[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39322-39330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16071]
[[Page 39322]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919 ; A-1-FRL-9810-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing
regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018 that
was submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(now known as Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection or CT DEEP) on November 18, 2009, and March 12, 2012. These
submittals address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the regional haze
program). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 11, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments on the March 26, 2012 Proposed Rulemaking
III. Response to Comments on the January 11, 2013 Supplemental
Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On March 26, 2012, (77 FR 17367), EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the State of Connecticut in which we proposed
to approve a Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal as
meeting the applicable requirements of the Regional Haze Rule found at
40 CFR 51.308 for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. The
SIP had been submitted by CT DEEP on November 18, 2009, with additional
submittals on February 24, 2012 and March 12, 2012.
In the SIP addressing regional haze submitted on November 18, 2009
(``Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final, November 2009'') (CT
RH SIP),\1\ Connecticut chose to demonstrate that programs already
developed by the State would provide greater reasonable progress in
visibility improvement than source-by-source Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART). The State's demonstration was made in accordance
with specific criteria for determining if an alternative measure
achieves greater reasonable progress than BART as set out in the
Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3). Connecticut's
Alternative to BART demonstration relied on three components: (1)
Connecticut's Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section
22a-174-19a (``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants
and other large stationary sources of air pollution'') (Section 19a);
(2) revisions to RCSA Section 22a-174-22 (``Control of nitrogen oxides
emissions'') (Section 22), including subparagraph 22a-174-22(e)(3); and
(3) RCSA Section 22a-174-22c (``The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone Season Trading Program'')
(Section 22c). Section 22c implemented the NOX trading
program of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. At the time that Connecticut
submitted its initial submission, reliance on the annual CAIR program
in lieu of BART for electrical generating units (EGUs) had been
demonstrated by EPA to achieve greater reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal than BART and the regional haze regulations
have been revised to give the States the option of relying on CAIR to
meet BART requirements. (70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005)). In its Regional
Haze SIP, however, Connecticut did not rely on this demonstration by
EPA but rather on its own State-specific demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Docket No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0919-0006 and associated
attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in greater detail in our March 26, 2012 proposal
notice and later in this notice, CAIR subsequently was found to be
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). To replace CAIR, EPA subsequently
adopted the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which did not
impose any ozone season NOX emission limits for EGUs in
Connecticut. To address this deficiency in their alternative to BART,
CT DEEP proposed to adopt RCSA 22a-174-22d (Section 22d) as a
replacement for Section 22c. Section 22d, once adopted, would have
maintained the ozone season NOX emission reductions that
were required under the CAIR program.
On February 24, 2012, CT DEEP submitted a request for parallel
processing of Section 22d. Under the parallel processing procedure, EPA
proposed to take action on Section 22d before the State's final
adoption of the regulation. At that time, the EPA was under a consent
decree to take final action on the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP by
July 13, 2012. Connecticut indicated that they planned to have a final
adopted regulation by June 2012, prior to the deadline for EPA's final
action. Based on the substance and the intended timeline for adoption
of the proposed regulation, EPA proposed approval of Connecticut's
proposed
[[Page 39323]]
regulation Section 22d establishing an intrastate NOX
trading program as a CAIR replacement rule as one component of the
State's Alternative to BART demonstration. Following a decision by the
D.C. Circuit Court vacating the CSAPR trading programs that EPA had
developed to replace CAIR, and ordering EPA to continue to implement
CAIR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012), Connecticut concluded that it was unable to adopt Section 22d
and withdrew its request for parallel processing of the state
regulation.
On January 24, 2013 (78 FR 5158), EPA published a supplemental
notice proposing approval of the Connecticut Alternative to BART
demonstration based, in part, on Connecticut's CAIR rule (Section 22c),
as originally submitted by CT DEEP on November 18, 2009. EPA proposed
to approve Connecticut's reliance on Section 22c as one component
(along with Sections 19a and 22) of the State's Alternative to BART
demonstration and solicited comment on the State's reliance on this
rule in its Regional Haze SIP.
In addition, as part of the March 26, 2012 rulemaking, EPA proposed
the approval of Connecticut General Statute (CGS) 16a-21a, ``Sulfur
content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of
requirements for emergency.''
II. Response to Comments on the March 26, 2012 Proposed Rulemaking
EPA received comments on the March 26, 2012 proposed approval of
the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP from the U.S. Forest Service and the
Sierra Club. As Connecticut has not finalized Section 22d, EPA is not
responding to comments relevant only to Section 22d. The following
discussion summarizes and responds to relevant comments submitted by
the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club raised concerns regarding the legality
of BART alternatives generally and the means by which greater
reasonable progress must be demonstrated before a BART alternative can
be approved. The commenter also addressed two aspects of Connecticut's
BART alternative, the intrastate trading programs for SO2
and non-ozone-season NOX, upon which the current Connecticut
Regional Haze SIP still relies.
Comment 1: The Sierra Club commented that section 169A of the CAA
does not allow States to adopt alternative programs that operate in
lieu of source-specific BART. The Sierra Club acknowledged that the
D.C. Circuit's decisions in Center for Energy & Economic Development v.
EPA, 298 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``CEED'') and Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (``UARG'')
expressly upheld EPA's allowance of such alternatives, but argued that
these cases cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the Act.
Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter that BART alternatives
are impermissible under the CAA. As the commenter notes, EPA's
interpretation that the CAA allows States to devise alternative
programs in lieu of source-specific BART was upheld in both the CEED
and UARG decisions. Because the conclusions in these cases have not
been upset or overturned by any subsequent decision of the D.C.
Circuit, as explained in more detail in our response to a similar
comment on EPA's January 24, 2013 supplemental proposed rulemaking, we
disagree with the commenter's contention that CEED and UARG were
decided erroneously or no longer have force.
Comment 2: The Sierra Club commented that EPA's regulations require
a State seeking to rely on a BART alternative to include source-
specific BART analyses in its SIP for each subject-to-BART source in
the State and each source that is included in its BART alternative.
Accordingly, because Connecticut did not include any source-specific
BART analyses in its Regional Haze SIP, the Sierra Club contends that
Connecticut's BART alternative is not approvable.
Response 2: EPA disagrees. The Regional Haze Rule requires States
opting to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART to make a
demonstration that the alternative will result in greater reasonable
progress than would have resulted under source-specific BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i). To make such a demonstration, the State must compare
the emission reductions that will likely be achieved by the BART
alternative against a BART benchmark. The BART benchmark may be derived
by conducting a five-factor BART analysis ``for each source subject to
BART and covered by the alternative program.'' 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) (emphasis added). Contrary to the commenter's
suggestion, however, this language does not require a State to conduct
a BART analysis for each source that is subject to BART within the
State and for each source that is included in the BART alternative.
Such a disjunctive reading would lead to a situation in which the BART
benchmark would include emissions reductions from sources not subject
to the BART requirements, which was clearly not EPA's intent. See,
e.g.,71 FR 60612, 60619 (October 13, 2006). Rather, 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) requires the State to conduct BART analyses only for
those sources that are both subject to BART and included in the BART
alternative. Under this natural (conjunctive) reading of the provision,
the BART benchmark includes only those sources that would have required
BART controls but for the creation of the alternative program.
We also note that Connecticut was not required to undertake any
source-specific BART determinations in establishing a BART benchmark.
As we noted in the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, ``[t]he States .
. . have flexibility in developing a method to determine the emission
reductions that could be achieved through the application of BART.'' 64
FR 35714, 35742. Thus, in situations where the BART alternative ``has
been designed primarily to meet a Federal or State requirement other
than BART, a State can use a more simplified approach to demonstrating
that the alternative program will make greater reasonable progress than
BART.'' 71 FR 60612, 60615; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) (if a
State's ``alternative measure has been designed to meet a requirement
other than BART,'' then a State need not conduct source-by-source BART
analyses to establish the BART benchmark). One such simplified approach
specifically recommended by EPA in past rulemakings is for States to
establish a BART benchmark based on the presumptive emission limits for
EGUs contained in the BART Guidelines. See 71 FR 60612, 60619. Here,
Connecticut's BART alternative consists of Section 19a (control of
SO2 emissions from power plants and other large stationary
sources), Section 22 (control of NOX emissions from similar
sources, including intrastate emission trading applicable outside the
ozone season), and Section 22c (CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Program), all three of which were developed to satisfy other air
quality requirements. Therefore, consistent with EPA's regulations,
Connecticut was not required to perform a five-factor BART analysis for
any of its sources when setting its BART benchmark, but could opt
instead for a simplified approach, such as one that relied upon
presumptive emission limits.
Comment 3: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut impermissibly
compared the SO2 reductions that would be achieved by its
BART alternative to the reductions associated with presumptive BART
limits developed by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The Sierra Club argued that the MANE-
[[Page 39324]]
VU presumptive limits underestimated the reductions that sources would
achieve if they were subject to limits derived from a thorough five-
factor analysis. Therefore, the Sierra Club concluded that Connecticut
did not conclusively show that its BART alternative would provide
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART.
Response 3: As explained above, EPA has specifically endorsed the
use of presumptive limits in setting a BART benchmark in situations
such as this one. In referring to the presumptive limits for EGUs
contained in the BART Guidelines, EPA previously stated that ``the
presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART,
particularly because in developing a BART benchmark they would be
applied across the board to a wide variety of units with varying
impacts on visibility, at power plants of varying size and distance
from Class I areas.'' 71 FR 60612, 60619. In other words, while in some
instances conducting a case-by-case BART analysis based on the five
factors could result in limits more stringent than the presumptive
limits, in others instances a five-factor analysis could result in
limits less stringent than the presumptive limits (including no
additional controls at all). Because these differences are likely to
balance out, it is reasonable for a State that is entitled to follow a
simplified approach, such as Connecticut, to use presumptive limits in
setting its BART benchmark. Here, Connecticut chose to use MANE-VU's
presumptive limits, which are more stringent than those contained in
the BART Guidelines. Consequently, EPA is satisfied that Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP adequately demonstrated that the State's BART
alternative will provide for greater reasonable progress than source-
specific BART.
Comment 4: The Sierra Club commented that, even when using the
MANE-VU presumptive limits as the point of comparison, Connecticut
failed to demonstrate that its BART alternative would result in greater
reasonable progress than source-specific BART. For both SO2
and NOX, the Sierra Club argued that Connecticut
impermissibly compared the emission reductions from all 59 sources
covered by its BART alternative against the reductions that would be
achieved by the much smaller set of seven subject-to-BART sources. In
the case of NOX, the Sierra Club further contended that,
even under the State's flawed comparison, the evidence still showed
that the reductions associated with requiring source-specific BART at
the seven subject-to-BART sources would exceed the reductions at all 59
sources covered by the BART alternative. The Sierra Club also argued
that three additional factors cited by Connecticut in its weight-of-
evidence analysis--mandatory retirement of emission reduction credits,
the addition of Exeter Energy to the State's CAIR budget, and the
State's CAIR allowance allocation methodology--were insufficient to
prove that the State's BART alternative would achieve greater
reasonable progress. Finally, the Sierra Club reiterated that it would
not be onerous for Connecticut to determine the appropriate level of
BART control for each subject-to-BART source in setting its BART
benchmark.
Response 4: EPA again disagrees with the commenter's strained
reading of the Regional Haze Rule. As we stated in our response to
comment 2, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) does not require States to
undertake the task of conducting BART analyses for sources that could
never be subject to BART controls in the first place. Rather, the BART
benchmark should consist only of the emissions from those sources that
are both subject to BART and included in the alternative program. This
ensures that the benchmark does not include reductions from any
subject-to-BART sources in the State that will not participate in the
alternative program and therefore will still be required to install
BART. Thus, Connecticut was correct to include in its BART benchmark
only the emissions from the seven sources that were both subject to
BART and included within the scope of its BART alternative. Moreover,
States are permitted to include sources in an alternative program that
are not otherwise BART-eligible in order to ensure that the program
results in enough emission reductions to result in greater reasonable
progress than source-specific BART. Consequently, EPA disagrees with
the notion that Connecticut impermissibly conducted an ``apples-to-
oranges'' comparison by including more sources in its BART alternative
than would have been subject to control under source-specific BART.
EPA also disagrees with the Sierra Club's arguments regarding the
weight-of-evidence analysis. It is important to note that EPA's weight-
of-evidence analysis for NOX draws upon, but is not
identical to, Connecticut's analysis. Compare 77 FR at 17,377 with id.
at 17,378-79.
The uncertainty in Connecticut's NOX analysis derives
from the fact that, for the BART benchmark, Connecticut estimated a
range of NOX emissions reductions between 3,120 tpy and
17,853 tpy. See 77 FR at 17,378 (Table 7); CT RH SIP at 9-34 (Table 9-
16). The lower end of this range (3,120 tpy) resulted from imposition
of the least stringent emission limits in the MANE-VU recommended range
at every single BART-eligible source. Conversely, the upper end of the
range (17,853 tpy) resulted from imposition of the most stringent
emission limits in the MANE-VU recommended range at every single BART-
eligible source.
EPA's weight-of- evidence approach acknowledges that it is not
realistic to expect that source-specific BART determinations would
result in imposition of the most stringent controls recommended by
MANE-VU at each one of Connecticut's BART-eligible sources. See 77 FR
at 17,378-79 for detailed discussion. Given the unlikelihood of this
scenario, EPA considers it reasonable to conclude that the appropriate
BART benchmark is considerably less than 17,853 tpy of reductions, and,
in fact, less than 11,355 tpy of reductions (i.e., the amount
attributable to Connecticut's BART alternative).
Furthermore, Connecticut's BART alternative can reasonably be
expected to result in additional emissions reductions (if difficult to
precisely quantify) that will occur as a consequence of the required
reductions. First, the firm cap during ozone season impedes emissions
growth during non-ozone season, while the restriction to intrastate
trading during non-ozone season impedes emissions growth during ozone
season. See id. at 17,379 and further discussion in Response 10.
Second, Connecticut's CAIR allowance methodology (which allocates
allowances based on electricity output, rather than heat input) can
also reasonably be expected to result in actual reductions, not just a
change in distribution. In a region like New England with a
restructured electricity market, the least efficient generators are
dispatched the least often, and under Connecticut's allocation scheme,
units that run less often receive fewer CAIR allowances. Thus, the
least efficient generators tend to generate less electricity in the
first place and therefore receive fewer CAIR allowances, yet require
more CAIR allowances for a given quantity of electric output. This
tends to result in the least efficient sources operating less often,
investing in controls, or repowering, and/or the more efficient sources
over-controlling for the purpose of generating marketable allowances.
While Connecticut has not modeled either of these effects
quantitatively, they are likely to account for some additional
reductions. Moreover, as
[[Page 39325]]
further discussed in Response 10, actual NOX emissions are
well below even the low end of the BART benchmark.
Comment 5: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut has not
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX emission
reductions relied upon in its BART alternative are surplus as required
by the Regional Haze Rule. The Sierra Club contended that only the
portion of the emission reductions that are surplus to what would
otherwise be required to comply with the Clean Air Act may be credited
to Connecticut's BART alternative.
Response 5: EPA disagrees that Connecticut has failed to show that
the reductions it relied upon are surplus. To show that a BART
alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress, the State must
include in its SIP a ``demonstration that the emission reductions
resulting from the [BART alternative] will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)
(emphasis added). In promulgating the Regional Haze Rule in 1999, we
explained that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in this context means
``the date of the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies,'' 64
FR 35714, 35742, which is ``defined as 2002 for regional haze
purposes,'' 70 FR 39104, 39143. Any measure adopted after 2002 is
accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). Therefore, we
believe that Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP adequately demonstrates
that the reductions from the State's BART alternative, which consists
entirely of regulations enacted after 2002, are properly considered
surplus emission reductions for this purpose.
Comment 6: The Sierra Club commented that Connecticut must
carefully scrutinize wet- and dry-scrubber technology and selective and
non-selective catalytic reduction for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3.
The Sierra Club provided cost data and stated that the cost-
effectiveness of such controls is reasonable.
Response 6: EPA disagrees that Connecticut was required to conduct
a source-specific BART determination for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit
3, regardless of the cost-effectiveness of additional controls. As
discussed above in the response to comment 3, Connecticut was entitled
to rely upon the presumptive BART limits established by MANE-VU in
setting its BART benchmark. Therefore, no five-factor analysis,
including an exploration of the costs of specific control technologies,
was required for Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 or any other BART-
eligible unit.
III. Response to Comments on the January 11, 2013 Supplemental Proposed
Rulemaking
In regard to the January 11, 2013 supplemental proposed rulemaking,
EPA received comments from the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) and
a joint letter from Sierra Club, Earth Justice, and National Parks
Conservation Association (for brevity referred to in the singular as,
``Sierra Club''). The UARG comments encouraged States to take into
account CAIR-related emission reductions when developing and submitting
Regional Haze SIPs, including the BART provisions. UARG stated that EPA
should finalize the supplemental proposal and approve Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP in full. The following discussion summarizes and
responds to the relevant adverse comments submitted by the Sierra Club
on EPA's supplemental proposed approval of Connecticut's Regional Haze
SIP.
Comment 7: The Sierra Club commented that because all elements of
any SIP approved by EPA must be enforceable, EPA cannot approve the
Connecticut SIP to the extent it relies on CAIR. The commenter argued
that in light of the remand of the rule by the D.C. Circuit in North
Carolina, CAIR is neither permanent nor enforceable. Sierra Club also
stated that EPA has recognized that CAIR is temporary on a number of
occasions and noted that most of EPA's actions to date implicating CAIR
reflect that EPA can only rely on CAIR in a limited fashion, namely
``to temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR
pending EPA's development and promulgation of a replacement rule that
remedies CAIR's flaws.'' The commenter also noted that in the ``Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) is Better than BART'' rulemaking,
which was issued after the EME Homer City court stayed CSAPR pending
review, EPA found that CAIR was in place only temporarily and that the
Agency could not fully approve Regional Haze SIPs that relied on the
now-temporary reductions from CAIR. The commenter further argues that
even if the emission reductions from CAIR were sufficiently permanent
to be used in the 10-year initial planning period of the Connecticut
SIP, there is no guarantee that any replacement rule for CAIR will
require the same emission reductions for Connecticut.
Response 7: EPA agrees that all control measures in a SIP must be
enforceable. See CAA 110(a)(2)(A). EPA disagrees, however, that CAIR is
not enforceable at this time, given the scope of the court's order in
EME Homer City and the issuance of the mandate in that case.
On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs
to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and
fine particulate matter they form secondarily in the atmosphere. See 76
FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to
EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In
response to the court's decision, EPA issued CSAPR to address the
interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21,
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In that
decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ``pending
. . . development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City Generation,
696 F.3d at 38.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA and other parties filed petitions for a writ of
certiorari of the decision in EME Homer City with the Supreme Court
on March 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that
the reductions associated with CAIR will be enforceable and in place
for a number of years. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a
new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new
rule EPA must provide States an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to
implement that rule. CAIR thus cannot be removed from a SIP as an
enforceable measure until EPA has promulgated a final rule through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking process, States have had an opportunity
to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if
they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including
promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if appropriate. These
steps alone will take many years, even with EPA and the States acting
expeditiously. In the meantime, neither the State nor EPA has taken any
final action to remove CAIR from the Connecticut SIP. These SIP
provisions remain in place and are federally enforceable.
Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
[[Page 39326]]
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of States who reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR to meet the requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule.
The proposed and final EPA actions cited by the commenter as
support for its argument that EPA has considered CAIR to be temporary
all pre-date the vacatur of CSAPR and were based on EPA's expectation
that CSAPR was the replacement for CAIR, and thus CAIR would end
soon.\3\ At the time of those actions, CAIR was reasonably expected to
sunset by operation of law in a fairly short timeframe. That background
assumption no longer applies. Based on the vacatur of CSAPR and the
court's related decision to keep CAIR in force, EPA believes that it is
appropriate at this time to rely on CAIR emission reductions as one
component of the Connecticut Alternative to BART demonstration while a
valid replacement rule is developed and until implementation plans
complying with any such new rule are submitted by the States and acted
upon by EPA or until the EME Homer City case is resolved in a way that
provides different direction regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion to
vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place pending promulgation of a valid
replacement rule. However, the court also ordered the Clerk to
withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after disposition
of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. All
petitions for rehearing were denied on January 24, 2013 and the
mandate was issued by the D.C. Circuit on February 4, 2013. As noted
above EPA and other parties subsequently filed petitions seeking
Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the commenter also argues that even if the emission
reductions from CAIR were sufficiently permanent to be used in the
first planning period of the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP, it is
unclear what emissions reductions would be required in a future
replacement rule for CAIR. The commenter is correct in that we do not
know at this time what will be required of Connecticut in any
replacement rule for CAIR. The uncertainty surrounding the requirements
of a future replacement rule, however, does not mandate that source-by-
source BART determinations be required today. For now, the Connecticut
Regional Haze SIP addressed in today's action ensures that while CAIR
is in place, the BART requirements will be met. The adequacy of the
Connecticut Regional Haze SIP to address the BART requirements in the
future will be better addressed when a replacement rule for CAIR has
been promulgated and the Connecticut SIP revised to comply with that
rule. This does not mean that the BART requirements will be later
ignored. When Connecticut submits a SIP revision to remove Section 22c,
either in response to an EPA replacement rule or for other purposes,
the State will be required to demonstrate that such a SIP revision
ensures that the BART requirements are met. See CAA Sec. 110(l). EPA
would then review the State action, submit its initial determination
for public comment, and take final action after responding to
significant public comments. This multi-step sequence of events will
afford adequate opportunity to review the adequacy of Connecticut's
approved Regional Haze SIP under the applicable legal framework at the
time of removal of Section 22c. In sum, we do not agree with the
commenter that the uncertainty surrounding the timing and contours of a
replacement rule mandate that Connecticut undertake a source specific
NOX BART determination for its EGUs now rather at a later
date when the current regulatory uncertainties have been resolved.
Comment 8: The commenter argues that EPA cannot approve
Connecticut's proposal to rely on CAIR to satisfy its obligation to
control NOX at BART sources. The Sierra Club states that EPA
must require BART determinations at all subject-to-BART sources. The
commenter states that there is no statutory authority for EPA to allow
a State to rely on CAIR as a better-than-BART alternative and that the
force of the holdings in Center for Energy & Economic Dev. v. EPA, 398
F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005) and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471
F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006) allowing EPA to do just that have been
undermined by subsequent decisions of the D.C. Circuit. The commenter
cite to several cases to support the argument that the CAA does not
allow EPA to waive the statutory mandate for BART at ``each'' BART-
eligible source.
Response 8: It is important to emphasize that Connecticut's
Regional Haze SIP submission does not rely on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4),
sometimes known as the ``CAIR equals BART'' provision, which was at
issue in UARG and which permits States to rely on CAIR in lieu of BART
without any further analysis. Rather, Connecticut's submission relies
on 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), the ``Alternative to BART'' or ``Better than
BART'' provision, which was at issue in CEED and which does require an
analysis that the alternative measures will achieve greater reductions
than source-by-source BART. See id. Sec. 51.308(e)(2)(i). CT DEEP has
submitted a combination of regulations (Sections 19a, 22, and 22c), and
an appropriate analysis demonstrating that reductions will be superior
to those from source-by-source BART, as part of its Alternative to BART
package. See CT RH SIP, at 9-28 to 9-35; see also 77 FR at 17,373-
17,380. Because of the complex history of this action, and to avoid any
confusion, we emphasize that we are approving Connecticut's Regional
Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), not section 51.308(e)(4).
The commenter's arguments that the plain language of the CAA
precludes use of alternative programs (including but not limited to
CAIR) to satisfy the BART requirements were raised and rejected in CEED
and UARG. CEED and UARG remain good law and have not been questioned by
subsequent D.C. Circuit decisions. The decisions cited by the
commenter, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 906-08 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1255-58 (D.C. Cir. 2009) address the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 172(c)(1),
respectively. Given the differences between the language of these
statutory provisions and that of section 169A(b)(2), the courts'
interpretation of these other provisions of the CAA do not undermine
the two previous rulings of the same court interpreting the visibility
provisions of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Furthermore, in the regulation at issue in NRDC, states
could rely on NOX SIP Call or CAIR reductions without
providing any analysis demonstrating how compliance with those
programs would result in required reductions within each
nonattainment area, and EPA had not provided any technical analysis
to that effect either. See NRDC, 571 F.3d at 1256-57. That
distinguishes NRDC from the issues here. As noted above, we are
approving Connecticut's Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2),
not section 51.308(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Supreme Court's conclusions in Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. 497, 528-29 (2007) regarding the meanings of ``each'' and
``any'' do not conflict with or impact the EPA's reading of section
169A(b)(2) of the CAA or the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that the
agency's interpretation of the statute is a reasonable one. As the CEED
court explained, EPA interprets this provision to mean that ``each
SIP's `emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures'
must `include' BART only `as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward' national visibility goals.'' 398 F.3d 653, quoting 42
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); see also Central Arizona Water Conservation District
v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding the same
interpretation of section 169A(b)(2)). We do not agree, therefore, that
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), EPA's regulation allowing for the use of
[[Page 39327]]
alternative regulatory programs instead of source-specific BART
determinations, is inconsistent with the CAA.
Comment 9: The Sierra Club commented that CAIR cannot be used as a
substitute for BART because it provides inadequate visibility
improvement. The commenter states that the visibility impacts at the
Class I areas occur on a much shorter time frame than the annual or
seasonal CAIR allocations. The commenter finds that the shorter
averaging times for BART provides a more stringent, more protective
limit than CAIR's allocations. The commenter states that appropriately
averaged limits should be required even if new controls are not
required.
Response 9: For a State which opts to pursue an Alternative to BART
demonstration, the State must develop an analysis of the best system of
continuous emission control technology available and associated
emission reductions achievable for BART-eligible sources within the
State subject to the alternative plan. The expected emission reductions
must be compared to an analysis of the projected emission reductions
achievable through the alternative measure. When crafting the
alternative measures, States are not required to revise the emission
limit to meet each unit's emission capability. In addition, the
Regional Haze Rule does not limit the averaging period of the
alternative measure. As the commenter suggested, visibility impairment
can happen on a much shorter period (24-hour time period) than a
seasonal limit, and thus the commenter suggests that a shorter
averaging time would result in better visibility improvement. We
disagree that a difference in averaging time would affect our
conclusions that CAIR, in combination with the other emission limits in
the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP, provides for greater reasonable
progress than BART. The visibility evaluation required by the Regional
Haze Rule requires States to evaluate visibility for the 20-percent
best and 20-percent worst days. While EPA collects samples at the
IMPROVE monitoring sites over a 24-hour time period, none of the
visibility program requirements are based on these 24-hour peaks. Both
the 20-percent best days and 20-percent worst days represent a
relatively long time period, that is an average over one-fifth of the
year, or 73 days. Because this is a relatively long time period, and
even though it may be discontinuous, it tends to ``smooth out'' any
variations that would occur over a shorter time period. Similarly, even
a shorter 30-day rolling average BART limit represents a relatively
long time period that would also tend to smooth out any spikes that may
occur over a day. Thus, while a seasonal (in this case 5-month)
emission limit may also smooth out the occasional high emission day,
the longer averaging period will still provide visibility protection
for the Class I area.
In addition, as allowed under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the
components of the Connecticut Alternative to BART were developed to
meet other regulatory requirements. For example, the ozone season
NOX limits in Sections 22 and 22c were designed to meet the
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), an 8-hour average
standard, which ensures that the emission limit will be consistently
met.
Comment 10: The Sierra Club commented that the averaging time for
the non-ozone season limitations consist entirely of a 0.15 lb/MMBtu
NOX emission limit applicable as averaged over the entire
non-ozone season. Again, the Sierra Club contends that this limit does
not provide the same averaging time protections as would a BART limit.
Furthermore, the commenter continued, although it is not evident from
EPA's discussion, most of the BART-eligible units regularly emit well
above this non-ozone season limit, presumably taking advantage of
Connecticut's application of emission credits. As EPA's original
proposal acknowledges, there is no firm year-round cap on EGUs
emissions which would be required of the BART-eligible units.
Response 10: While Connecticut's non-ozone season limits do not
provide a firm year-round emission cap on each unit, a facility which
exceeds the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit can only use intrastate trading to meet
its NOX emission obligation. As a result, the emission
reductions come from within the State, a similar geographic area.
Moreover, as we noted in the NPR, ``the firm cap during ozone season
acts as an impediment to emissions growth during nonozone season.'' 77
FR at 17379. This relationship works in both directions: The fact that
Connecticut imposes a 0.15 lb/MMBtu NOX limit during October
through April, and allows only intrastate trading for facilities that
exceed that limit, limits facilities' ability to emit above their CAIR
allocations and comply with Section 22c simply by purchasing out-of-
state allowances.
Data regarding actual emissions supports the argument that
Connecticut's alternative program allows for facility flexibility while
achieving emission reductions. The actual 2002 baseline NOX
emissions from the BART-identified sources were 4,054 tons of
NOX. The 2011 actual NOX emissions from these
sources under the Connecticut Alternative to BART are 557 tons.\5\
These 2011 actual NOX emissions are an order of magnitude
lower than even the low-end projected 2006 BART benchmark emissions
(9,701 tons) for these same sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 2011 NOX emission data from the Connecticut BART-
identified EGUs is from the EPA Air Markets Program (http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: The commenter suggests that the visibility impacts from
several of the BART-eligible units are not, as EPA has described them,
minimal. First, it is not clear that the submitted modeling actually
reflects the 24-hour maximum emission input required by the BART
Guidelines; therefore, the modeling may underestimate the visibility
impacts. The commenter notes that Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (``MANE-VU'') has determined that 98 percent of visibility
deterioration at Class I areas in its region came from sources with
impacts between 0.2 and 0.3 deciviews (dv), based on the existing
modeling, and at least one of Connecticut's BART-eligible units has
that level of impact from its NOX emissions. The Sierra Club
emphasized that the exact purpose of the regional haze program is to
reduce the cumulative impacts from multiple sources. For this reason,
the Sierra Club commented that source-by-source analysis of the costs
and benefits of additional retrofit technology and year-round lower
limits with appropriate averaging time is required.
Response 11: We disagree with the conclusions the commenter draws
from the MANE-VU report entitled ``Five-Factor Analysis of BART-
Eligible Sources,'' Attachment W to Connecticut's SIP submission.
The purpose of the modeling discussed in Attachment W, as the title
suggests, is to support a five-factor analysis for MANE-VU's
recommended BART controls. EPA agrees that MANE-VU's modeling does not
adhere to the requirements of the BART Guidelines for determining an
appropriate threshold for exempting BART-eligible sources from further
analysis for BART; however, this modeling was not done for exemption
purposes, but rather to inform the decision making process for
developing MANE-VU's recommended BART controls. In this context, EPA is
not considering MANE-VU's modeling under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y (the
BART Guidelines), but rather under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C)'s
requirement to establish a BART benchmark for comparison to an
alternative program.
While it is true that the purpose of the regional haze program as a
whole is to reduce the cumulative impacts from
[[Page 39328]]
multiple sources, even a source-specific BART determination includes
consideration of ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). EPA's BART Guidelines allow States
conducting source-by-source BART determinations to exempt sources with
visibility impacts as high as 0.5 dv. See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y
Sec. III.A.1.
As part of its analysis, MANE-VU attempted to assess which sources
had the greatest impact on visibility, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). However, MANE-VU decided to take a more stringent
approach than the BART Guidelines' 0.5 dv threshold. See Attachment W
at 14. The report states that ``the cumulative frequency visibility
impact from all MANE-VU BART-eligible sources corresponds to a maximum
24-hr impact of 0.22 dv from the NWS [National Weather Service]-driven
data and 0.29 dv from the MM5 [PSU/NCAR mesoscale model] data.''
Attachment W at 13-14. Based on these results, MANE-VU concluded that a
range of 0.2 to 0.3 dv would represent a ```significant' impact at
MANE-VU Class I areas on an average basis.'' Id. at 14. However, as the
report stipulates, the analysis only included BART-eligible units
within the MANE-VU area, excluding all other BART sources outside of
the MANE-VU area, a limitation noted by the report. See id. at 13.
Therefore, for purposes of developing its recommended BART controls,
MANE-VU ``decided to place increased weight on sources with an
individual visibility impact greater than 0.1 dv for this 1st order
regional 5-factor analysis.'' Id. at 14. As MANE-VU noted, ``[t]his
threshold is overly inclusive relative to exemption processes being
conducted by other [Regional Planning Organizations] RPOs, but still
provides MANE-VU states flexibility in choosing the weight to be given
to the first of the five factors considered (i.e., the degree of
visibility improvement that could result from BART).'' Id.
Only two of the BART-eligible sources in Connecticut have more than
a 0.1 dv impact from NOX, and only one source exceeds a 0.2
dv impact; the rest show impacts far less than these levels.\6\ It is,
of course, possible that a source-specific BART analysis at one or both
of these units exceeding 0.1 dv impact would result in a more stringent
BART limit at those particular units than apply under Connecticut's
alternative program. However, it is also possible that full
consideration of the other four factors would lead to less stringent
limits than apply under Connecticut's alternative program. Moreover, it
is also quite possibly (indeed, likely) that full consideration of the
five factors would result in less stringent limits at the other five
BART-eligible units (with impacts well below 0.1 dv) than apply under
Connecticut's alternative program. Most importantly, and central to
both Connecticut's and EPA's analyses, it is also very likely that
source-by-source BART would result in fewer total emissions reductions
(and therefore visibility improvements) than apply under Connecticut's
alternative program. Thus, while any one particular source might have
higher or lower emissions limits under source-by-source BART (as
opposed to Connecticut's alternative program), as a whole, EPA does not
agree that source-by-source BART would necessarily result in more
stringent controls on the BART-eligible sources (let alone the non-
BART-eligible sources) as a group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The highest visibility impacts due to NOX were
modeled to be: 0.31 dv from Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3, 0.14 dv from
New Haven Harbor Unit 1, 0.06 dv from Middletown Unit 3, 0.04 dv
from Montville Unit 6, 0.03 dv from Middletown Unit 4, 0.03 dv from
Cascade Boxboard, and 0.01 dv from Norwalk Unit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Final Action
EPA is approving Connecticut's November 18, 2009, Regional Haze SIP
submittal and March 12, 2012, supplemental submittal as meeting the
applicable requirements of the Regional Haze Rule found in 40 CFR
51.308. In addition, EPA is approving Connecticut's RCSA Section 22a-
174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants and
other large stationary sources of air pollution''; revisions to RCSA
Section 22a-174-22, ``Control of nitrogen oxides emissions,'' in
particular subparagraph 22a-174-22(e)(3); and CGS 16a-21a, ``Sulfur
content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel. Suspension of
requirements for emergency.''
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not include measurement standards; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in
[[Page 39329]]
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 26, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Original signature affirmed by:
Dated: May 27, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Editor's note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on July 3, 2014.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart H--Connecticut
0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(103) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on November 18,
2009, and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
on March 12, 2012.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulations of Connecticut State Department of Environmental
Protection Section 22a-174, effective December 28, 2000; as published
in the Connecticut Law Journal on January 23, 2001.
(1) Section 22a-174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from
power plants and other large stationary sources of air pollution,''
with the following exceptions which Connecticut did not submit as part
of the SIP revision because they are not applicable to the Connecticut
Alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) program:
(i) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(5);
(ii) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(8);
(iii) Section 22a-174-19a(a)(11);
(iv) In Section 22a-174-19a(a)(13); the sentence ``Early reduction
credits shall qualify as SO2 DERCs.'';
(v) Section 22a-174-19a(d);
(vi) Section 22a-174-19a(e)(4);
(vii) Section 22a-174-19a(f) through 19a(h); and
(viii) In Section 22a-174-19a(i)(2), the reference to ``or
(e)(4).''
(2) Section 22a-174-22, ``Control of nitrogen oxide emissions,''
subsection (e)(3).
(B) Connecticut General Statute, Title 16a ``Planning and Energy
Policy,'' Chapter 296 ``Operation of Fuel Supply Business,'' Section
16a-21a, ``Sulfur content of home heating oil and off-road diesel fuel.
Suspension of requirements for emergency,'' effective June 2, 2008, as
published in the State of Connecticut General Statutes, Revision of
1958, Revised to 2009.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
document, ``Connecticut Regional Haze SIP Revision, Final, November
2009.''
(B) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection letter ``Clarification of Connecticut's 2008
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration,'' dated March 12, 2012,
signed by Anne Gobin.
(C) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection letter ``Regional Haze State Implementation Plan,'' dated
February 24, 2012, signed by Anne Gobin.
(D) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection letter ``Withdrawal of Request for Parallel Processing,''
dated November 23, 2012, signed by Anne R. Gobin.
0
3. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a state citation ``22a-174-19a'' in order of ``Date adopted
by State''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for existing state citation ``22a-174-22'' in order
of ``Date adopted by State''; and
0
c. Adding a state citation ``Sec. 16a-21a'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.
* * * * *
[[Page 39330]]
Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
--------------------------
Connecticut State citation Title/subject Date Date Federal Register Section 52.370 Comments/ description
adopted by approved by citation
State EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
22a-174-19a....................... Control of sulfur 12/28/00 7/10/14 [Insert Federal [Insert next Approves the sulfur
dioxide emissions Register page number available paragraph dioxide emission
from power plants where the document number in sequence]. standards and fuel
and other large begins]. sulfur limits for
stationary sources units subject to the
of air pollution. CT NOX Budget
program. The
following sections
were not submitted
as part of the SIP:
Sections (a)(5);
(a)(8); (a)(11);
(d); (e)(4); (f);
(g); (h); and in
(i)(2) reference to
(e)(4).
* * * * * * *
22a-174-22........................ Control of nitrogen 12/28/00 7/10/14 [Insert Federal [Insert next Approves the Oct-
oxides emissions. Register page number available paragraph April NOX emission
where the document number in sequence]. limits for units
begins]. subject to the CT
NOX Budget program.
Only section (e)(3)
was submitted as
part of the SIP
revision.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16a-21a...................... Sulfur content of 6/2/08 7/10/14 [Insert Federal [Insert next Approves the sulfur
home heating oil and Register page number available paragraph content of number
off-road diesel where the document number in sequence]. two home heating oil
fuel. Suspension of begins]. and off road diesel
requirements for at such time that
emergency. New York,
Massachusetts, and
Rhode Island adopt
similar limits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-16071 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P