating the CSAPR trading programs that EPA had 
developed to replace CAIR, and ordering EPA to continue to implement 
CAIR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 
2012), Connecticut concluded that it was unable to adopt Section 22d 
and withdrew its request for parallel processing of the state 
regulation.
    On January 24, 2013 (78 FR 5158), EPA published a supplemental 
notice proposing approval of the Connecticut Alternative to BART 
demonstration based, in part, on Connecticut's CAIR rule (Section 22c), 
as originally submitted by CT DEEP on November 18, 2009. EPA proposed 
to approve Connecticut's reliance on Section 22c as one component 
(along with Sections 19a and 22) of the State's Alternative to BART 
demonstration and solicited comment on the State's reliance on this 
rule in its Regional Haze SIP.
    In addition, as part of the March 26, 2012 rulemaking, EPA proposed 
the approval of Connecticut General Statute (CGS) 16a-21a, ``Sulfur 
content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of 
requirements for emergency.''

II. Response to Comments on the March 26, 2012 Proposed Rulemaking

    EPA received comments on the March 26, 2012 proposed approval of 
the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP from the U.S. Forest Service and the 
Sierra Club. As Connecticut has not finalized Section 22d, EPA is not 
responding to comments relevant only to Section 22d. The following 
discussion summarizes and responds to relevant comments submitted by 
the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club raised concerns regarding the legality 
of BART alternatives generally and the means by which greater 
reasonable progress must be demonstrated before a BART alternative can 
be approved. The commenter also addressed two aspects of Connecticut's 
BART alternative, the intrastate trading programs for SO2 
and non-ozone-season NOX, upon which the current Connecticut 
Regional Haze SIP still relies.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club commented that section 169A of the CAA 
does not allow States to adopt alternative programs that operate in 
lieu of source-specific BART. The Sierra Club acknowledged that the 
D.C. Circuit's decisions in Center for Energy & Economic Development v. 
EPA, 298 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``CEED'') and Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (``UARG'') 
expressly upheld EPA's allowance of such alternatives, but argued that 
these cases cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the Act.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter that BART alternatives 
are impermissible under the CAA. As the commenter notes, EPA's 
interpretation that the CAA allows States to devise alternative 
programs in lieu of source-specific BART was upheld in both the CEED 
and UARG decisions. Because the conclusions in these cases have not 
been upset or overturned by any subsequent decision of the D.C. 
Circuit, as explained in more detail in our response to a similar 
comment on EPA's January 24, 2013 supplemental proposed rulemaking, we 
disagree with the commenter's contention that CEED and UARG were 
decided erroneously or no longer have force.
    Comment 2: The Sierra Club commented that EPA's regulations require 
a State seeking to rely on a BART alternative to include source-
specific BART analyses in its SIP for each subject-to-BART source in 
the State and each source that is included in its BART alternative. 
Accordingly, because Connecticut did not include any source-specific 
BART analyses in its Regional Haze SIP, the Sierra Club contends that 
Connecticut's BART alternative is not approvable.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees. The Regional Haze Rule requires States 
opting to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART to make a 
demonstration that the alternative will result in greater reasonable 
progress than would have resulted under source-specific BART. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i). To make such a demonstration, the State must compare 
the emission reductions that will likely be achieved by the BART 
alternative against a BART benchmark. The BART benchmark may be derived 
by conducting a five-factor BART analysis ``for each source subject to 
BART and covered by the alternative program.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) (emphasis added). Contrary to the commenter's 
suggestion, however, this language does not require a State to conduct 
a BART analysis for each source that is subject to BART within the 
State and for each source that is included in the BART alternative. 
Such a disjunctive reading would lead to a situation in which the BART 
benchmark would include emissions reductions from sources not subject 
to the BART requirements, which was clearly not EPA's intent. See, 
e.g.,71 FR 60612, 60619 (October 13, 2006). Rather, 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) requires the State to conduct BART analyses only for 
those sources that are both subject to BART and included in the BART 
alternative. Under this natural (conjunctive) reading of the provision, 
the BART benchmark includes only those sources that would have required 
BART controls but for the creation of the alternative program.
    We also note that Connecticut was not required to undertake any 
source-specific BART determinations in establishing a BART benchmark. 
As we noted in the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, ``[t]he States . 
. . have flexibility in developing a method to determine the emission 
reductions that could be achieved through the application of BART.'' 64 
FR 35714, 35742. Thus, in situations where the BART alternative ``has 
been designed primarily to meet a Federal or State requirement other 
than BART, a State can use a more simplified approach to demonstrating 
that the alternative program will make greater reasonable progress than 
BART.'' 71 FR 60612, 60615; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) (if a 
State's ``alternative measure has been designed to meet a requirement 
other than BART,'' then a State need not conduct source-by-source BART 
analyses to establish the BART benchmark). One such simplified approach 
specifically recommended by EPA in past rulemakings is for States to 
establish a BART benchmark based on the presumptive emission limits for 
EGUs contained in the BART Guidelines. See 71 FR 60612, 60619. Here, 
Connecticut's BART alternative consists of Section 19a (control of 
SO2 emissions from power plants and other large stationary 
sources), Section 22 (control of NOX emissions from similar 
sources, including intrastate emission trading applicable outside the 
ozone season), and Section 22c (CAIR NOX Ozone Season 
Program), all three of which were developed to satisfy other air 
quality requirements. Therefore, consistent with EPA's regulations, 
Connecticut was not required to perform a five-factor BART analysis for 
any of its sources when setting its BART benchmark, but could opt 
instead for a simplified approach, such as one that relied upon 
presumptive emission limits.
    Comment 3: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut impermissibly 
compared the SO2 reductions that would be achieved by its 
BART alternative to the reductions associated with presumptive BART 
limits developed by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The Sierra Club argued that the MANE-

[[Page 39324]]

VU presumptive limits underestimated the reductions that sources would 
achieve if they were subject to limits derived from a thorough five-
factor analysis. Therefore, the Sierra Club concluded that Connecticut 
did not conclusively show that its BART alternative would provide 
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART.
    Response 3: As explained above, EPA has specifically endorsed the 
use of presumptive limits in setting a BART benchmark in situations 
such as this one. In referring to the presumptive limits for EGUs 
contained in the BART Guidelines, EPA previously stated that ``the 
presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART, 
particularly because in developing a BART benchmark they would be 
applied across the board to a wide variety of units with varying 
impacts on visibility, at power plants of varying size and distance 
from Class I areas.'' 71 FR 60612, 60619. In other words, while in some 
instances conducting a case-by-case BART analysis based on the five 
factors could result in limits more stringent than the presumptive 
limits, in others instances a five-factor analysis could result in 
limits less stringent than the presumptive limits (including no 
additional controls at all). Because these differences are likely to 
balance out, it is reasonable for a State that is entitled to follow a 
simplified approach, such as Connecticut, to use presumptive limits in 
setting its BART benchmark. Here, Connecticut chose to use MANE-VU's 
presumptive limits, which are more stringent than those contained in 
the BART Guidelines. Consequently, EPA is satisfied that Connecticut's 
Regional Haze SIP adequately demonstrated that the State's BART 
alternative will provide for greater reasonable progress than source-
specific BART.
    Comment 4: The Sierra Club commented that, even when using the 
MANE-VU presumptive limits as the point of comparison, Connecticut 
failed to demonstrate that its BART alternative would result in greater 
reasonable progress than source-specific BART. For both SO2 
and NOX, the Sierra Club argued that Connecticut 
impermissibly compared the emission reductions from all 59 sources 
covered by its BART alternative against the reductions that would be 
achieved by the much smaller set of seven subject-to-BART sources. In 
the case of NOX, the Sierra Club further contended that, 
even under the State's flawed comparison, the evidence still showed 
that the reductions associated with requiring source-specific BART at 
the seven subject-to-BART sources would exceed the reductions at all 59 
sources covered by the BART alternative. The Sierra Club also argued 
that three additional factors cited by Connecticut in its weight-of-
evidence analysis--mandatory retirement of emission reduction credits, 
the addition of Exeter Energy to the State's CAIR budget, and the 
State's CAIR allowance allocation methodology--were insufficient to 
prove that the State's BART alternative would achieve greater 
reasonable progress. Finally, the Sierra Club reiterated that it would 
not be onerous for Connecticut to determine the appropriate level of 
BART control for each subject-to-BART source in setting its BART 
benchmark.
    Response 4: EPA again disagrees with the commenter's strained 
reading of the Regional Haze Rule. As we stated in our response to 
comment 2, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) does not require States to 
undertake the task of conducting BART analyses for sources that could 
never be subject to BART controls in the first place. Rather, the BART 
benchmark should consist only of the emissions from those sources that 
are both subject to BART and included in the alternative program. This 
ensures that the benchmark does not include reductions from any 
subject-to-BART sources in the State that will not participate in the 
alternative program and therefore will still be required to install 
BART. Thus, Connecticut was correct to include in its BART benchmark 
only the emissions from the seven sources that were both subject to 
BART and included within the scope of its BART alternative. Moreover, 
States are permitted to include sources in an alternative program that 
are not otherwise BART-eligible in order to ensure that the program 
results in enough emission reductions to result in greater reasonable 
progress than source-specific BART. Consequently, EPA disagrees with 
the notion that Connecticut impermissibly conducted an ``apples-to-
oranges'' comparison by including more sources in its BART alternative 
than would have been subject to control under source-specific BART.
    EPA also disagrees with the Sierra Club's arguments regarding the 
weight-of-evidence analysis. It is important to note that EPA's weight-
of-evidence analysis for NOX draws upon, but is not 
identical to, Connecticut's analysis. Compare 77 FR at 17,377 with id. 
at 17,378-79.
    The uncertainty in Connecticut's NOX analysis derives 
from the fact that, for the BART benchmark, Connecticut estimated a 
range of NOX emissions reductions between 3,120 tpy and 
17,853 tpy. See 77 FR at 17,378 (Table 7); CT RH SIP at 9-34 (Table 9-
16). The lower end of this range (3,120 tpy) resulted from imposition 
of the least stringent emission limits in the MANE-VU recommended range 
at every single BART-eligible source. Conversely, the upper end of the 
range (17,853 tpy) resulted from imposition of the most stringent 
emission limits in the MANE-VU recommended range at every single BART-
eligible source.
    EPA's weight-of- evidence approach acknowledges that it is not 
realistic to expect that source-specific BART determinations would 
result in imposition of the most stringent controls recommended by 
MANE-VU at each one of Connecticut's BART-eligible sources. See 77 FR 
at 17,378-79 for detailed discussion. Given the unlikelihood of this 
scenario, EPA considers it reasonable to conclude that the appropriate 
BART benchmark is considerably less than 17,853 tpy of reductions, and, 
in fact, less than 11,355 tpy of reductions (i.e., the amount 
attributable to Connecticut's BART alternative).
    Furthermore, Connecticut's BART alternative can reasonably be 
expected to result in additional emissions reductions (if difficult to 
precisely quantify) that will occur as a consequence of the required 
reductions. First, the firm cap during ozone season impedes emissions 
growth during non-ozone season, while the restriction to intrastate 
trading during non-ozone season impedes emissions growth during ozone 
season. See id. at 17,379 and further discussion in Response 10. 
Second, Connecticut's CAIR allowance methodology (which allocates 
allowances based on electricity output, rather than heat input) can 
also reasonably be expected to result in actual reductions, not just a 
change in distribution. In a region like New England with a 
restructured electricity market, the least efficient generators are 
dispatched the least often, and under Connecticut's allocation scheme, 
units that run less often receive fewer CAIR allowances. Thus, the 
least efficient generators tend to generate less electricity in the 
first place and therefore receive fewer CAIR allowances, yet require 
more CAIR allowances for a given quantity of electric output. This 
tends to result in the least efficient sources operating less often, 
investing in controls, or repowering, and/or the more efficient sources 
over-controlling for the purpose of generating marketable allowances. 
While Connecticut has not modeled either of these effects 
quantitatively, they are likely to account for some additional 
reductions. Moreover, as

[[Page 39325]]

further discussed in Response 10, actual NOX emissions are 
well below even the low end of the BART benchmark.
    Comment 5: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut has not 
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX emission 
reductions relied upon in its BART alternative are surplus as required 
by the Regional Haze Rule. The Sierra Club contended that only the 
portion of the emission reductions that are surplus to what would 
otherwise be required to comply with the Clean Air Act may be credited 
to Connecticut's BART alternative.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees that Connecticut has failed to show that 
the reductions it relied upon are surplus. To show that a BART 
alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress, the State must 
include in its SIP a ``demonstration that the emission reductions 
resulting from the [BART alternative] will be surplus to those 
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the 
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) 
(emphasis added). In promulgating the Regional Haze Rule in 1999, we 
explained that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in this context means 
``the date of the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies,'' 64 
FR 35714, 35742, which is ``defined as 2002 for regional haze 
purposes,'' 70 FR 39104, 39143. Any measure adopted after 2002 is 
accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). Therefore, we 
believe that Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP adequately demonstrates 
that the reductions from the State's BART alternative, which consists 
entirely of regulations enacted after 2002, are properly considered 
surplus emission reductions for this purpose.
    Comment 6: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut must 
carefully scrutinize wet- and dry-scrubber technology and selective and 
non-selective catalytic reduction for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3. 
The Sierra Club provided cost data and stated that the cost-
effectiveness of such controls is reasonable.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees that Connecticut was required to conduct 
a source-specific BART determination for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 
3, regardless of the cost-effectiveness of additional controls. As 
discussed above in the response to comment 3, Connecticut was entitled 
to rely upon the presumptive BART limits established by MANE-VU in 
setting its BART benchmark. Therefore, no five-factor analysis, 
including an exploration of the costs of specific control technologies, 
was required for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 or any other BART-
eligible unit.

III. Response to Comments on the January 11, 2013 Supplemental Proposed 
Rulemaking

    In regard to the January 11, 2013 supplemental proposed rulemaking, 
EPA received comments from the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and 
a joint letter from Sierra Club, Earth Justice, and National Parks 
Conservation Association (for brevity referred to in the singular as, 
``Sierra Club''). The UARG comments encouraged States to take into 
account CAIR-related emission reductions when developing and submitting 
Regional Haze SIPs, including the BART provisions. UARG stated that EPA 
should finalize the supplemental proposal and approve Connecticut's 
Regional Haze SIP in full. The following discussion summarizes and 
responds to the relevant adverse comments submitted by the Sierra Club 
on EPA's supplemental proposed approval of Connecticut's Regional Haze 
SIP.
    Comment 7: The Sierra Club commented that because all elements of 
any SIP approved by EPA must be enforceable, EPA cannot approve the 
Connecticut SIP to the extent it relies on CAIR. The commenter argued 
that in light of the remand of the rule by the D.C. Circuit in North 
Carolina, CAIR is neither permanent nor enforceable. Sierra Club also 
stated that EPA has recognized that CAIR is temporary on a number of 
occasions and noted that most of EPA's actions to date implicating CAIR 
reflect that EPA can only rely on CAIR in a limited fashion, namely 
``to temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR 
pending EPA's development and promulgation of a replacement rule that 
remedies CAIR's flaws.'' The commenter also noted that in the ``Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is Better than BART'' rulemaking, 
which was issued after the EME Homer City court stayed CSAPR pending 
review, EPA found that CAIR was in place only temporarily and that the 
Agency could not fully approve Regional Haze SIPs that relied on the 
now-temporary reductions from CAIR. The commenter further argues that 
even if the emission reductions from CAIR were sufficiently permanent 
to be used in the 10-year initial planning period of the Connecticut 
SIP, there is no guarantee that any replacement rule for CAIR will 
require the same emission reductions for Connecticut.
    Response 7: EPA agrees that all control measures in a SIP must be 
enforceable. See CAA 110(a)(2)(A). EPA disagrees, however, that CAIR is 
not enforceable at this time, given the scope of the court's order in 
EME Homer City and the issuance of the mandate in that case.
    On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant 
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs 
to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and 
fine particulate matter they form secondarily in the atmosphere. See 76 
FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. 
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to 
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by 
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In 
response to the court's decision, EPA issued CSAPR to address the 
interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the 
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In that 
decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ``pending 
. . . development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City Generation, 
696 F.3d at 38.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA and other parties filed petitions for a writ of 
certiorari of the decision in EME Homer City with the Supreme Court 
on March 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that 
the reductions associated with CAIR will be enforceable and in place 
for a number of years. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a 
new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new 
rule EPA must provide States an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 
implement that rule. CAIR thus cannot be removed from a SIP as an 
enforceable measure until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a 
notice-and-comment rulemaking process, States have had an opportunity 
to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if 
they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including 
promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if appropriate. These 
steps alone will take many years, even with EPA and the States acting 
expeditiously. In the meantime, neither the State nor EPA has taken any 
final action to remove CAIR from the Connecticut SIP. These SIP 
provisions remain in place and are federally enforceable.
    Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue 
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences 
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance 
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer

[[Page 39326]]

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the 
interests of States who reasonably assumed they could rely on 
reductions associated with CAIR to meet the requirements of the 
Regional Haze Rule.
    The proposed and final EPA actions cited by the commenter as 
support for its argument that EPA has considered CAIR to be temporary 
all pre-date the vacatur of CSAPR and were based on EPA's expectation 
that CSAPR was the replacement for CAIR, and thus CAIR would end 
soon.\3\ At the time of those actions, CAIR was reasonably expected to 
sunset by operation of law in a fairly short timeframe. That background 
assumption no longer applies. Based on the vacatur of CSAPR and the 
court's related decision to keep CAIR in force, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate at this time to rely on CAIR emission reductions as one 
component of the Connecticut Alternative to BART demonstration while a 
valid replacement rule is developed and until implementation plans 
complying with any such new rule are submitted by the States and acted 
upon by EPA or until the EME Homer City case is resolved in a way that 
provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion to 
vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place pending promulgation of a valid 
replacement rule. However, the court also ordered the Clerk to 
withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after disposition 
of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. All 
petitions for rehearing were denied on January 24, 2013 and the 
mandate was issued by the D.C. Circuit on February 4, 2013. As noted 
above EPA and other parties subsequently filed petitions seeking 
Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the commenter also argues that even if the emission 
reductions from CAIR were sufficiently permanent to be used in the 
first planning period of the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP, it is 
unclear what emissions reductions would be required in a future 
replacement rule for CAIR. The commenter is correct in that we do not 
know at this time what will be required of Connecticut in any 
replacement rule for CAIR. The uncertainty surrounding the requirements 
of a future replacement rule, however, does not mandate that source-by-
source BART determinations be required today. For now, the Connecticut 
Regional Haze SIP addressed in today's action ensures that while CAIR 
is in place, the BART requirements will be met. The adequacy of the 
Connecticut Regional Haze SIP to address the BART requirements in the 
future will be better addressed when a replacement rule for CAIR has 
been promulgated and the Connecticut SIP revised to comply with that 
rule. This does not mean that the BART requirements will be later 
ignored. When Connecticut submits a SIP revision to remove Section 22c, 
either in response to an EPA replacement rule or for other purposes, 
the State will be required to demonstrate that such a SIP revision 
ensures that the BART requirements are met. See CAA Sec.  110(l). EPA 
would then review the State action, submit its initial determination 
for public comment, and take final action after responding to 
significant public comments. This multi-step sequence of events will 
afford adequate opportunity to review the adequacy of Connecticut's 
approved Regional Haze SIP under the applicable legal framework at the 
time of removal of Section 22c. In sum, we do not agree with the 
commenter that the uncertainty surrounding the timing and contours of a 
replacement rule mandate that Connecticut undertake a source specific 
NOX BART determination for its EGUs now rather at a later 
date when the current regulatory uncertainties have been resolved.
    Comment 8: The commenter argues that EPA cannot approve 
Connecticut's proposal to rely on CAIR to satisfy its obligation to 
control NOX at BART sources. The Sierra Club states that EPA 
must require BART determinations at all subject-to-BART sources. The 
commenter states that there is no statutory authority for EPA to allow 
a State to rely on CAIR as a better-than-BART alternative and that the 
force of the holdings in Center for Energy & Economic Dev. v. EPA, 398 
F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005) and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 
F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006) allowing EPA to do just that have been 
undermined by subsequent decisions of the D.C. Circuit. The commenter 
cite to several cases to support the argument that the CAA does not 
allow EPA to waive the statutory mandate for BART at ``each'' BART-
eligible source.
    Response 8: It is important to emphasize that Connecticut's 
Regional Haze SIP submission does not rely on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), 
sometimes known as the ``CAIR equals BART'' provision, which was at 
issue in UARG and which permits States to rely on CAIR in lieu of BART 
without any further analysis. Rather, Connecticut's submission relies 
on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), the ``Alternative to BART'' or ``Better than 
BART'' provision, which was at issue in CEED and which does require an 
analysis that the alternative measures will achieve greater reductions 
than source-by-source BART. See id. Sec.  51.308(e)(2)(i). CT DEEP has 
submitted a combination of regulations (Sections 19a, 22, and 22c), and 
an appropriate analysis demonstrating that reductions will be superior 
to those from source-by-source BART, as part of its Alternative to BART 
package. See CT RH SIP, at 9-28 to 9-35; see also 77 FR at 17,373-
17,380. Because of the complex history of this action, and to avoid any 
confusion, we emphasize that we are approving Connecticut's Regional 
Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), not section 51.308(e)(4).
    The commenter's arguments that the plain language of the CAA 
precludes use of alternative programs (including but not limited to 
CAIR) to satisfy the BART requirements were raised and rejected in CEED 
and UARG. CEED and UARG remain good law and have not been questioned by 
subsequent D.C. Circuit decisions. The decisions cited by the 
commenter, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 906-08 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1255-58 (D.C. Cir. 2009) address the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 172(c)(1), 
respectively. Given the differences between the language of these 
statutory provisions and that of section 169A(b)(2), the courts' 
interpretation of these other provisions of the CAA do not undermine 
the two previous rulings of the same court interpreting the visibility 
provisions of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Furthermore, in the regulation at issue in NRDC, states 
could rely on NOX SIP Call or CAIR reductions without 
providing any analysis demonstrating how compliance with those 
programs would result in required reductions within each 
nonattainment area, and EPA had not provided any technical analysis 
to that effect either. See NRDC, 571 F.3d at 1256-57. That 
distinguishes NRDC from the issues here. As noted above, we are 
approving Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), 
not section 51.308(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Supreme Court's conclusions in Massachusetts v. EPA, 
549 U.S. 497, 528-29 (2007) regarding the meanings of ``each'' and 
``any'' do not conflict with or impact the EPA's reading of section 
169A(b)(2) of the CAA or the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that the 
agency's interpretation of the statute is a reasonable one. As the CEED 
court explained, EPA interprets this provision to mean that ``each 
SIP's `emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures' 
must `include' BART only `as may be necessary to make reasonable 
progress toward' national visibility goals.'' 398 F.3d 653, quoting 42 
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); see also Central Arizona Water Conservation District 
v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding the same 
interpretation of section 169A(b)(2)). We do not agree, therefore, that 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), EPA's regulation allowing for the use of

[[Page 39327]]

alternative regulatory programs instead of source-specific BART 
determinations, is inconsistent with the CAA.
    Comment 9: The Sierra Club commented that CAIR cannot be used as a 
substitute for BART because it provides inadequate visibility 
improvement. The commenter states that the visibility impacts at the 
Class I areas occur on a much shorter time frame than the annual or 
seasonal CAIR allocations. The commenter finds that the shorter 
averaging times for BART provides a more stringent, more protective 
limit than CAIR's allocations. The commenter states that appropriately 
averaged limits should be required even if new controls are not 
required.
    Response 9: For a State which opts to pursue an Alternative to BART 
demonstration, the State must develop an analysis of the best system of 
continuous emission control technology available and associated 
emission reductions achievable for BART-eligible sources within the 
State subject to the alternative plan. The expected emission reductions 
must be compared to an analysis of the projected emission reductions 
achievable through the alternative measure. When crafting the 
alternative measures, States are not required to revise the emission 
limit to meet each unit's emission capability. In addition, the 
Regional Haze Rule does not limit the averaging period of the 
alternative measure. As the commenter suggested, visibility impairment 
can happen on a much shorter period (24-hour time period) than a 
seasonal limit, and thus the commenter suggests that a shorter 
averaging time would result in better visibility improvement. We 
disagree that a difference in averaging time would affect our 
conclusions that CAIR, in combination with the other emission limits in 
the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP, provides for greater reasonable 
progress than BART. The visibility evaluation required by the Regional 
Haze Rule requires States to evaluate visibility for the 20-percent 
best and 20-percent worst days. While EPA collects samples at the 
IMPROVE monitoring sites over a 24-hour time period, none of the 
visibility program requirements are based on these 24-hour peaks. Both 
the 20-percent best days and 20-percent worst days represent a 
relatively long time period, that is an average over one-fifth of the 
year, or 73 days. Because this is a relatively long time period, and 
even though it may be discontinuous, it tends to ``smooth out'' any 
variations that would occur over a shorter time period. Similarly, even 
a shorter 30-day rolling average BART limit represents a relatively 
long time period that would also tend to smooth out any spikes that may 
occur over a day. Thus, while a seasonal (in this case 5-month) 
emission limit may also smooth out the occasional high emission day, 
the longer averaging period will still provide visibility protection 
for the Class I area.
    In addition, as allowed under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the 
components of the Connecticut Alternative to BART were developed to 
meet other regulatory requirements. For example, the ozone season 
NOX limits in Sections 22 and 22c were designed to meet the 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), an 8-hour average 
standard, which ensures that the emission limit will be consistently 
met.
    Comment 10: The Sierra Club commented that the averaging time for 
the non-ozone season limitations consist entirely of a 0.15 lb/MMBtu 
NOX emission limit applicable as averaged over the entire 
non-ozone season. Again, the Sierra Club contends that this limit does 
not provide the same averaging time protections as would a BART limit. 
Furthermore, the commenter continued, although it is not evident from 
EPA's discussion, most of the BART-eligible units regularly emit well 
above this non-ozone season limit, presumably taking advantage of 
Connecticut's application of emission credits. As EPA's original 
proposal acknowledges, there is no firm year-round cap on EGUs 
emissions which would be required of the BART-eligible units.
    Response 10: While Connecticut's non-ozone season limits do not 
provide a firm year-round emission cap on each unit, a facility which 
exceeds the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit can only use intrastate trading to meet 
its NOX emission obligation. As a result, the emission 
reductions come from within the State, a similar geographic area. 
Moreover, as we noted in the NPR, ``the firm cap during ozone season 
acts as an impediment to emissions growth during nonozone season.'' 77 
FR at 17379. This relationship works in both directions: The fact that 
Connecticut imposes a 0.15 lb/MMBtu NOX limit during October 
through April, and allows only intrastate trading for facilities that 
exceed that limit, limits facilities' ability to emit above their CAIR 
allocations and comply with Section 22c simply by purchasing out-of-
state allowances.
    Data regarding actual emissions supports the argument that 
Connecticut's alternative program allows for facility flexibility while 
achieving emission reductions. The actual 2002 baseline NOX 
emissions from the BART-identified sources were 4,054 tons of 
NOX. The 2011 actual NOX emissions from these 
sources under the Connecticut Alternative to BART are 557 tons.\5\ 
These 2011 actual NOX emissions are an order of magnitude 
lower than even the low-end projected 2006 BART benchmark emissions 
(9,701 tons) for these same sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 2011 NOX emission data from the Connecticut BART-
identified EGUs is from the EPA Air Markets Program (http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: The commenter suggests that the visibility impacts from 
several of the BART-eligible units are not, as EPA has described them, 
minimal. First, it is not clear that the submitted modeling actually 
reflects the 24-hour maximum emission input required by the BART 
Guidelines; therefore, the modeling may underestimate the visibility 
impacts. The commenter notes that Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 
Union (``MANE-VU'') has determined that 98 percent of visibility 
deterioration at Class I areas in its region came from sources with 
impacts between 0.2 and 0.3 deciviews (dv), based on the existing 
modeling, and at least one of Connecticut's BART-eligible units has 
that level of impact from its NOX emissions. The Sierra Club 
emphasized that the exact purpose of the regional haze program is to 
reduce the cumulative impacts from multiple sources. For this reason, 
the Sierra Club commented that source-by-source analysis of the costs 
and benefits of additional retrofit technology and year-round lower 
limits with appropriate averaging time is required.
    Response 11: We disagree with the conclusions the commenter draws 
from the MANE-VU report entitled ``Five-Factor Analysis of BART-
Eligible Sources,'' Attachment W to Connecticut's SIP submission.
    The purpose of the modeling discussed in Attachment W, as the title 
suggests, is to support a five-factor analysis for MANE-VU's 
recommended BART controls. EPA agrees that MANE-VU's modeling does not 
adhere to the requirements of the BART Guidelines for determining an 
appropriate threshold for exempting BART-eligible sources from further 
analysis for BART; however, this modeling was not done for exemption 
purposes, but rather to inform the decision making process for 
developing MANE-VU's recommended BART controls. In this context, EPA is 
not considering MANE-VU's modeling under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y (the 
BART Guidelines), but rather under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C)'s 
requirement to establish a BART benchmark for comparison to an 
alternative program.
    While it is true that the purpose of the regional haze program as a 
whole is to reduce the cumulative impacts from

[[Page 39328]]

multiple sources, even a source-specific BART determination includes 
consideration of ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may 
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.'' 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). EPA's BART Guidelines allow States 
conducting source-by-source BART determinations to exempt sources with 
visibility impacts as high as 0.5 dv. See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y 
Sec.  III.A.1.
    As part of its analysis, MANE-VU attempted to assess which sources 
had the greatest impact on visibility, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). However, MANE-VU decided to take a more stringent 
approach than the BART Guidelines' 0.5 dv threshold. See Attachment W 
at 14. The report states that ``the cumulative frequency visibility 
impact from all MANE-VU BART-eligible sources corresponds to a maximum 
24-hr impact of 0.22 dv from the NWS [National Weather Service]-driven 
data and 0.29 dv from the MM5 [PSU/NCAR mesoscale model] data.'' 
Attachment W at 13-14. Based on these results, MANE-VU concluded that a 
range of 0.2 to 0.3 dv would represent a ```significant' impact at 
MANE-VU Class I areas on an average basis.'' Id. at 14. However, as the 
report stipulates, the analysis only included BART-eligible units 
within the MANE-VU area, excluding all other BART sources outside of 
the MANE-VU area, a limitation noted by the report. See id. at 13. 
Therefore, for purposes of developing its recommended BART controls, 
MANE-VU ``decided to place increased weight on sources with an 
individual visibility impact greater than 0.1 dv for this 1st order 
regional 5-factor analysis.'' Id. at 14. As MANE-VU noted, ``[t]his 
threshold is overly inclusive relative to exemption processes being 
conducted by other [Regional Planning Organizations] RPOs, but still 
provides MANE-VU states flexibility in choosing the weight to be given 
to the first of the five factors considered (i.e., the degree of 
visibility improvement that could result from BART).'' Id.
    Only two of the BART-eligible sources in Connecticut have more than 
a 0.1 dv impact from NOX, and only one source exceeds a 0.2 
dv impact; the rest show impacts far less than these levels.\6\ It is, 
of course, possible that a source-specific BART analysis at one or both 
of these units exceeding 0.1 dv impact would result in a more stringent 
BART limit at those particular units than apply under Connecticut's 
alternative program. However, it is also possible that full 
consideration of the other four factors would lead to less stringent 
limits than apply under Connecticut's alternative program. Moreover, it 
is also quite possibly (indeed, likely) that full consideration of the 
five factors would result in less stringent limits at the other five 
BART-eligible units (with impacts well below 0.1 dv) than apply under 
Connecticut's alternative program. Most importantly, and central to 
both Connecticut's and EPA's analyses, it is also very likely that 
source-by-source BART would result in fewer total emissions reductions 
(and therefore visibility improvements) than apply under Connecticut's 
alternative program. Thus, while any one particular source might have 
higher or lower emissions limits under source-by-source BART (as 
opposed to Connecticut's alternative program), as a whole, EPA does not 
agree that source-by-source BART would necessarily result in more 
stringent controls on the BART-eligible sources (let alone the non-
BART-eligible sources) as a group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The highest visibility impacts due to NOX were 
modeled to be: 0.31 dv from Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3, 0.14 dv from 
New Haven Harbor Unit 1, 0.06 dv from Middletown Unit 3, 0.04 dv 
from Montville Unit 6, 0.03 dv from Middletown Unit 4, 0.03 dv from 
Cascade Boxboard, and 0.01 dv from Norwalk Unit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Final Action

    EPA is approving Connecticut's November 18, 2009, Regional Haze SIP 
submittal and March 12, 2012, supplemental submittal as meeting the 
applicable requirements of the Regional Haze Rule found in 40 CFR 
51.308. In addition, EPA is approving Connecticut's RCSA Section 22a-
174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and 
other large stationary sources of air pollution''; revisions to RCSA 
Section 22a-174-22, ``Control of nitrogen oxides emissions,'' in 
particular subparagraph 22a-174-22(e)(3); and CGS 16a-21a, ``Sulfur 
content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of 
requirements for emergency.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because it does not include measurement standards; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in

[[Page 39329]]

the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 26, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Original signature affirmed by:
    Dated: May 27, 2014.

H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.

    Editor's note: This document was received by the Office of the 
Federal Register on July 3, 2014.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on November 18, 
2009, and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 
on March 12, 2012.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Regulations of Connecticut State Department of Environmental 
Protection Section 22a-174, effective December 28, 2000; as published 
in the Connecticut Law Journal on January 23, 2001.
    (1) Section 22a-174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from 
power plants and other large stationary sources of air pollution,'' 
with the following exceptions which Connecticut did not submit as part 
of the SIP revision because they are not applicable to the Connecticut 
Alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) program:
    (i) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(5);
    (ii) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(8);
    (iii) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(11);
    (iv) In Section 22a-174-19a(a)(13); the sentence ``Early reduction 
credits shall qualify as SO2 DERCs.'';
    (v) Section 22a-174-19a(d);
    (vi) Section 22a-174-19a(e)(4);
    (vii) Section 22a-174-19a(f) through 19a(h); and
    (viii) In Section 22a-174-19a(i)(2), the reference to ``or 
(e)(4).''
    (2) Section 22a-174-22, ``Control of nitrogen oxide emissions,'' 
subsection (e)(3).
    (B) Connecticut General Statute, Title 16a ``Planning and Energy 
Policy,'' Chapter 296 ``Operation of Fuel Supply Business,'' Section 
16a-21a, ``Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. 
Suspension of requirements for emergency,'' effective June 2, 2008, as 
published in the State of Connecticut General Statutes, Revision of 
1958, Revised to 2009.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
document, ``Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final, November 
2009.''
    (B) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection letter ``Clarification of Connecticut's 2008 
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration,'' dated March 12, 2012, 
signed by Anne Gobin.
    (C) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection letter ``Regional Haze State Implementation Plan,'' dated 
February 24, 2012, signed by Anne Gobin.
    (D) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection letter ``Withdrawal of Request for Parallel Processing,'' 
dated November 23, 2012, signed by Anne R. Gobin.

0
3. In Sec.  52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a state citation ``22a-174-19a'' in order of ``Date adopted 
by State''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for existing state citation ``22a-174-22'' in order 
of ``Date adopted by State''; and
0
c. Adding a state citation ``Sec. 16a-21a'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.385  EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.

* * * * *

[[Page 39330]]

                                                         Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Dates
                                                          --------------------------
    Connecticut State citation          Title/subject          Date         Date        Federal Register        Section 52.370     Comments/ description
                                                            adopted by  approved by         citation
                                                              State         EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-19a.......................  Control of sulfur         12/28/00      7/10/14  [Insert Federal        [Insert next           Approves the sulfur
                                     dioxide emissions                                Register page number   available paragraph    dioxide emission
                                     from power plants                                where the document     number in sequence].   standards and fuel
                                     and other large                                  begins].                                      sulfur limits for
                                     stationary sources                                                                             units subject to the
                                     of air pollution.                                                                              CT NOX Budget
                                                                                                                                    program. The
                                                                                                                                    following sections
                                                                                                                                    were not submitted
                                                                                                                                    as part of the SIP:
                                                                                                                                    Sections (a)(5);
                                                                                                                                    (a)(8); (a)(11);
                                                                                                                                    (d); (e)(4); (f);
                                                                                                                                    (g); (h); and in
                                                                                                                                    (i)(2) reference to
                                                                                                                                    (e)(4).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-22........................  Control of nitrogen       12/28/00      7/10/14  [Insert Federal        [Insert next           Approves the Oct-
                                     oxides emissions.                                Register page number   available paragraph    April NOX emission
                                                                                      where the document     number in sequence].   limits for units
                                                                                      begins].                                      subject to the CT
                                                                                                                                    NOX Budget program.
                                                                                                                                    Only section (e)(3)
                                                                                                                                    was submitted as
                                                                                                                                    part of the SIP
                                                                                                                                    revision.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sec. 16a-21a......................  Sulfur content of           6/2/08      7/10/14  [Insert Federal        [Insert next           Approves the sulfur
                                     home heating oil and                             Register page number   available paragraph    content of number
                                     off-road diesel                                  where the document     number in sequence].   two home heating oil
                                     fuel. Suspension of                              begins].                                      and off road diesel
                                     requirements for                                                                               at such time that
                                     emergency.                                                                                     New York,
                                                                                                                                    Massachusetts, and
                                                                                                                                    Rhode Island adopt
                                                                                                                                    similar limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-16071 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P