Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919; A-1-FRL-9651-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the Connecticut
State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the
first planning period from 2008 through

[[Page 17368]]

2018. It was submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (now known as Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, CT DEEP) on November 18, 2009, February, 24,
2012 and March 12, 2012. This revision addresses the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent
any future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0919 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919 Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0919. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
In addition, copies of the State submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to Regional Haze Requirements
II. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP
submittal?
A. Connecticut's Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
1. Identification of All BART Eligible Sources
2. Identification All BART Source Categories Covered by the
Alternative Program
3. Determination of the BART Benchmark
4. Connecticut's SO2 Alternative BART Program
5. Connecticut's NOX Alternative BART Program
6. EPA's Assessment of Connecticut's Alternative to BART Program
Demonstration
7. Connecticut's PM BART Determinations
8. BART Enforceability
C. Long-Term Strategy
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility
Impairments
4. Reasonable Progress Goal
5. Additional Considerations for the LTS
D. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.

[[Page 17369]]

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
which also impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light.
Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance
that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without manmade air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).

B. Background Information

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a
national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
\1\ which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December
2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source
or small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). (42 U.S.C.
7602(i)). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in Section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands. In 40 CFR 51.308(b), States are required to
submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. On January 15,
2009, EPA found that 37 States, the District of Columbia and the U.S.
Virgin Islands failed to submit this required implementation plan. See
74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). In particular, EPA found that Connecticut
failed to submit a plan that met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. See
74 FR 2393. On November 18, 2009, the Bureau of Air Management of the
CT DEEP submitted revisions to the Connecticut State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. EPA
has reviewed Connecticut's submittal and is proposing to find that it
is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in
Section II.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and Tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and Tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and other pollutants
leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO is a
collaborative effort of State governments, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member
State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule to Regional Haze Requirements

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) required some states to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that contribute to
violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR
established emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX. On
October 13, 2006, EPA's ``Regional Haze Revisions to Provisions

[[Page 17370]]

Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule'' (hereinafter known as
the ``Alternative to BART Rule'') was published in the Federal
Register. See 71 FR 60612. This rule establishes that states
participating in the CAIR program need not require Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) for SO2 and NOX at
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs). Many States relied on
CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX
for their subject EGUs.
CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until
replaced by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to
replace CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). Connecticut was
subject to ozone season NOX controls under the CAIR program,
however, the State was not subject to any of the requirements of CSAPR
and thus the option to rely on CSAPR as an alternative to BART was not
available to the State.
On December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit Court issued an order
addressing the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by
numerous parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In
that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR pending the court's
resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court
also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer CAIR in
the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of CSAPR.
On December 15, 2011, Connecticut held a public hearing on proposed
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22d.
This regulation, once adopted, will permanently maintain the ozone
season NOX emission reductions that were previously required
under the CAIR program. Connecticut has requested the parallel
processing of RCSA section 22a-174-22d with EPA's action on the
Connecticut Regional Haze SIP revision. Under this procedure, EPA
prepared this action before the State's final adoption of this
regulation. Connecticut has indicated that they plan to have a final
adopted regulation by June 2012, prior to our final action on its
Regional Haze SIP. After Connecticut submits its final adopted
regulation, EPA will review the regulation to determine whether it
differs from the proposed regulation. If the final regulation does
differ from the proposed regulation, EPA will determine whether these
differences are significant. Ordinarily, changes that are limited to
issues such as allocation methodology would not be deemed significant
for SIP approval purposes, assuming the methodology does not lead to
allocations in excess of the total state budget. Based on EPA's
determination regarding the significance of any changes in the final
regulation, EPA would then decide whether it is appropriate to prepare
a final rule and describe the changes in the final rulemaking action,
re-propose action based on the Connecticut's final adopted regulation,
or other such action as may be appropriate.
RCSA 22a-174-22d is a replacement for RCSA 22a-174-22c, ``The Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone
Season Trading Program,'' which is federally approved by EPA and
currently being implemented in Connecticut. Proposed regulation RCSA
22a-174-22d is one component of Connecticut's NOX
Alternative BART Program. This alternative program is discussed in
detail in Section III.B.5.

II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require States to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview),
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure
for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The deciview is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions
that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air pollution would no longer
impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, States must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area within the State at
the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review
progress every five years midway through each 10-year planning period.
To do this, the RHR requires States to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for the purposes of comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions in documents entitled,
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005) available at
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003

[[Page 17371]]

Natural Visibility Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress
Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-004),
available at www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data from 2000
through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of
visibility impairment for each Class I area within the State, based on
the average of annual values over the five year period. The comparison
of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain
natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions
to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress
made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the States that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility conditions for
their Class I areas. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in the CAA and
in EPA's RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst
days for each applicable Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors
into consideration, as noted in EPA's July 1, 2007 memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10, entitled Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program (p.
4-2, 5-1)(EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance). In setting the RPGs,
States must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of
progress'' or the ``glide path'') and the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. The year 2064 represents a rate of progress which States are to
use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to
achieve. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more Class I areas
(``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing
States,'' i.e., other nearby States with emission sources that may be
contributing to visibility impairment at the Class I State's areas. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Section 169A of the CAA directs States to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology'' as determined by the State. (CAA 169A(b)(2)a)).\3\ States
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART applicability determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a State must use
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of sources.
States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). EPA has
stated that States should use their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3)
and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
The RPOs provided air quality modeling to the States to help them
in determining whether potential BART sources can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption
threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption
threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold
value would be subject to a BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class
I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews. See 70 FR 39161 (July 6,
2005).
In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the

[[Page 17372]]

BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a
facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. See 70 FR
39161 (July 6, 2005). In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2)
of the CAA requires that States consider the following factors: (1) The
costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in
use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5)
the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free
to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor.
See 70 FR 39170 (July 6, 2005).
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP, as required by CAA (section 169(g)(4)) and the RHR (40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of
BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR, States are required to include a
LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a
State will use to meet any applicable RPGs. The LTS must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a State's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the State must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs,
must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic reviews of a State's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4), the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal
areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with
this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it
must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the RHR, state control strategies
must cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018,
with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The BART

[[Page 17373]]

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above, apply only to the first
implementation period. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the
statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and
FLMs regarding the State's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Connecticut's regional haze SIP
submittal?

On November 18, 2009, February, 24, 2012, and March 12, 2012, CT
DEEP's Bureau of Air Management submitted revisions to the Connecticut
SIP to address regional haze as required by 40 CFR 51.308. EPA has
reviewed Connecticut's submittal and is proposing to find that it is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 as outlined in
Section II. A detailed analysis follows.
Connecticut is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP which
addresses Connecticut's impact on any nearby Class I areas. As
Connecticut has no Class I areas within its borders, Connecticut is not
required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a)
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions; (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals; (c) monitoring
requirements; and d) RAVI requirements.

A. Connecticut's Impact on MANE-VU Class I Areas

Connecticut is a member of the MANE-VU RPO. The MANE-VU RPO
contains seven Class I areas in four States: Moosehorn Wilderness Area,
Acadia National Park, and Roosevelt/Campobello International Park in
Maine; Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf
Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont.
Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted States in
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each
Class I area in the MANE-VU region. Connecticut and the other MANE-VU
States adopted a weight-of-evidence approach which relied on several
independent methods for assessing the contribution of different sources
and geographic source regions to regional haze in the northeastern and
mid-Atlantic portions of the United States. Details about each
technique can be found in the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) document Contributions to Regional Haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States, August 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Contribution Report'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The August 2006 NESCAUM document Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States has been
provided as part of the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The source apportionment modeling demonstrated that the
contribution of Connecticut emissions to total sulfate (the main
contributor to visibility impairment in the Northeast, see Section
III.C.3) was consistently determined to be no more than 0.76% of the
total sulfate at any Class I area. This finding was consistently
predicted by different assessment techniques that are based on the
application of disparate chemical, meteorological and physical
principles. The greatest modeled contribution from Connecticut for each
of the MANE-VU Class I areas was 0.76% sulfate at Acadia National Park,
0.56% sulfate at Moosehorn Wilderness Area and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, 0.48% sulfate at Great Gulf Wilderness Area and
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area, 0.55% sulfate at Lye
Brook Wilderness Area, and 0.53% at Brigantine Wilderness Area. The
impact of sulfate on visibility is discussed in greater detail below.
The MANE-VU Class I States determined that any State contributing
at least 2.0% of the total sulfate observed on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2002 were contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I area. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District
of Columbia were determined to contribute less than 2.0% of sulfate at
any of the Class I areas in the Northeast.
EPA is proposing to find that CT DEEP has adequately demonstrated
that emissions from Connecticut sources do not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in nearby Class I Areas.

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

According to 51.308(e), ``The State must submit an implementation
plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules
for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any Class I Federal area, unless the State demonstrates
that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.'' On
October 13, 2006, EPA's ``Regional Haze Regulations to Provisions
Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule'' (hereinafter known as
the ``Alternative to BART Rule'') was published in the Federal
Register. See 71 FR 60612. Connecticut chose to demonstrate that
programs already developed by the State provide greater progress in
visibility improvement than source-by-source BART determinations. A
demonstration that the alternative program will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the state must be
based on the following:
(1) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(2) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source
categories covered by the alternative program.
(3) Determination of the BART benchmark. If the alternative program
has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART, as in the case
of Connecticut, the State may determine the best system of continuous
emission control technology and associated emission reductions for
similar types of sources within a source category based on both source
specific and category-wide information, as appropriate.
(4) An analysis of the projected emission reductions achieved
through the alternative program.
(5) A determination based on a clear weight of evidence that the
alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered
sources.

[[Page 17374]]

1. Identification of All BART Eligible Sources
Determining BART-eligible sources is the first step in the BART
process. BART-eligible sources in Connecticut were identified in
accordance with the methodology in Appendix Y of the Regional Haze
Rule, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule,
Part II, How to Identify BART-Eligible Sources. See 70 FR 39158. This
guidance consists of the following criteria:
The unit falls into one of the listed source categories;
The unit was constructed or reconstructed between 1962 and
1977; and
The unit has the potential to emit over 250 tons per year
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile
organic compounds, or ammonia.
The BART Guidelines require States to address SO2,
NOX, and particulate matter. States are allowed to use their
best judgment in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a
source are likely to have an impact on visibility in the area. The
State of Connecticut addressed SO2, NOX, and used
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)
as an indicator for particulate matter to identify BART eligible units,
as the BART Guidelines require. Consistent with the BART Guidelines,
the State of Connecticut did not evaluate emissions of VOCs and ammonia
in BART determinations due to the lack of impact on visibility in the
area due to anthropogenic sources. The majority of VOC emissions in
Connecticut are biogenic in nature. Therefore, the ability to further
reduce total ambient VOC concentrations at Class I areas is limited.
Point, area, and mobile sources of VOCs in Connecticut are already
comprehensively controlled as part of an ozone attainment and
maintenance strategy. With respect to ammonia, the overall ammonia
inventory is very uncertain, but the amount of anthropogenic emissions
at sources that were BART-eligible is relatively small, and no
additional sources were identified that had greater than 250 tons per
year ammonia and required a BART analysis.
The identification of BART sources in Connecticut was undertaken as
part of a multi-State analysis conducted by the NESCAUM. NESCAUM worked
with CT DEEP licensing engineers to review all sources and determine
their BART eligibility. CT DEEP identified ten sources as BART-
eligible. Pfizer Inc. Boilers No. 5, No. 8, and the Organic Synthesis
Plant 2 (OSP2) were originally included in the list of BART-eligible
units. On March 10, 2006, the CT DEEP issued Consent Order No. 8262 to
Pfizer Inc. which caps the actual aggregated emissions from the boilers
and OSP2 to less than 250 tons per year for each of the air pollutants
NOX, SO2, and PM10. Therefore,
Pfizer's facility is no longer considered BART-eligible. The final
BART-eligible sources are listed below.

Table 1--BART-Eligible Sources in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest 2002
BART source 2002 Emissions (ton/ visibility
Source, unit and location Fuel category yr) impact (dv)
\5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power LLC, Unit 3,* Residual Oil, 240 MW EGU........ SO2: 269 0.11
Middletown, CT. Natural Gas. NOX: 468
Middletown Power LLC, Unit 4,* Residual Oil, 400 MW EGU........ SO2: 308 0.06
Middletown, CT. Natural Gas. NOX: 145
Montville Power LLC, Unit 6, Residual Oil 410 MW EGU........ SO2: 794 0.16
Montville, CT. Distillate Oil. NOX: 312
Norwalk Power LLC, Unit 2, Residual Oil...... 172 MW EGU........ SO2: 322 0.08
Norwalk, CT. NOX: 82
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, Coal, Residual Oil 410 MW EGU........ SO2: 4,024 0.84
Bridgeport Harbor Station, NOX: 1,689
Unit 3, Bridgeport, CT.
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, New Residual Oil, 465 MW EGU........ SO2: 4,010 0.74
Haven Harbor Station, Unit 1, Distillate Oil, NOX: 1,143
New Haven, CT. Natural Gas.
Cascades Boxboard Group--CT Residual Oil, 275 MMbtu/hr SO2: 0.5 0.03
LLC, PFI Boiler, Versailles, Natural Gas. Industrial Boiler. NOX: 215
CT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Located at a facility greater than 750 MW.

2. Identification of All BART Source Categories Covered by the
Alternative Program
In crafting Connecticut's alternative to BART demonstration, the
State relied on SO2 emission reductions required by
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA section 22a-174-19a
(Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Power Plant and Other Large
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution). The Connecticut programs to
reduce NOX emissions are RCSA Section 22a-174-22 (Control of
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions), and proposed RCSA Section 22a-174-22d (Post-
2011 Connecticut Ozone Season NOX Budget Program).\6\ A
complete list of sources addressed can be found in Table 9.4 of
Connecticut's November 18, 2009 SIP submittal. All of the identified
BART-eligible EGUs are included in Connecticut's alternative to BART
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Visibility Impact is measured in units of deciviews (dv). A
deciview measures the incremental visibility change discernable by
the human eye. The deciview values included in Table 1 are from
Attachment X of Connecticut's November 18, 2009 SIP submittal.
\6\ CT RCSA Section 22a-175-22d maintains NOX
emission reductions required by the Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Connecticut is subject to ozone-season CAIR limits, however, the
State was not included in the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule.
See 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). Therefore Connecticut has proposed
an intra-state trading program for NOX to make permanent
these emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Determination of the BART Benchmark
According to the Alternative to BART Rule, in developing the BART
benchmark, with one exception, States must follow the approach for
making BART determinations under section 51.308(e)(1). The one
exception to this general approach is where the alternative program has
been designed to meet requirements other than BART; in this case,
States are not required to make BART determinations under 51.308(e)(1)
and may use a simplifying assumption in establishing a BART benchmark
based on an analysis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of
sources within a source category. Under either approach to establishing
a BART

[[Page 17375]]

benchmark, we believe that the presumptions for EGUs in the BART
Guidelines should be used for comparison to a trading program or other
alternative program, unless the State determines that such presumptions
are not appropriate for a particular EGU. See 71 FR 60619. Even though
Connecticut had the option of using the less stringent EPA presumptive
limits, the State opted to use the MANE-VU recommended BART emission
limits for non-CAIR EGUs and industrial boilers in setting the BART
benchmark. These limits are listed in Table 2.

Table 2--MANE-VU Recommended BART Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SO2 Limits NOX Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-CAIR EGUs............... Coal--95% control or In NOX SIP call
0.15 lb/MMbtu Oil-- area, extend use of
95% control or 0.33 controls to year
lb/MMBtu (0.3% fuel round 0.1-0.25 lb/
sulfur limit. MMBtu depending on
coal and boiler
type.
Industrial Boilers.......... 90% control, or 0.5% 0.1-0.4 lb/MMBtu,
fuel sulfur limit depending on boiler
(0.55 lb/MMBtu). and fuel type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Connecticut's SO2 Alternative BART Program
RCSA section 22a-174-19a (Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from
Power Plant and Other Large Stationary Sources of Air Pollution) was
submitted to EPA as part of Connecticut's November 18, 2008
PM2.5 attainment demonstration SIP revision. RCSA Section
22a-174-19a became effective December 28, 2000. It includes a two-
tiered timeframe for reducing SO2 emissions from large EGUs
and industrial sources (approximately 59 sources). Starting January 1,
2002, all sources 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 0.5% sulfur, by weight;
Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than
0.55 pounds of SO2 per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for
an affected unit; or
Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 0.5
pounds of SO2 per MMBtu calculated for each calendar
quarter, if such owner or operator averages the emissions from two or
more affected units at the premises.

Starting on January 1, 2003, all sources in Connecticut that are Acid
Rain Sources under Title IV of the Clean Air Act and are subject to
Connecticut's Post-2002 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% sulfur, by weight;
Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than
0.33 pounds of SO2 per MMBtu for each calendar quarter for
an affected unit at a premises; or
Meet an average emission rate of equal to or less than 0.3
pounds of SO2 per MMBtu calculated from two or more affected
units at a premises.

Prior to January 1, 2005, CT DEEP allowed sources subject to the
January 1, 2003 emission rates to meet such emission rates by using
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 Statues (CGS) section
22a-198 suspended SO2 emission credit trading starting
January 1, 2005.
The first phase of Connecticut's SO2 controls plan
commenced in January 1, 2002, therefore, CT DEEP selected 2001 as the
base year for the alternative to BART demonstration. Likewise, since
the second phase of Connecticut's SO2 plan was fully
implemented in 2005, Connecticut chose 2006 for comparison.

Table 3--Annual Potential (Allowable at 8760 Hours) Emissions
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU BART
workgroup EPA
BART-eligible unit 2001 * 2002 * 2006 * presumptive presumptive
BART 2012 BART 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Unit 3.................................. **5,709 5,709 3,426 3,426 11,419
Middletown Unit 4.................................. **11,284 11,284 6,770 6,770 22,568
Montville Unit 6................................... 22,442 11,221 6,733 6,733 22,442
Norwalk Unit 2..................................... 8,557 4,278 2,567 2,567 8,557
PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3...................... 18,212 9,877 5,926 2,694 ***2,694
PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1....................... 20,508 10,282 6,169 6,169 20,508
Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler................. 1,325 662 662 662 1,325
------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 88,037 53,313 32,253 29,021 89,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on the lower of RCSA section 22a-174-19a regulatory limits or federally enforceable permit conditions.
** Fuel sulfur limited to 0.5% in Consent Order no. 7024.
*** While this level of control is not required by EPA Guidelines, it is recommended that such level of control
be considered.

Presumptive BART potential emission levels for 2012 (tons per year)
in Table 3 were calculated by multiplying the MANE-VU BART workgroup
and EPA recommended BART emission rates in lb/MMBtu by the design
capacity of the unit in MMBtu/hr by 8760 hrs/year as follows:
For Bridgeport Harbor 3, the sole coal-burning unit, 0.15
lb/MMBtu, the MANE-VU BART workgroup's and EPA's recommended
SO2 emission rate for coal-burning units, was used.
For the five oil-burning EGUs, the MANE-VU BART
workgroup's and

[[Page 17376]]

EPA's recommended BART emission rates of 0.33 lb/MMBtu and 1.1 lb/MMBtu
respectively, were used in the calculations.
MANE-VU BART workgroup post-BART SO2 potential
emissions for Cascades Boxboard Group were assumed not to change after
2002 because the source became subject to RCSA section 22a 174-19a in
2002 (0.55 lb/MMBtu) and the allowable SO2 limit did not
change after that date so the 2006 potential emissions remain the same.
Table 4 lists the actual 2001, 2002, and 2006 SO2
emissions from the Connecticut BART-eligible units. It should be noted
that, for the most part, the actual emissions are well below the
potential emission limits.

Table 4--Actual Annual SO2 Emissions
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART-eligible Unit 2001 2002 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Unit 3...................... 1,830 269 124
Middletown Unit 4...................... 1,015 308 123
Montville Unit 6....................... 2,182 794 217
Norwalk Unit 2......................... 1,701 322 374
PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3.......... 10,429 4,024 2,808
PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1........... 9,543 4,010 689
Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler..... 251 0.5 215
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 26,951 9,727 4,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As detailed in Attachment X of Connecticut's SIP submittal,
potential emissions from all sources subject to RCSA 22a-174-19a was
89,537 tons in 2002 and 60,304 tons in 2006. As shown in Table 5, by
comparing SO2 potential emission reductions since 2002 from
all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources subject to RCSA
section 22a-174-19a (89,537 tons minus 60,304 tons equals 29,233 tons)
with SO2 potential post-BART emission reductions from BART-
eligible sources since 2002 (53,313 tons minus 29,021 tons equals
24,292), it is apparent that Connecticut's existing SO2
regulatory requirements achieve approximately 4,841 tons of greater
reductions than estimated reductions from BART alone.

Table 5--Comparison of SO2 Potential Emissions and Reductions Since 2002
From All Post-2002 NOX Budget Program Sources vs. BART-Eligible Sources
Alone
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in
Option 2002 2006 potential
emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 potential emissions from all 89,537 60,304 29,233
Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
sources..........................
SO2 potential emissions from BART- 53,313 29,021 24,292
eligible sources alone...........
------------
Additional reductions beyond ......... ......... 4,841
BART-eligible sources alone..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, Table 6 shows the reductions in actual SO2
emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources and
all BART-eligible sources since 2001. Note the significant reduction in
actual SO2 emissions starting in 2002 (effective year of
Tier 1 of RCSA section 22a-174-19a) and continuing in 2006 (Tier 2 of
RCSA section 22a-174-19a was effective in 2003).
Furthermore, Attachment X of Connecticut's November 18, 2009
Regional Haze SIP submittal contains maps of the facility reductions in
actual SO2 emissions since 2001 from all Post-2002
NOX Budget Program sources as well as all BART-eligible
sources (both Connecticut-specific and as related to Class I areas).
These graphics demonstrate that the emission reductions resulting from
RCSA section 22a-174-19a are geographically comparable to the locations
of the BART-eligible sources.

Table 6--Comparison of SO2 Actual Emission Reductions Since 2001 From All Post-2002 NOX Budget Program Sources
vs. BART-Eligible Sources Alone
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in
actual
Option 2001 2002 2006 emissions
since 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 actual emissions from all Post-2002 NOX Budget Program 35,625 13,056 7,146 28,479
sources.......................................................
SO2 actual emissions from BART-eligible sources alone.......... 26,951 9,727 4,549 22,402
------------------------------------------------
Additional reductions beyond BART-eligible sources alone... ......... ......... ......... 6,077
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17377]]

5. Connecticut's NOX Alternative BART Program
Most of the BART-eligible units in Connecticut installed
NOX reduction technology during the early to mid 1990s in
response to Connecticut's ozone reduction strategies, whereby lower
NOX emission limits were promulgated. As described below, CT
DEEP has concluded that the NOX emission limits contained in
the existing regulations are at least as stringent as BART. The CT DEEP
alternative NOX program is comprised of ozone season
emission limits and non-ozone season emission limits.
Pursuant to the ozone reasonably available control technology
(RACT) provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in 1995, CT
DEEP adopted NOX control regulations (RCSA section 22a-174-
22) achieving substantial reductions in 24-hour NOX emission
rates from a variety of sources, including the BART-eligible units. The
maximum allowable 24-hour NOX emission rate for cyclone
furnaces (including Middletown Unit 3) was reduced by 52%, the maximum
allowable 24-hour NOX emission rate for existing coal-fired
boilers (Bridgeport Unit 3) was reduced by 58%, and the maximum
allowable 24-hour NOX emission rate for No. 6 oil-fired
boilers (including Middletown Unit 4, Montville Unit 6, Norwalk Unit 2,
New Haven Harbor Unit 1 and Cascades Boxboard's PFI boiler) was reduced
by 17% when compared to previously adopted NOX limits. This
regulation was approved into the Connecticut SIP on October 6, 1997.
See 62 FR 52016.
Since 1999, CT DEEP has adopted several NOX budget
trading programs which 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 summer
ozone season. RCSA section 22a-174-22a limited the summer
NOX emissions budget to 5,866 tons beginning in 1999 and
RCSA section 22a-174-22b reduced the summer NOX budget
further to 4,466 tons beginning in 2003. All of Connecticut's BART-
eligible units are currently subject to the Post-2002 NOX
Budget Program and are also included in the CAIR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program starting in 2009 pursuant to RCSA section 22a-
174-22c. The CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program includes
a NOX budget for Connecticut sources of 2,691 tons that is
not to be exceeded during the ozone season (May 1st through September
30th each year). Implementation of the CAIR Program will result in a
76% reduction from the estimated 11,203 tons of ozone season
NOX emissions from NOX Budget Program sources in
1990. Each of these sections (i.e., RCSA section 22a-174-22a, RCSA
section 22a-174-22b, and RCSA section 22a-174-22c) were previously
approved into the Connecticut SIP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ RCSA section 22a-174-22a was approved by EPA on September
28, 1999. See 64 FR 52233. RCSA section 22a-174-22b was approved by
EPA on December 27, 2000. See 65 FR 81743. With the finalization of
Connecticut's CAIR rule (RSCA section 22a-174-22c), Connecticut
repealed both RCSA section 22a-174-22a (effective September 4, 2007)
and 22a-174-22b (effective May 1, 2010). RCSA section 22a-174-22c
was approved by EPA on January 24, 2008. See 73 FR 4105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded without vacatur.\8\ On July
6, 2011, EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as
a replacement to the remanded CAIR Rule. See 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8,
2011). Connecticut was not included in the final CSAPR. On December 15,
2011, CT DEEP held a public hearing on proposed 22a-174-22d as a
replacement to the remanded CAIR ozone season program for Connecticut
(i.e., RCSA section 22a-174-22c). On February 24, 2012, CT DEEP
submitted a request for parallel processing of this regulation. Under
this procedure, EPA prepared this action before the State's final
adoption of 22a-174-22d. Connecticut has indicated that they plan to
have a final adopted regulation by June 2012, prior to our final action
on its Regional Haze SIP. EPA will review the finalized version of 22a-
174-22d to determine whether it differs from the proposed regulation.
If the final regulation does differ from the proposed regulation, EPA
will determine whether these differences are significant. Ordinarily,
changes that are limited to issues such as allocation methodology would
not be deemed significant for SIP approval purposes, assuming the
methodology does not lead to allocations in excess of the total state
budget. Based on EPA's determination regarding the significance of any
changes in the final regulation, EPA would then decide whether it is
appropriate to prepare a final rule and describe the changes in the
final rulemaking action, re-propose action based on Connecticut's final
adopted regulation, or other such action as may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

RCSA section 22a-174-22d limits Connecticut's ozone season
NOX budget to 2,691 tons, the same budget as included in the
CAIR Ozone Season Trading Program. In addition, RCSA section 22a-174-
22d only allows for intra-state trading which will insure that all
reductions necessary to meet the ozone season NOX budget
will occur in the state.
In addition to the ozone season requirements for NOX
Budget Program sources (i.e., EGUs 15 MW and greater and large
industrial sources), Connecticut adopted subdivision 22a-174-22(e)(3)
on October 30, 2000 which requires that, starting in October 2003,
NOX Budget Program sources that are also subject to RCSA
section 22a-174-22 meet a non-ozone seasonal NOX emission
rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. These revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-22 were
submitted to EPA as part of Connecticut's November 18, 2008
PM2.5 attainment demonstration SIP revision.\9\ Therefore,
all of Connecticut's NOX Budget Program sources, including
all of Connecticut's BART-eligible sources, are subject to year-round
NOX emission restrictions. Pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-
22, CT DEEP allows sources subject to the 24-hour and non-ozone season
NOX emission limits to use NOX discrete emission
reduction credits or NOX Budget Program allowances to comply
with the subject emission limits. Table 7 shows the NOX
reductions in potential emissions between 2002 and 2006 from all Post-
2002 NOX Budget Program sources as compared with the
reduction in NOX potential emissions from BART-eligible
sources alone. The ``low end'' and ``high end'' numbers referenced in
the 2006 column in Table 7 are based on the MANE-VU BART workgroup's
recommended emission limit range of 0.1 lb/MMBtu (low end) to 0.25 lb/
MMBtu (high end) for Non-CAIR EGUs and 0.1 lb/MMBtu (low end) to 0.4
lb/MMBtu (high end) for industrial boilers, depending on coal and
boiler type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ On March 12, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a letter to EPA
clarifying that the Appendix to the November 18, 2008 Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Demonstration
should have included the regulatory text of RCSA section 22a-174-
22(e)(3). All of the documentation necessary to satisfy the public
participation requirements of 40 CFR 51 was included in the
Appendix.

[[Page 17378]]

Table 7--Comparison of NOX Potential Emissions and Reductions Since 2002 From All Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
Sources vs. BART-Eligible Sources Alone
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in potential
Option 2002 2006 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX potential emissions from all 46,188 34,833......................... 11,355.
Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
sources.
NOX potential emissions from BART- 27,554 High End--24,434............... High End--3,120.
eligible sources alone. Low End--9,701................. Low End--17,853.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut noted that between 1994 and 2006 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), whereas application of BART alone would have resulted in
reductions between 19,225 tons (high end) and 33,958 tons (low end).
Connecticut cites three elements of its BART alternative program to
support a finding that the clear weight of evidence demonstrates that
its NOX BART alternative program achieves better than BART
reductions:

--Under RCSA section 22a-174-22 sources that create trading credits
must automatically retire 10% of those credits and sources using
credits are required to retire 5% more than the need to meet emission
obligations.
--Connecticut's budget under CAIR is a conservative allocation of
emissions. After the initial budget determination, another source was
added to the universe of sources subject to CAIR without increasing the
budget. In addition, the CAIR budget was based on an outdated
NOX SIP Call budget that did not incorporate changes due to
a memorandum of understanding between Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts.
--Under its CAIR program, Connecticut changed the methodology for
allocating allowances such that it is based on megawatt output instead
of heat input. Thus, less efficient EGUs receive substantially fewer
allowances than they received under Connecticut's earlier
NOX Budget Programs, thereby encouraging further
NOX reducing measures such as controls and/or repowering.
That same allocation methodology is also included in proposed RCSA
section 22a-174-22d.

While CAIR is currently still in place, it is only effective
pending review of CSAPR. However, Connecticut has proposed parallel
processing of its replacement to CAIR, RCSA section 22a-174-22d. This
regulation as proposed maintains a cap of 2,691 tons per ozone season
and allocates emissions credits to EGUs based in part on their megawatt
generation.
Furthermore, Attachment X of Connecticut's November 18, 2009
Regional Haze SIP submittal contains maps of the facility reductions in
actual NOX emissions since 1994 from all Post-2002
NOX Budget Program sources as well as all BART-eligible
sources (both Connecticut-specific and as related to Class I areas).
These graphics demonstrate that the emission reductions resulting from
RCSA Section 22a-174-22 including subdivision 22a-174-22(e)(3) and
proposed RCSA section 22a-174-22d (the replacement for RCSA section
22a-174-22c) are geographically comparable to the locations of the
BART-eligible sources.
6. EPA's Assessment of Connecticut's Alternative to BART Program
Demonstration
EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has adequately
demonstrated that the potential and actual SO2 emission
reductions from RCSA section 22a-174-19a provide greater emission
reductions than the presumptive BART level. Connecticut has shown via
Attachment X of the November 18, 2009 Regional Haze SIP submittal that
for both SO2 and NOX emissions, the geographic
area covered by the Post-2002 NOX Budget Program sources is
comparable to the geographic area covered by the BART-eligible units,
therefore visibility modeling is not required, as noted in the
Alternative to BART Rule. See 71 FR 60612. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to find that the SO2 alternative to BART program
demonstration meets the requirements of our Alternative to BART Rule.
As part the NOX alternative to BART program
demonstration, Connecticut has presented a weight of evidence
demonstration. EPA approved of the weight of evidence approach
Connecticut has taken in our Alternative to BART Rule. See 71 FR 60621-
22 (Oct. 13, 2006). This approach was intended to provide flexibility
for States who wished to pursue alternatives to BART but had difficulty
directly showing that their alternative program would necessarily
result in greater reasonable progress than the application of BART
alone. Under the theoretical scenario where Connecticut would require
the most stringent of the MANE-VU recommended controls for each and
every one of its BART-eligible sources, it may be difficult or time
consuming and expensive for Connecticut to show that its alternative
program is at least as stringent as BART alone. However, we note that
this scenario is not realistic for several reasons. First, unlike many
BART-eligible sources, Connecticut's BART-eligible sources have
installed a variety of control equipment in order to meet Connecticut's
NOX Budget Program. As Connecticut noted, since 1994,
Connecticut's NOX programs have resulted in over 55,000 tons
per year of reductions from Post-2002 NOX Budget Program
sources, well in excess of what application of BART alone would
achieve. Moreover, Connecticut has demonstrated that the NOX
emissions from the BART-eligible sources have a minimal impact on
nearby Class I areas. As summarized in Table 8, the greatest impact
that any BART-eligible source has on any Class I area due to
NOX emissions in 2002 is PSEG Bridgeport Unit 3 with an
impact of only 0.31 dv.

Table 8--Highest Visibility Impact at Any Class I Area due to NOX From
Each BART-Eligible Source in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest
Facility deciview
impact \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Unit 3.......................................... 0.06
Middletown Unit 4.......................................... 0.03
Montville Unit 6........................................... 0.04
Norwalk Unit 2............................................. 0.01
PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3.............................. 0.31
PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1............................... 0.14
Cascade Boxboard Group PFI Boiler.......................... 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 17379]]

controls and the minimal impact from the BART-eligible sources would
have been among the individualized factors that Connecticut would have
considered. Based on these factors, we do not believe that the most
stringent level of controls would have necessarily been appropriate for
Connecticut's BART-eligible sources, and therefore do not believe that
the low end emission rates from the MANE-VU recommended BART limit
reflect a realistic BART baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

An additional piece of evidence for Connecticut's alternative to
BART program demonstration is that, while Connecticut does not have a
firm state-wide, year-round cap on emissions from EGUs, the firm cap
during ozone season acts as an impediment to emissions growth during
non-ozone season.
In EPA's Alternative to BART Rule, the included scenario was only
intended to be demonstrative of those situations where a weight of
evidence approach would be appropriate. Connecticut's NOX
alternative to BART program demonstration fits comfortably within the
intent behind the weight of evidence approach. Given the extent of
evidence--the controls already required prior to the baseline year, the
minimal visibility impact of the BART-eligible sources, and the
impediment of NOX emission growth from new EGUs--we are
proposing to find that Connecticut has shown by a clear weight of
evidence that their NOX BART alternative which relies on
RCSA Section 22a-174-22 including subdivision 22a-174-22(e)(3), and
RCSA section 22a-174-22d meets the requirements of our BART alternative
rule.
7. Connecticut's PM BART Determinations
EPA's BART Guidelines for 750 MW and greater power plants do not
contain presumptive emission limits for PM. The MANE-VU BART
workgroup's recommended BART emission limits for PM2.5
(measured as particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or
PM2.5) are emission rate ranges of 0.02-0.04 lb/MMBtu for
non-CAIR EGUs and 0.02-0.07 lb/MMBtu for industrial boilers.
Existing Controls at Sources
Table 9 shows the visibility impact and existing PM controls at
BART-eligible units in Connecticut. Several units have electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) already in place.

Table 9--The Visibility Impact and Existing Controls at the BART-Eligible Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest PM10
impact on 20%
BART-eligible Unit best days Existing PM controls
(deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Unit 3............................. 0.0000 ESP
Middletown Unit 4............................. 0.0025 None
Montville Unit 6.............................. 0.0005 None
Norwalk Unit 2................................ 0.0002 ESP
PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3................. 0.0035 ESP, Baghouse
PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1.................. 0.0012 ESP
Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler............ 0.0004 None
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Middletown Unit 3, Norwalk Unit 2, PSEG Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3,
and PSEG New Haven Harbor Unit 1 have existing ESP control. PSEG
Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 also installed a baghouse for mercury control
in July 2008, thereby achieving concomitant PM reduction benefits.
Visibility Improvement Reasonably Expected From Application of Controls
MANE-VU's 2002 individual unit modeling shows that none of
Connecticut's PM emissions from BART-eligible sources have a
significant visibility impact on any Class I area. As can be seen in
Table 9, the highest individual PM visibility impact (0.0035 dv) is
significantly less than the 0.1 deciview individual impact MANE-VU
warrants worthy of consideration of BART controls.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cost of Controls
Table 10 shows the cost of PM controls per year for those BART-
eligible units without PM controls as well as actual PM emissions for
2005. Numbers were calculated by using the range of control
technologies and cost per actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) of gas
flow values provided in NESCAUM's Assessment of Control Technology
Options for BART-Eligible Sources\12\ and ACFM values provided in the
2005 emission statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table 10--Cost of PM Controls and 2005 Actual Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed & Variable
Capital cost ranges operation and 2005 Actual PM
BART-eligible unit ($) maintenance cost emissions
ranges ($/year) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Unit 4............................. $20,496,000-68,320,000 $683,200-3,416,000 46
Montville Unit 6.............................. 20,220,000-67,400,000 674,000-3,370,000 18
Cascades Boxboard Group PFI Boiler............ 120,000-4,800,000 48,000-324,000 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17380]]

Remaining Useful Life of the Source
The MANE-VU BART workgroup's recommendation for sources which rely
on the remaining useful life factor for the determination of BART is
that these sources should either control emissions from the BART-
eligible sources prior to 2013 or accept a federally enforceable permit
limitation or retirement date prior to each state's public notice and
hearing processes and FLM review of BART SIP elements. Similar to the
other New England States, the Connecticut analysis did not weight this
factor.
Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts
No significant energy or non-air quality environmental benefits or
dis-benefits associated with PM controls were identified.
Connecticut's Determination
Given the very high cost per ton reduced for the remaining BART-
eligible units without PM controls along with the lack of PM
contribution evidence from MANE-VU's modeling, Connecticut determined
that the existing conditions with respect to PM control are equivalent
to BART.
EPA's Assessment
EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's determination that
further primary PM control beyond the controls already implemented by
Connecticut's BART-eligible units is not warranted at this time as such
measures are not cost-effective and the visibility contribution from
Connecticut's BART-eligible units with respect to PM is insignificant.
8. BART Enforceability
EPA is proposing to approve RCSA Section 22a-174-19a and revisions
to RCSA Section 22a-174-22, including new subdivision 22a-174-22(e)(3),
with this rulemaking. In addition, pursuant to CT DEEP's request for
parallel processing, EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's
proposed RCSA Section 22a-174-22d. After the State submits the adopted
State Regulation RCSA 22a-174-22d (including a response to all public
comments raised during the State's public participation process), EPA
will prepare a final rulemaking notice. If the State's formal SIP
submittal contains changes which occur after EPA's notice of proposed
rulemaking, such changes must be described in EPA's final rulemaking
action. If the State's changes are significant, then EPA must decide
whether it is appropriate to re-propose our action with regard to the
State's SIP submittal.

C. Long-Term Strategy

As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, the
nearby Class I area States. Connecticut's LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from federal,
State, and local controls that take effect in the State from the
baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Connecticut participated
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process and supported a
regional approach towards deciding which control measures to pursue for
regional haze, which was based on technical analyses documented in the
following reports: (a) The Contribution Report; (b) Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas
(available at www.marama.org/visibility/RPG/FinalReport/RPGFinalReport_070907.pdf); (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible
Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART Determinations
(available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf);
and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible
Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and
Paper, and Pulp Facilities (available at www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf).
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The State-wide emissions inventories used by MANE-VU in its
regional haze technical analyses were developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU
with assistance from Connecticut. The 2018 emissions inventory was
developed by projecting 2002 emissions forward based on assumptions
regarding emissions growth due to projected increases in economic
activity and emissions reductions expected from federal and State
regulations. MANE-VU's emissions inventories included estimates of
NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10),
PM2.5, and SO2, VOC, and NH3. The BART
guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC
and NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As
discussed further in Section III.C.3 below, MANE-VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. It was also determined that the
total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small.
MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) stationary area
sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region.
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Non-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types,
emissions are summed on the county level.
There are many federal and State control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Connecticut anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs in the MANE-VU region were projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 at all of the MANE-VU Class I areas. To
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control
programs, BART, and reasonable progress goals, MANE-VU developed 2018
emissions projections called ``Best and Final.'' The emissions
inventory provided by the State of Connecticut for the Best and Final
2018 projections is based on expected control requirements.
Connecticut relied on emission reductions from the following
ongoing and expected air pollution control programs as part of the
State's long term strategy. For electrical generating units (EGUs),
Connecticut relied on RCSA sections 22a-174-19a which limits
SO2 emissions from all EGUs, proposed RCSA section 22a-174-
22d which limits ozone season NOX for all EGUs, RCSA section
22a-174-22 which limits the non-ozone season NOX emissions
for all EGUs, and Connecticut General

[[Page 17381]]

Statues, section 22a-199 which limits mercury emissions for all coal-
fired EGUs. Connecticut also relied on the following controls on non-
EGU point sources in estimating 2018 emissions inventories:
NOX SIP Call Phases I and II; NOX Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) in 1-hour Ozone SIP; NOX
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 2001 Model Rule for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; VOC 2-year, 4-year, 7-year
and 10-year Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards;
Combustion Turbine and Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE)
MACT; and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT (also known as the
Industrial Boiler MACT).
On July 30, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated and remanded the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule. NRDC v.
EPA, 489F.3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007). This MACT was vacated since it was
directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) definition rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). On May 18, 2011, EPA stayed the effective date of the
Industrial Boiler MACT pending review by the DC Circuit or the
completion of EPA's reconsideration of the rule. See 76 FR 28662.
On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a proposed reconsideration of the
MACT standards for existing and new boilers at major (76 FR 80598) and
area (76 FR 80532) source facilities, and for Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators (76 FR 80452). On January 9, 2012, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia vacated EPA's stay of the
effectiveness date of the Industrial Boiler MACT, reinstating the
original effective date and therefore requiring compliance with the
current rule in 2014. Sierra Club v. Jackson, Civ. No. 11-1278, slip
op. (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
Even though Connecticut's modeling is based on the old Industrial
Boiler MACT limits, Connecticut's modeling conclusions are unlikely to
be affected because the expected reductions in SO2 and PM
resulting from the vacated MACT rule are a relatively small component
of the Connecticut inventory and the expected emission reductions from
the final MACT rule are comparable to those modeled. In addition, the
new MACT rule requires compliance by 2014 and therefore the expected
emission reductions will be achieved prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. Thus, EPA does not expect that
differences between the old and revised Industrial Boiler MACT emission
limits would affect the adequacy of the existing Connecticut regional
haze SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected
emissions reductions from the old Industrial Boiler MACT and the
Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in March 2011, we expect Connecticut
to do so in its 5-year progress report.
Controls on area sources expected by 2018 include: the OTC VOC
rules for consumer products (RCSA 22a-174-40); VOC control measures for
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (RCSA 22a-174-41) and
solvent cleaning (RCSA 22a-174-20(l)); VOC control measures for
adhesive and sealants (RCSA 22a-174-44); VOC control measures for
emulsified and cutback asphalt paving (RCSA 22a-174-20(k)); and VOC
control measures for portable fuel containers (contained in EPA's
Mobile Source Air Toxics rule).
Controls on mobile sources expected by 2018 include: On-board
diagnostics testing for 1979 and new vehicles (RCSA 22a-174-27);
Federal On-Board Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Rule; Federal Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Requirements;
Federal Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emission Standards for Trucks and
Buses; and Federal Emission Standards for Large Industrial Spark-
Ignition Engines and Recreation Vehicles.
Controls on non-road sources expected by 2018 include the following
federal regulations: Control of Air Pollution: Determination of
Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New Nonroad
Compression Ignition Engines at or above 37 kilowatts (59 FR 31306,
June 17, 1994); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad
Diesel Engines (63 FR 56967, Oct. 23, 1998); Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (67 FR
68241, Nov. 8, 2002); and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004).
Tables 11 and 12 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Connecticut. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emissions growth as well as emission reductions due
to ongoing emission control strategies and reasonable progress goals.

Table 11--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Connecticut
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point............................................... 303 6,150 461 627 .............. 13,550
Non-EGU Point........................................... 4,604 6,773 822 990 .............. 2,438
Area.................................................... 87,302 12,689 14,247 48,281 5,318 12,418
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 31,755 68,816 1,042 1,580 3,294 1,667
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 33,880 25,460 1,794 1,952 16.6 2,087
Biogenics............................................... 64,017 560 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 221,861 120,448 18,366 53,430 8,629 32,160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 12--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Connecticut
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point............................................... 145 3,418 927 959 341 6,697
Non-EGU Point........................................... 4,227 7,501 937 1,104 .............. 2,068
Area.................................................... 68,395 11,795 9,635 20,511 5,061 534
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 10,768 14,787 500 567 3,872 366
Non-Road Mobile......................................... 20,694 16,233 1,135 1,236 20 815

[[Page 17382]]

Biogenics............................................... 64,017 560 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 168,246 54,294 13,134 24,377 9,294 10,480
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), is a Eulerian grid model that was primarily used
to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the Eastern US via
the species-tagging scheme.
Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual States' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and States adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States'
modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 2007 (EPA-
454/B-07-002, available at www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf), and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005
and updated November 2005 (EPA-454/R-05-001, available at www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's
Modeling Guidance'').
MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Connecticut
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glide path and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA is proposing to find the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the
LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of
progress acceptable because the modeling system was chosen and used
according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model
performance procedures and results, and that CMAQ, REMSAD, and CALPUFF
are appropriate tools for the regional haze assessments for the
Connecticut LTS and regional haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles

[[Page 17383]]

commonly account for more than 50 percent of particle-related light
extinction at northeastern Class I areas on the clearest days and for
as much as, or more than, 80 percent on the haziest days. For example,
at the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area (the MANE-VU
Class I area with the greatest visibility impairment), on the 20
percent worst visibility days in 2000--2004, sulfate accounted for 66
percent of the particle extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC)
consistently accounts for the next largest fraction of light
extinction. Organic carbon accounted for 13 percent of light extinction
on the 20 percent worst visibility days for Brigantine, followed by
nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of light extinction. On the best
visibility days, sulfate accounts for 50 percent of the particle
related visibility extinction. Organic carbon accounts for the next
largest contribution of 40 percent of the visibility impairment on the
clearest days. Nitrate, elemental carbon, and fine soil typically
contribute less than 10 percent of the visibility impairment mass on
the clearest days.
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goal
Since the State of Connecticut does not have a Class I area, it is
not required to establish RPGs. However, as a MANE-VU member State,
Connecticut adopted the ``Statement of MANE-VU Concerning a Request for
a Course of Action by States Within MANE-VU Toward Assuring Reasonable
Progress'' on June 7, 2007. This document included four emission
management strategies that will provide for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility at the MANE-VU Class I areas. These
emission management strategies are collectively known as the MANE-VU
``Ask,'' and include: (a) Timely implementation of BART requirements;
(b) a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from each of the
EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks;\13\
(c) adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (d) continued
evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Connecticut will be controlling its BART sources with Connecticut's
alternative to BART program. This program is discussed in detail in
Section III.B. Connecticut does not have any EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU as a top contributor to visibility impairment in any of the
MANE-VU Class I areas.
The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes: Phase I
reduction of distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per
million (ppm)) by no later than 2014; Phase II reductions of 4
residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
6 residual oil to 0.5% sulfur by weight by no later than 2018;
and further reduction of the sulfur content of distillate oil to 15 ppm
by 2018.
The expected reduction in SO2 emissions by 2018 from the
MANE-VU ``Ask'' will yield corresponding reductions in sulfate aerosol,
the main culprit in fine-particle pollution and regional haze. For
Connecticut, the MANE-VU analysis demonstrates that the reduction of
the sulfur content in fuel oil will lead to an average reduction of
0.13--0.18 ug/m\3\ in the 24 hour PM2.5 concentration within
the State, improving health and local visibility. In addition, the use
of low sulfur fuels will result in cost savings to owners/operators of
residential furnaces and boilers due to reduced maintenance costs and
extended life of the units.
EPA is today proposing approval of the Connecticut Regional Haze
SIP for the first implementation period without Connecticut's
implementation of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy.\14\ As described in
Section III.A of this notice, Connecticut neither causes nor
contributes to visibility impairment in the closest Class I areas
located in New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. For each of
these Class I areas, the contribution of Connecticut's emissions to
total sulfate is less than the 2% threshold set by the MANE-VU States
to determine whether any State contributed to visibility impairment.
While the SO2 reductions being achieved by Connecticut are
somewhat less than the statewide reductions that were projected to
result from adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy by 2012, this
shortfall is not anticipated to interfere with the ability of other
States to meet their respective reasonable progress goals. All
emissions from Connecticut contribute no more than 0.76% of total
sulfate at any Class I area. In its November 18, 2009 SIP submittal,
Connecticut states that it will review the details of its long term
strategy in five years, coincident with Connecticut's first regional
haze SIP progress report. We encourage adoption of a low-sulfur fuel
oil strategy by Connecticut and the surrounding States as such a
strategy will have local air quality and some, limited visibility
benefits. However, we do not believe it is a necessary component of an
approvable Regional Haze SIP for Connecticut for the first
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ On January 15, 2009, EPA made a finding that, among other
States, Connecticut had failed to submit a Regional Haze SIP by the
required deadline. 74 FR 2392. We have proposed a consent decree to
resolve a deadline suit regarding this finding as well as the
finding of failure for 36 other States, the District of Columbia,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. National Parks Conservation Association
v. Jackson, Civ. No. 1:11-cv-1548 (D.D.C. 2011). Because we do not
believe a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy is necessary for
Connecticut's LTS during this first implementation period, EPA is
moving forward with this proposed approval of the State's SIP
submittal in order to satisfy our obligations under the Clean Air
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite our conclusion that a low sulfur fuel oil strategy is not a
necessary component of its Regional Haze SIP for this first
implementation period, Connecticut has adopted a partial low sulfur
fuel oil strategy that is contingent on its neighboring states adopting
similar policies. Section 16a-21a of the Connecticut General Statutes
(CGS) limits sulfur content of heating distillate oil and off road
diesel to 500 ppm as of the date on which the last of the States of New
York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island limit the sulfur content of such
fuels. Currently, all three States have yet to adopt these measures.
Connecticut has submitted CGS Section16a-21a for approval into its
SIP.\15\ Actual emission reductions from CGS Section 16a-21a are not
certain to occur because the neighboring States may never adopt their
counterparts. Therefore, we are not relying upon any potential
emissions reductions from CGS Section 16a-21a for the purposes of our
approval of this revision to Connecticut's SIP. See Safe Air for
Everyone v. EPA, 475 F.3d 1096, 1108 (9th Cir. 2007). However, the
content of a State's implementation plan

[[Page 17384]]

is generally left to the discretion of the State so long as it meets
the requirements of the Clean Air Act. See Union Electric v. EPA, 427
U.S. 246 (1976). Therefore, because CGS Section 16a-21a does not weaken
or impede implementation of the rest of the SIP, we are also proposing
to approve CGS Section 16a-21a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Connecticut submitted Sec. 16a-21a as part of the November
18, 2009 Regional Haze SIP submittal. See Attachment GG. Sec. 16a-
21a was subsequently amended, effective July 1, 2011, to include
additional sulfur in fuel content reductions for number two home
heating oil and number two off road diesel to 15 ppm at such time
that New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island adopt substantially
similar provisions. EPA is not proposing action on this amendment in
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional Considerations for the LTS
In 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), States are required to consider the
following factors in developing the long term strategy:
a. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment;
b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
c. Emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
d. Source retirement and replacement schedules;
e. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes;
f. Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures;
and
g. The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long term strategy.
a. Emission Reductions Including RAVI
Since Connecticut does not contain any Class I areas, the State is
not required to address RAVI, nor has any Connecticut source been
identified as subject to RAVI. A list of Connecticut's ongoing air
pollution control programs is included in Section III.B.1.
b. Construction Activities
The Regional Haze Rule requires Connecticut to consider measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities on regional haze. MANE-
VU's consideration of control measures for construction activities is
documented in Technical Support Document on Measures to Mitigate the
Visibility Impacts of Construction Activities in the MANE-VU Region,
Draft, October 20, 2006.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The construction industry is already subject to requirements for
controlling pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. For
example, federal regulations require the reduction of SO2
emissions from construction vehicles. At the State level, Connecticut's
RCSA 22a-174-18, ``Control of particulate matter and visible
emissions,'' addresses the control of airborne particulate matter and
fugitive particulate matter in subsections (c) and (d). These
regulations, which include dust control measures and visible emissions
from diesel powered mobile sources, apply to road building and
construction activities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

MANE-VU's Contribution Report found that, from a regional haze
perspective, crustal material generally does not play a major role. On
the 20 percent best-visibility days during the 2000-2004 baseline
period, crustal material accounted for 6 to 11 percent of the particle-
related light extinction at the MANE-VU Class I Areas. On the 20
percent worst-visibility days, however, the contribution was reduced to
2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, the crustal fraction is largely made up of
pollutants of natural origin (e.g., soil or sea salt) that are not
targeted under the Regional Haze Rule. Nevertheless, the crustal
fraction at any given location can be heavily influenced by the
proximity of construction activities; and construction activities
occurring in the immediate vicinity of MANE-VU Class I area could have
a noticeable effect on visibility.
For this regional haze SIP, Connecticut concluded that its current
regulations are currently sufficient to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities. Any future deliberations on potential control
measures for construction activities and the possible implementation
will be documented in the first regional haze SIP progress report in
2014. EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has adequately addressed
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.
c. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance To Achieve the RPG
In addition to the existing CAA control requirements discussed in
Section III.C.1, Connecticut has legislation to implement a low sulfur
fuel oil strategy consistent with the MANE-VU ``Ask'' at such time that
New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island adopt a comparable sulfur in
fuel oil limit. As described in Section III.C.4 above, we do not
believe inclusion of the low sulfur oil strategy is a necessary
component of an approvable Regional Haze SIP for Connecticut.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine that Connecticut has
satisfactorily considered emission limitations and schedules as part of
the LTS.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedule
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) of the Regional Haze Rule,
Connecticut is required to consider source retirement and replacement
schedules in developing the long term strategy. Source retirement and
replacement were considered in developing the 2018 emissions. The
sources in Connecticut that were shut down after the 2002 base year and
therefore were not included in the 2018 inventory are: Devon Unit 7
(109 MW EGU) and Devon Unit 8 (109 MW EGU). The modeling used to
develop the 2018 emission inventories, EPA's Integrated Planning Model
(IPM), projected that several large EGUs in Connecticut, including five
of the six BART-eligible EGUs would retire by 2018 and be replaced by
newer units to meet future electric growth. However, Connecticut did
not directly rely on the closures of any particular plant in
establishing the 2018 inventory upon which the reasonable progress
goals were set. EPA is proposing to determine that Connecticut has
satisfactorily considered source retirement and replacement schedules
as part of the LTS.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
The Regional Haze Rule requires States to consider smoke management
techniques related to agricultural and forestry management in
developing the long-term strategy. MANE-VU's analysis of smoke
management in the context of regional haze is documented in Technical
Support Document on Agricultural and Smoke Management in the MANE-VU
Region, September 1, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the ``Smoke
TSD'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Connecticut currently regulates outdoor wood burning through a
statute at CGS 22a-174(f) and a regulation at RCSA 22a-174-17. The open
burning requirements limit the locations and times when open burning
can take place. Although CT DEEP does not have a formal smoke
management program (SMP), as a smoke management policy, CT DEEP's
Division of Forestry can only initiate prescribed burns when such
activity has less significant impacts on air quality.\19\ SMPs are
required only when smoke impacts from fires managed for resources
benefits contribute significantly to regional haze.

[[Page 17385]]

The emissions inventory presented in the Smoke TSD indicates that
agricultural, managed, prescribed, and open burning emissions are very
minor; the inventory estimates that, in Connecticut, those emissions
from those source categories totaled 30.8 tons of PM10 and
PM2.5 in 2002, which constitute 0.06% and 0.17% of the total
inventory for these pollutants, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Source apportionment results show that wood smoke is a moderate
contributor to visibility impairment at some Class I areas in the MANE-
VU region; however, smoke is not a large contributor to haze in MANE-VU
Class I areas on either the 20% best or 20% worst visibility days.
Moreover, most of wood smoke is attributable to residential wood
combustion. Therefore, it is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in any of the
Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. On rare occasions, smoke from
major fires degrades air quality and visibility in the MANE-VU area.
However, these fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not
subject to SMPs. EPA proposes to approve Connecticut's decision that an
Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Plan to address visibility
impairment is not required at this time.
f. Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures
Connecticut has asked, and we are proposing to process approval of
RCSA Section 22a-174-22d in parallel with the approval of Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP. Connecticut indicated that they plan to have a final
adopted regulation by June 2012, prior to the finalization of this
action. EPA will review the final regulation and determine whether it
differs significantly from the proposed regulation. At the same time we
take final action on Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP, we will then take
final action on RCSA 22a-174-22d, at which point it will be federally
enforceable. Therefore, once today's action is finalized, all emission
limitations included as part of Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP will be
federally enforceable. EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has
adequately addressed the enforceability of emission limitations and
control measures.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
MANE-VU used the best and final emission inventory to model
progress expected toward the goal of natural visibility conditions for
the first regional haze planning period. All of the MANE-VU Class I
areas are expected to achieve greater progress toward the natural
visibility goal than the uniform rate of progress, or the progress
expected by extrapolating a trend line from current visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Projected visibility improvements for each MANE-VU Class I
area can be found in the NESCAUM document dated May 13, 2008, ``2018
Visibility Projections'' (www.nescaum.org/documents/2018-visibility-projections-final-05-13-08.pdf/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has
adequately addressed the LTS regional haze requirements.

D. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional phase planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land
Managers were also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls
and meeting, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment
on each of the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
On February 4, 2009, Connecticut submitted a draft Regional Haze
SIP to the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the
FLMs were addressed and incorporated in Connecticut's SIP revision.
Most of the comments were requests for additional detail as to various
aspects of the SIP. These comments and Connecticut's response to
comments can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
On July 17, 2009, Connecticut proposed its Regional Haze SIP for
public hearing. Comments were received from U.S. EPA, the National Park
Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a private citizen.\21\
To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures with
the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Connecticut commits in its SIP to
ongoing consultation with the FLMs on emission strategies, major new
source permits, assessments or rulemaking concerning sources identified
as probable contributors to visibility impairment, any changes to the
monitoring strategy, work on the periodic revisions to the SIP, and
ongoing communications regarding visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

EPA is proposing to find that Connecticut has addressed the
requirements for consultation with the Federal Land Managers.

E. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Connecticut
has committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress
report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the MANE-VU
Class I areas, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New
Jersey.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), CT DEEP is required to submit
periodic revisions to its Regional Haze SIP by July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. CT DEEP acknowledges and agrees to comply with
this schedule.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), CT DEEP will also make periodic
updates to the Connecticut emissions inventory. CT DEEP proposes to
complete these updates to coincide with the progress reports. Actual
emissions will be compared to projected modeled emissions in the
progress reports.
Lastly, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), CT DEEP will submit a
determination of adequacy of its regional haze SIP revision whenever a
progress report is submitted. Connecticut's regional haze SIP states
that, depending on the findings of its five-year review, Connecticut
will take one or more of the following actions at that time, whichever
actions are appropriate or necessary:
If Connecticut determines that the existing State
Implementation Plan requires no further substantive revision in order
to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions
reductions, CT DEEP will provide to the EPA Administrator a negative
declaration that further revision of the existing plan is not needed.
If CT DEEP determines that its implementation plan is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in one or more other State(s)

[[Page 17386]]

which participated in the regional planning process, Connecticut will
provide notification to the EPA Administrator and to those other
State(s). Connecticut will also collaborate with the other State(s)
through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing
additional strategies to address any such deficiencies in Connecticut's
plan.
If Connecticut determines that its implementation plan is
or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources in another country, Connecticut will provide
notification, along with available information, to the EPA
Administrator.
If Connecticut determines that the implementation plan is
or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress as a result of
emissions from sources within the State, Connecticut will revise its
implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year
from this determination.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's November 18, 2009 SIP
revision as meeting the applicable requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule found in 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, EPA is proposing approval of
Connecticut's RCSA Section 22a-174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide
emissions from power plants and other large stationary sources of air
pollution'' and revisions to RCSA Section 22a-174-22, ``Control of
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions,'' including subdivision 22a-174-22(e)(3),
and CGS 16a-21a, ``Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-road
diesel fuel. Suspension of requirements for emergency.'' Furthermore,
pursuant to CT DEEP's request under parallel processing, EPA is
proposing approval of Connecticut's proposed RCSA Section 22a-174-22d,
``Post-2011 Connecticut Ozone Season NOX Budget Program.''
Under this procedure, EPA prepared this action before the State's final
adoption of this regulation. Connecticut has already held a public
hearing on the proposed regulation and received public comment.
Connecticut may revise the regulation in response to comments. After
Connecticut submits its final adopted regulation, EPA will review this
regulation to determine whether it is significantly different from the
proposed regulation. EPA will determine whether it is appropriate to
approve the final rule with a description of any changes since the
proposal, re-propose action based on the final adopted regulations, or
take other actions as appropriate.
RCSA 22a-174-22d is a replacement for RCSA 22a-174-22c, ``The Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone
Season Trading Program,'' which is federally approved by EPA and
currently being implemented in Connecticut.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: March 15, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-7216 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P