[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41427-41437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16469]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0469; A-1-FRL-9910-12-Region 1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; 
Control of Visible Emissions, Recordkeeping and Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 
Connecticut on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA is approving 
revisions to Connecticut's visible and particulate matter (PM) 
emissions, recordkeeping and monitoring regulations. These revised 
rules establish and require limitations on visible and PM emissions for 
stationary sources, and clarify reporting requirements for operation of 
air-pollution-control and monitoring equipment. EPA is approving this 
SIP revision because EPA has determined that it will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) in Connecticut or with any other applicable requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).
    This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0469. All documents in the 
electronic docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 
Although listed in the index, some information may not be 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: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 
Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Connecticut first adopted regulations to limit visible and PM 
emissions from stationary sources, including, among other sources, 
electric generating units (EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s. In 
1972, EPA approved ``Control of particulate emissions,'' into the 
Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). That regulation has since been 
recodified as Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 
22a-174-18. See Section II of EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPR), dated August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), for a brief discussion of 
the relationships among ``visible emissions,'' ``opacity'' and 
``particulate matter.''
    In 2003, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
(now the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 
or CT DEEP) proposed under state law revisions to Section 22a-174-18 
``Control of particulate matter and visible emissions'' (herein 
referred to as the ``visible emissions regulation'') to address short-
term excursions from maximum allowed opacity levels that may occur and 
be measured at some stationary sources with continuous opacity 
monitoring systems (COMS) \1\ during periods of startup, shutdown or 
malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load 
changes. Facilities covered under these new exceptions in Section 22a-
174-18(j)(1) include only those facilities that operate COMS. CT DEEP's 
revisions also excluded sources subject to opacity limits under a 
federal new source performance standard (NSPS) from the opacity limits 
contained in the state regulations. See Section 22a-174-18(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CT regulations use the term ``opacity continuous emissions 
monitoring systems'' or ``Opacity CEMS.'' However, EPA and others 
commonly refer to these monitors as ``continuous opacity monitoring 
systems'' or ``COMS.'' Throughout this notice, we use the more 
common term ``COMS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed revisions to several other RCSA 
sections, including 22a-174-4, ``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting'' (codified as RCSA Section 19-508-4 in the Connecticut SIP, 
and herein referred to as the ``recordkeeping regulation''), and 22a-
174-7, ``Air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment 
operation'' (codified as RCSA Section 19-508-7 in the Connecticut SIP, 
and herein referred to as the ``monitoring regulation'').
    CT DEEP held a public hearing on revisions to these three (as well 
as several other) regulations on April 29, 2003. Subsequently, CT DEEP 
amended its visible emissions, recordkeeping, and monitoring 
regulations based on comments received from EPA and others, with an 
effective date of April 1, 2004.
    On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP submitted the revised regulations to 
EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut SIP. This submittal included a 
provision in the visible emissions regulation providing alternate 
opacity limits for periods of source operation consisting of startup, 
shutdown or malfunctions; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching 
or sudden load changes. These alternate opacity limits only apply to 
stationary sources that use COMs (Section 22a-174-18(j)(1)). However, 
on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent

[[Page 41428]]

a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) to the extent that 
it applies to malfunctions; all other aspects of Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1) were retained as originally submitted. Thus, EPA is not acting 
on the submission with respect to the revised opacity limits applicable 
during malfunctions and is not approving an alternative emissions limit 
applicable during malfunctions.
    Connecticut's December 1, 2004 submittal also included a provision 
that excluded sources subject to opacity limits under a federal NSPS 
from the opacity limits contained in the state regulations (Section 
22a-174-18(j)(2)). However, on March 27, 2014, CT DEEP sent a letter to 
EPA withdrawing Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which excluded emissions 
units that are subject to a visible emissions standard pursuant to a 
new source performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 60 from the visible 
emissions standards in Sections 22a-174-18(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, EPA 
is not acting on the submission with respect to Section 22a-174-
18(j)(2). In correspondence between EPA and CT DEEP it was discussed 
that if Connecticut withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) from its SIP 
submission, stationary sources subject to visible emissions standards 
under a federal NSPS will continue to be exempt from the visible 
emissions standards in Sections 22a-174-18(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the 
state regulation, as a matter of state law, but will remain subject to 
the opacity limits contained in ``Control of particulate emissions'' 
under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).\2\ Moreover, it should be noted that 
the NSPS sources subject to visible emissions standards are not 
eligible for the alternate opacity limits for non-steady-state modes of 
source operation contained in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) of Connecticut's 
regulations and being approved into the Connecticut SIP. The reason for 
this is that Connecticut never intended for those NSPS-subject sources 
to be able to demonstrate compliance with the alternate opacity limits 
in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1). Thus, the opacity limits contained 
``Control of particulate emissions,'' which had earlier been approved 
by EPA into Connecticut's SIP prior to today's SIP revision, will 
continue to apply to stationary sources subject to visible emissions 
standards under a federal NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section 19-508-18, ``Control of Particulate Emissions'' 
posted at http://www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CT DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal included a total of six 
regulations. EPA approved three of these regulations into the 
Connecticut SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761). They are: RCSA 
Section 22a-174-3b ``Exemptions from permitting for construction and 
operation of external combustion units, automotive refinishing 
operations, emergency engines, nonmetallic mineral processing equipment 
and surface coating operations;'' RCSA Section 22a-174-30 ``Dispensing 
of gasoline/Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery;'' and RCSA Section 
22a-174-43 ``Portable fuel container spillage control.'' Today's action 
addresses the remaining three regulations contained in the December 1, 
2004 SIP submittal, namely RCSA Sections 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-
174-18 (except for the portions of Section 22a-174-18, noted earlier, 
which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP submittal). As stated in our 
August 15, 2013 NPR, these three regulations amend earlier versions of 
certain recordkeeping, monitoring, and visible and PM emissions 
regulations.
    On August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), EPA proposed approval of RCSA 
Sections 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-174-18 (without the withdrawn 
portion relating to malfunctions). After our August 15, 2013 NPR, CT 
DEEP withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) as we noted above. Specific 
details of Connecticut's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal and the 
rationale for EPA's proposed approval are explained in the August 15, 
2013 NPR and will not be restated in this notice, except to the extent 
relevant to our responses to public comments we received on our 
proposal.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments on our August 15, 2013 NPR from the following 
entities: NRG Energy, Inc. and Montville Power LLC (collectively 
referred to herein as NRG); PSEG Services Corporation; the Conservation 
Law Foundation (CLF) Massachusetts; and the Sierra Club. The public 
comments received are contained in the docket for today's final action. 
We summarize and respond to all of those comments below.

NRG Energy's Comments

    NRG noted that although Middletown Station 3 employs 
``water injection'' at its facility, water injection is not used for 
compliance purposes, an inference that may have been drawn from the 
information contained in Table 1 of our August 15, 2013 NPR. EPA 
acknowledges NRG's factual assertion, but also notes that NRG's point 
does not impact in one way or the other the substance of EPA's final 
action today. NRG also noted a typographical error in Section IV.C.a(1) 
of our August 15, 2013 NPR. NRG noted that the reference in that 
section to ``Mountville Station 4'' actually should be a 
reference to ``Middletown Station 4.'' EPA acknowledges that 
typographical error, but also notes that NRG's point does not impact in 
one way or the other the substance of EPA's final action today.

PSEG's Comments

    PSEG's comments were supportive of our proposed action, stating 
that as an owner and operator of sources regulated by the SIP revisions 
in question the company is ideally situated to provide comments. Among 
other things, PSEG noted that EPA had determined that the revised 
visible emission regulations would not result in interference with 
maintenance of the PM NAAQS in Connecticut, and that certain aspects of 
the revised regulations would actually enhance protection of air 
quality through improved control of visible emissions due, in part, to 
the requirement to use COMS. While EPA believes that the revisions to 
Connecticut's Section 22a-174-18 (visible emissions regulation) may 
allow slight emission increases, EPA agrees with PSEG that the 
revisions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS and is otherwise consistent with the CAA.

Sierra Club's Comments

    Comment 1: The Sierra Club commented that the proposed revisions to 
Connecticut's SIP opacity regulations violate the anti-backsliding 
requirement of section 193 of the CAA because portions of Connecticut 
were designated nonattainment for particulate matter at the time of 
EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's assertion that the 
revisions to Connecticut's opacity regulations violate the anti-
backsliding requirements of CAA section 193. By its own terms, CAA 
section 193 only applies in areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. 
Opacity limits in SIPs are intended to assure attainment and 
maintenance of particulate matter standards, thus, the only NAAQS 
relevant to our action today are the PM2.5 and 
PM10 NAAQS. All areas in Connecticut are now designated as 
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS and for the PM10 NAAQS, thus, CAA 
section 193 does not apply to today's final action. On July 19, 2013, 
EPA proposed to redesignate New Haven and Fairfield counties in 
Connecticut to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 43096). All other

[[Page 41429]]

counties in Connecticut were at that time already designated as 
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not receive any public comments on its 
July 19, 2013 proposal to redesignate New Haven and Fairfield counties, 
and our final approval of Connecticut's redesignation request for those 
counties was published on September 24, 2013, with an effective date of 
October 24, 2013 (78 FR 58467).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA recognizes that this redesignation was not final at the 
time of the proposal. However, EPA noted in the proposal that it 
intended to take final action on the proposed redesignation before 
taking final action on Connecticut's visible emissions SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted in EPA's July 19, 2013 proposed approval of 
Connecticut's redesignation request, air quality design values (DVs) 
for the years 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 show that both New 
Haven and Fairfield counties are well below the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. DVs for 
those counties also indicate that recent monitoring data from 2009-2011 
are well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 [mu]g/
m\3\.\4\ Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard is based on 
the expected number of annual exceedances of the level of the standard 
(averaged over a three-year period) being equal to or less than one. 
EPA revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS in 2006. The last time 
there was an exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 
Connecticut was in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has not yet designated nonattainment areas with respect 
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, modeling analyses conducted by EPA in relation to the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) associated with the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS \5\ indicates that DVs in southwestern 
Connecticut (where New Haven and Fairfield counties are located) are 
expected to continue to decline through 2020. The RIA shows that, for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, for New Haven and Fairfield counties, 
the highest annual DV projected for 2020 is 8.79 [mu]g/m\3\ for 
Fairfield County and 8.62 [mu]g/m\3\ for New Haven County. The RIA also 
indicates that the highest 24-hour DV projected for 2020 for New Haven 
and Fairfield counties is 22.27 [mu]g/m\3\ for Fairfield County and 
21.78 [mu]g/m\3\ for New Haven County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The RIA is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, as the entire State of Connecticut is currently 
designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the applicable 
PM NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.307), section 193 of the CAA is not applicable 
or relevant to our analysis of the SIP revisions.
    Comment 2: The Sierra Club commented that even if EPA were correct 
that the only applicable anti-backsliding provision is the one found in 
section 110(l) the proposed revisions must still be rejected. The 
Sierra Club asserted that because neither EPA nor Connecticut attempted 
to quantify the impact of the proposed SIP revisions on air emissions, 
EPA's section 110(l) analysis ``was fatally flawed.'' The Sierra Club 
asserted that EPA failed to show that the proposed SIP revisions would 
meet either of two tests EPA assesses when conducting a section 110(l) 
analysis. These two tests are (1) allowing a state to show that a SIP 
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS 
by demonstrating that the revision will not allow for an increase in 
emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPA-
approved SIP, taking into consideration SIP-approved measures that 
represent new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time 
frame to the change represented by the SIP revision; or (2) allowing a 
state to show that a SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS by showing that, taking into consideration the 
change in emissions levels allowed under the SIP revision, there is a 
substantial margin of safety (i.e., ``headroom'' or ``cushion of 
compliance'') between ambient concentrations and the applicable NAAQS 
(in this instance the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS). The Sierra Club also asserted that Table 4 
of EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR shows that Fairfield County's maximum 24-
hour PM10 concentration increased from 33 to 54 [mu]g/m\3\ 
from 2011 to 2012, which Sierra Club claims ``contradicts EPA's 
assertion of a substantial margin of safety'' and ``is also not 
consistent with permanent and legally enforceable emissions 
reductions.'' The Sierra Club also stated that EPA's approach to the 
section 110(l) analysis was not appropriate because not all portions of 
Connecticut were designated attainment for the applicable PM NAAQS at 
the time we proposed approval of the SIP revisions.
    Response 2: As stated in our response to Comment 1 above, all 
portions of Connecticut are currently designated attainment or 
unclassifiable/attainment for the applicable PM2.5 and 
PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, as also explained in our August 15, 
2013 NPR, EPA's analysis of the proposed SIP revision under section 
110(l) takes into account that Connecticut is designated attainment or 
unclassifiable/attainment for the PM2.5 and PM10 
NAAQS. We noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that CT DEEP submitted a 
clarifying letter to its SIP submittal to demonstrate that the SIP 
provisions we are approving today are consistent with CAA section 
110(l). In order to better assess the State's demonstration, EPA 
determined it would be helpful to conduct its own section 110(l) 
analysis which drew upon, but is not identical to, the analysis 
presented in the CT DEEP's letter (78 FR 49704).
    EPA requires an evaluation whether changes to SIP-approved opacity 
limits are likely to interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM 
NAAQS pursuant to section 110(l). Generally, to satisfy section 110(l), 
EPA does not require a full attainment demonstration showing that the 
change will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. 
For nonattainment areas, in the absence of air quality modeling, EPA 
requires that the revision at least maintain status quo air quality, by 
offsetting any emissions increases with additional contemporaneous 
emissions reductions. For attainment areas, EPA requires a basis for 
concluding that any emissions increases will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, e.g., by illustrating that any 
change in the emission inventory is so small relative to the margin 
between ambient concentrations and the NAAQS that it is unlikely that 
the change would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. In the case 
of changes to opacity limits, EPA applies these requirements taking 
into consideration that limits on opacity are a means of assuring 
control of PM emissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although opacity is not a criteria pollutant and increases 
in opacity do not always correlate precisely with increases in mass 
emissions, opacity standards are established as an independent 
requirement for effective PM emissions control, opacity is used as 
an indicator of increased PM emissions (due both to changes in 
process and in the effectiveness of emission controls), and opacity 
limits supplement the implementation and enforcement of PM emission 
standards. See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v, EPA, No. 12-
1166 (D.C. Cir., Mar. 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these SIP revisions, EPA has assessed the likelihood of 
interference with the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in 
Connecticut by attempting to quantify the total emissions associated 
with the sources that would be covered by the changes to opacity 
requirements. EPA's approach assumes that relaxing the opacity 
requirements will result in an increase in PM emissions (we refer to 
this as the ``worst case scenario''). The 110(l) analysis looks to the 
additional

[[Page 41430]]

increment of emissions associated with the SIP revision, which would be 
a portion of the emissions during the time for which the opacity 
standard has been loosened. In turn, the operating periods when the 
opacity standard is loosened is a portion of the total operating time 
for these sources. Finally, we look at the total emissions from these 
sources at all operating times in relation to the total emissions 
inventory and current ambient concentrations. We estimate that the 
total emissions of these sources (at all times) represents about only 
11 tons per year of PM2.5, out of a total statewide 
inventory of 17,151 tons per year of PM2.5 and about 17 tons 
per year of PM10 out of a total statewide inventory of 
38,995 tons per year. Furthermore, as noted in EPA's proposed approval 
of Connecticut's section 22a-174-18 (78 FR 49701; August 15, 2013), 
emission projections from the maintenance plan for Connecticut's 
PM2.5 redesignation request indicate that there is a 
substantial margin of safety that ensures maintenance of the NAAQS even 
if small increases in emissions were to occur. As illustrated in Table 
5 of that notice, PM2.5 emissions in Fairfield and New Haven 
counties are projected to drop by 22% from 2007--when the area was 
attaining the NAAQS--to 2025, including over 1,000 tons per year of 
reductions in the period from 2007 to 2017 (and over 300 tons per year 
of reductions from 2017-2025). Thus, in EPA's technical judgment, 
although we assume that these SIP changes will result in some emissions 
increases, in light of the size of these sources and the nature of the 
changes, such increases would be quite small in comparison with the 
large margin of compliance with the NAAQS and the ongoing projected 
reductions in the emissions inventory.
    Taking into consideration the small amount of total 
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from these sources 
relative to the statewide inventories, the nature of the revisions 
(including the more stringent PM limits for certain sources), and the 
large ``margin of compliance'' between ambient concentrations and the 
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut, EPA 
concludes that these changes will not interfere with attainment and 
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in 
Connecticut.
    Our August 15, 2013 NPR (beginning at 78 FR 49705) contains an 
analysis of the section 110(l) demonstration and data supporting CT 
DEEP's and EPA's conclusion that the requirements of section 110(l) 
have been met. A summary of that analysis is provided here, with 
additional information quantifying the potential emissions increases 
that might be associated with the SIP revisions, added in response to 
the Sierra Club's comment.
    First, in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we considered and evaluated 
(although we stated that we did not precisely quantify) potential 
emissions increases that could result from the SIP revisions (78 FR 
49705-49707). As noted, we considered emissions increases that 
potentially might occur as a result of the relaxation of the SIP's 
opacity limits during periods of source operation limited to startup or 
shutdown; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load 
changes. We noted that, of the 20 units (all of which utilized COMS) 
for which the state originally designed the alternative opacity limit 
in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), eight of those units are now permanently 
removed from service and three additional units have since switched 
their primary fuel from residual oil to natural gas (resulting in 
significant reductions of emissions of PM and PM precursors during 
operation). Thus, our August 15, 2013 NPR noted that for purposes of 
examining potential emission increases that may arise from the 
alternative opacity limit in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), our focus would 
be limited to the potential impacts of increased opacity at the 
remaining nine of the original 20 units. We also noted in our August 
15, 2013 NPR that the requirements of section 110(l) were satisfied 
with respect to Connecticut's Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) affecting 
stationary sources separately subject to a federal NSPS; however, as 
noted earlier in this notice, CT DEEP has since withdrawn Section 22a-
174-18(j)(2) from its SIP submission and, thus, we do not include in 
this notice a section 110(l) analysis of the effect of that provision. 
In addition, another aspect of our air quality impact analysis 
considered and evaluated the reductions in PM emissions that would 
arise due to other aspects of the SIP revisions, i.e., the fact that 
more stringent PM limits will apply at all times to sources that burn 
natural gas and to ``registration sources'' that burn distillate oil.
    We concluded in our August 15, 2013 NPR that ``taking into 
consideration the universe of sources subject to the revised opacity 
standard, the fuels and emissions limits applicable to those sources 
(including those that are more stringent under the revision), and the 
nature of the alternative opacity limit (which only allows an increase 
from 40% to 60% opacity during certain limited modes of source 
operation during a maximum period of time just under 11 hours per 
calendar quarter), that while there may be an increase in PM emissions 
associated with this SIP revision, any such increase would be small, 
especially in relation to the applicable attainment margin. It is also 
critical to note that Connecticut's revised rule includes an important 
check on any potential increase in emissions that could occur, even 
under the alternative opacity limit. The revised regulation restricts 
the amount of time that sources with COMS may operate under the 
alternate opacity limit to 0.5 percent of a facility's total operating 
hours during any calendar quarter, or slightly less than 11 hours. EPA 
believes that these changes to the opacity limit may result in 
increased PM emissions, and considered whether those increased 
emissions would interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 and 
PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut in light of the nature and scope 
of those changes and current air quality (i.e., margin of compliance 
with all existing PM NAAQS). At the same time, however, EPA believes 
that the limited nature of the alternate opacity limit (including that 
opacity may only increase to 60%, as well as the limits on periods of 
operation during which the alternate limit applies) means that the 
opacity standard will continue to assist with SIP implementation of the 
NAAQS by continuing to identify (as violations) changes in process and 
in the effectiveness of emission controls that result in more 
significant increases in PM emissions.
    We believe that our discussion in the August 15, 2013 NPR is 
sufficient to address any concerns under section 110(l); however, in 
response to the Sierra Club's statement that we failed to quantify 
those potential emissions increases, we provide more detailed 
information. With respect to the alternate opacity limit available 
during specific non-steady-state modes of operation, the total amount 
of PM emissions from the nine units that we earlier identified as being 
relevant to the emissions increase analysis (a subset of the units 
identified in our Table 1 to our August 15, 2013 NPR) is small. More 
specifically, the total PM2.5 emissions from these nine 
units is approximately 11 tons per year (as reported in the 2011 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) \7\), as compared to statewide 
emissions of PM2.5 from all sources of 17,151 tons per year. 
The total PM10 emissions from these nine units (which 
includes PM2.5 emissions) is about 17 tons per year 
(estimated from the 2011 NEI), compared to statewide emissions of

[[Page 41431]]

PM10 from all sources of 38,995 tons per year. Moreover, 
because the worst case scenario analysis (consistent with the roughly 
11 hours of operation per quarter limitation contained in the 
regulation for the applicability of the alternate opacity limit) only 
includes a small fraction of these sources' total annual hours of 
operation, the total increase in emissions from these nine units under 
the worst-case scenario would most likely be only a fraction of the 
approximately 11 tons per year of PM2.5 and the 17 tons per 
year of PM10, an even smaller amount of emissions compared 
to the annual statewide emissions noted above. In light of the wide 
margin of compliance with all of the PM NAAQS, any potential increase 
in PM2.5 or PM10 emissions from the nine units in 
question during the worst-case scenario under the alternate opacity 
emissions limits in the SIP revision should not interfere with the 
maintenance of the applicable PM NAAQS in Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our August 15, 2013 NPR also contained a separate CAA section 
110(l) analysis in relation to Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) of 
Connecticut's regulation. However, as noted earlier in this notice, CT 
DEEP has since withdrawn Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) and, thus, we do not 
include here a section 110(l) analysis of that regulatory provision.
    In addition to the analysis above of specific potential emissions 
increases associated with the SIP revisions, as noted in our August 15, 
2013 NPR, we also considered recent data from emissions inventories and 
ambient air-quality monitoring to show that Connecticut's statewide 
emissions have declined substantially in recent years, and that the 
state's current air quality is well below the federal primary and 
secondary PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. As part of that 
discussion, we described certain regulations that EPA has approved into 
the Connecticut SIP that have resulted in permanent, federally 
enforceable emissions reductions. Our purpose in discussing the effect 
of these regulations was to lend additional support to our section 
110(l) analysis by demonstrating that current statewide emissions 
inventories and air quality in Connecticut show that these other 
pollution-control measures have resulted in an adequate ``compliance 
cushion'' below the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS that can 
easily accommodate any potential emissions increases of 
PM2.5 and PM10 that might arise as a result of 
the SIP revisions. Our analysis demonstrated that the current, 
relatively low, emissions levels in Connecticut are not solely 
attributable to non-regulatory factors (e.g., economic changes) but, 
rather, are, in significant part, attributable to the permanent, 
enforceable reductions achieved by Connecticut's SIP and other federal 
CAA programs. The combination of three facts--that Connecticut's 
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions (and emissions of 
precursor pollutants) have been reduced, that these reductions are 
largely permanent reductions attributable to federally enforceable CAA 
measures (including SIP requirements), and that the measured ambient 
PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations are well below the 
NAAQS--persuade us that the weight of evidence shows that Connecticut's 
SIP has a sufficient margin of safety with respect to the PM NAAQS 
throughout the state. We conclude based on this analysis that even if 
overall emissions were to increase somewhat as a result of this 
revision, any such increase would not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in 
Connecticut. For a more detailed discussion of these measures and air 
quality in Connecticut, see 78 FR 49707-49710.
    As to the Sierra Club's comment that Table 4 of our August 15, 2013 
NPR shows that Fairfield County's maximum 24-hour PM10 
concentration increased from 33 to 54 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2011 to 2012, 
there are several important things to note. First, and most important, 
the referenced increase in PM10 is, in EPA's judgment, more 
likely related to emissions associated with roadways or construction 
activities than to any increases in stationary point-source emissions. 
Emissions of PM2.5 tend to be more prevalent than emissions 
of PM10 from stationary sources in Connecticut and, as 
mentioned above, PM2.5 DVs decreased during this same time 
period. For example, 2011 NEI data for Fairfield County show that 
approximately 76% of the PM10 emissions inventory derives 
from the following categories of sources: (1) Dust associated with 
paved and unpaved roads; (2) construction activities; and (3) burning 
of residential wood heaters and stoves. Moreover, the PM10 
increase referenced by the Sierra Club is, in any event, well below the 
level of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, which is 150 [mu]g/m\3\; 
this lends further support for EPA's contention that there is an 
adequate ``cushion of compliance'' for the PM10 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We also note here that we discussed in our August 15, 2013 
NPR a Regional Haze program analysis that was a fourth component of 
our section110(l) analysis. Sierra Club did not comment on that 
aspect of our analysis, therefore our analysis will not be repeated 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revisions we are approving in this action, which apply to 
emissions from stationary sources, are unlikely to add substantially to 
ambient PM10 levels in Fairfield County because, as 
explained in detail above, the total amount of increased 
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions that might be expected 
to arise from the sources subject to Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) is very 
small, particularly in comparison to the 17,151 and 38,995 tons per 
year of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, respectively, 
from all sources in Connecticut.
    As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, our CAA section 110(l) 
analysis also included a discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)'s 
requirement that SIPs contain ``enforceable emission limitations and 
other control measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary 
or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].'' We 
included in that same section of our NPR a related discussion of CAA 
section 302(k)'s definition of the term ``emission limitation'' as ``a 
requirement that limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of 
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' We discussed EPA's 
position, set forth in well-established guidance, that the CAA 
precludes SIP provisions that include exemptions for emissions that 
occur during periods of source operation such as startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. In the context of EPA's guidance, we then analyzed the 
alternative opacity limits in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1). (We also 
analyzed separately the NSPS-subject source exclusion in Section 22a-
174-18(j)(2) of Connecticut's regulations, which raises different 
issues than the alternate opacity limits provision in Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1), but CT DEEP subsequently withdrew that provision from its SIP 
submission.) Given that the Sierra Club commented on whether the SIP 
revisions are consistent with EPA's startup, shutdown and malfunction 
(SSM) guidance and related proposed SIP Call \9\ separately from its 
comments on Connecticut's and EPA's section 110(l) demonstrations, EPA 
addresses the former specific set of comments in Responses 3 
and 4, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, ``State Implementation Plans; Response to Petition for 
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule,'' 78 FR 12459 
(Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Sierra Club commented extensively on our application 
of EPA's criteria relevant to development of alternative emission 
limits in SIPs, as those criteria relate to the alternative opacity 
limits submitted by Connecticut as SIP revisions in Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1). Specifically, Sierra Club asserted that our evaluation

[[Page 41432]]

of these alternative emissions limits was flawed in light of our 1999 
SSM Policy guidance for SIP provisions and our February 2013 proposed 
SIP Call.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's assertion that our 
evaluation of Connecticut's SIP revisions is flawed in light of EPA's 
1999 SSM Policy guidance and proposed SIP Call. We have longstanding 
SIP guidance recommending criteria for development of alternative 
emission limits in SIP provisions, including opacity limits (or other 
control measures) that may be appropriate during specific modes of 
source operation such as startup and shutdown.\10\ If sources cannot 
meet the otherwise applicable SIP emissions limit during certain modes 
of operation, these criteria serve to assure that the alternative 
emission limits that states may elect to adopt for these periods of 
operation meet CAA requirements for SIP provisions. We recently 
reiterated those criteria in our February 2013 proposed SIP Call. The 
basic thrust of those criteria is to ensure that emission limitations 
apply continuously, including during certain modes of source operation 
(i.e., startup, shutdown, and malfunction), in such a manner that 
emissions are properly minimized in order to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS and to meet other CAA requirements (e.g., 
enforceability). EPA analyzed the higher opacity limits established by 
CT DEEP for certain sources in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) in relation to 
the seven criteria for alternative emissions limits recommended in our 
SSM guidance for SIP provisions and reiterated in our proposed SIP 
Call. That analysis was set forth in our August 15, 2013 NPR. We 
address below the Sierra Club's specific comments regarding EPA's 
evaluation of Connecticut's SIP revision in relation to EPA's SSM 
Policy guidance and proposed SIP Call. Please refer to our August 15, 
2013 NPR for EPA's original analysis and additional detailed 
information (beginning at 78 FR 49710).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum entitled ``State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A, Herman, Assistant 
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the 
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on September 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's Criterion 1

    The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club states that EPA did not 
fully address criterion 1 because Connecticut's revision to 
its visible emissions regulation must be ``limited to specific, 
narrowly defined source categories using specific control strategies'' 
and asserted that Connecticut's SIP revision is not so limited.
    EPA's response: As identified and discussed in our August 15, 2013 
NPR, the sources to which the alternate opacity emission limit will 
apply are mostly electric generating units (EGUs); and all of the 
sources are boilers with a heat input capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/
hr. We also noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that most of these units 
use some combination of electrostatic precipitators, selective non-
catalytic reduction, and/or low NOX burners. (Two of the 
affected units (Middletown Station 4 and Montville Station 
6) do not have control measures comparable to the other 
sources, but they are subject to numerical PM emission limitations in 
the Connecticut SIP and in their permits.) Finally, as noted earlier in 
this notice, the universe of existing units in Connecticut from which 
potential increases in emissions may arise (realistically) is limited 
to nine. Since Connecticut adopted the revised regulation in question, 
eight of the 20 units potentially covered have been permanently removed 
from service, and three of the units have changed their primary fuel 
from residual oil to natural gas (resulting in a significant reduction 
in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors during 
source operation). In our judgment, based on the facts described above, 
these remaining nine boilers (i.e., those that will be subject to 
Connecticut's alternate opacity emission limit) sufficiently meet what 
EPA's guidance and related rulemaking intended to fall within the 
notion of ``specific, narrowly defined source categories.'' Finally, it 
is also important to note that any new stationary sources in the future 
(beyond the existing nine units) would separately be regulated by any 
opacity limits contained in a new source review permit required under 
Connecticut's SIP. The CT DEEP has informed us that its new source 
review permits require best available control technology (BACT) for 
opacity and for PM. Emission limits based on BACT cannot be less 
stringent than NSPS under the CAA and CT DEEP's current practice is to 
include a 10% opacity limit in its new source review permits applicable 
during all periods of operation (including startup and shutdown). Any 
such future new sources also would be subject to any opacity limits 
that might be applicable under newly promulgated NSPS regulations (not 
the NSPS discussed herein) that would contain opacity limits during 
startup, shutdown, and other specific modes of source operation.
EPA's Criterion 2
    The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club asserts that EPA's 
conclusion that Connecticut's SIP revision satisfies criterion 
2 is flawed, because ``nothing prevents a source from starting 
up or shutting down with a cleaner fuel or employing other measures 
during periods of startup and shutdown that would reduce particulate 
emissions from the boiler'' and because ``[n]o determination has been 
made that more stringent control is `technically infeasible' during 
specified periods for any sources in Connecticut.''
    EPA's response: First, EPA notes that the Sierra Club has not 
addressed in its comment exactly how it concluded that it would be 
feasible for the specific boilers in question to use ``a cleaner fuel 
or employ[ ] other measures during periods of startup and shutdown'' 
that would reduce PM emissions. Sierra Club, although critical of EPA's 
evaluation of this criterion in the proposal, did not provide specific 
facts concerning what other measures the state could or should have 
required of these sources.
    Second, EPA is evaluating this criterion based upon factual 
information developed by the state to support the higher alternative 
emission limits applicable to the affected sources. Our August 15, 2013 
NPR explains the difficulties that some sources may have in meeting the 
otherwise applicable opacity emissions limits during non-steady-state 
modes of source operation, such as startup and shutdown. Included in 
EPA's explanations of such technical challenges was a reference to a CT 
DEEP workgroup provided to EPA by letter dated January 14, 2013 
(included in the docket for this action). As noted in our August 15, 
2013 NPR, the CT DEEP workgroup considered technical issues that make 
it difficult for some facilities to consistently meet, during periods 
of operation such as startup and shutdown, opacity limits that apply 
during normal steady-state operating conditions. The CT DEEP workgroup 
based its recommendations for an alternate emissions limit on the 
technology, normal operating procedures, and type of fuels used, as 
well as a review of historical opacity data for the sources in question 
(see Table 1 of EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR). The units considered for an 
alternative opacity limit were older and less efficient than new units 
that would be installed today. The workgroup took into account the fact 
that older

[[Page 41433]]

combustion units may take longer than modern units to reach optimum 
temperatures for efficient operation of control systems, such as 
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems for reducing 
NOX (a precursor of PM2.5), or may have higher 
emissions than modern units during cold startups. They also assessed 
whether the older units experienced more short-term load swings than 
would be expected from modern units. These swings make it more 
difficult to optimize unit operation and to continuously stay within 
the 20 percent and 40 percent averages that apply during normal, 
steady-state operations. These can be appropriate considerations 
relevant to development of alternative emission limits, so long as 
other CAA requirements are met. For further details of EPA's 
explanation, see our August 15, 2013 NPR. (78 FR 49710-49711).
EPA's Criterion 3
    The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club states that EPA did not 
fully address criterion 3 because ``the proposed SIP revision 
does not limit the frequency or duration of operation in startup, 
shutdown or other modes to the maximum extent practicable'' in that the 
alternative opacity limit applies equally to all units regardless of 
age or specific unit characteristics.
    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's assertion that 
criterion 3 has not been met. As discussed in our August 15, 
2013 NPR, the frequency and duration of periods of startup, shutdown or 
malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load 
changes for the units in question (see Table 1 in our August 15, 2013 
NPR) were taken into account by CT DEEP's workgroup and were a part of 
the analysis that resulted in the alternate opacity limit. In any 
event, however, the most important limitation in the SIP revision on 
the frequency and duration of opacity levels that may exceed those 
allowed during normal, steady-state operations is the regulation's 
strict limit on the amount of time per calendar quarter (less than 11 
hours) that a facility may operate under an alternative opacity limit 
(i.e., 60% opacity during any 6-minute block average). We believe that 
this limitation will help to ensure that the emissions units in 
question will be required to limit the frequency and duration of the 
relevant modes of operation and to restrict their emissions to an 
appropriate level consistent with criterion 3. Additionally, 
because fuel is a significant operational cost at EGUs it is also 
generally the case that EGUs have an economic incentive to optimize 
their fuel-to-air ratio consistent with best engineering practices so 
as to combust their fuel source most efficiently.
    Finally, the Connecticut SIP's revised recordkeeping and monitoring 
requirements serve as an additional, supplemental compliance tool that 
will help to ensure that the units emit at the alternative opacity 
limit only during the allowed modes of operation and within the allowed 
periods of time. As we stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the revisions 
to Connecticut's recordkeeping and monitoring requirements clarify and 
improve enforceability of SIP requirements. For example, revised 22a-
174-4 includes specific data availability requirements and revised 22a-
174-7 includes explicit, specific time frames for various notifications 
(such as ``no later than two business days''), as compared to prior 
requirements to notify the state ``promptly.''
EPA Criterion 4
    The Sierra Club's comment: Regarding criterion 4, the 
Sierra Club asserts that ``[c]riterion (4) requires that ``[a]s part of 
its justification of the SIP revision, the state would analyze the 
potential worst-case emissions that could occur during startup and 
shutdown.'' The Sierra Club asserts that EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR 
acknowledged that neither the state nor EPA attempted to quantify the 
exact increase in PM emissions that could be allowed under this SIP 
revision. Sierra Club also objected to EPA's rational for approval of 
the revision that, if elevated emissions levels were to cause future 
violations of the PM NAAQS, EPA has additional authority under the CAA 
to address such potential problems.
    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's comments on 
this point. Our August 15, 2013 NPR included an analysis under 
criterion 4 of the worst-case-emissions scenario. As we noted 
in our August 15, 2013 NPR, that worst-case scenario would occur 
(albeit extremely unlikely) if all nine currently operating units 
(i.e., those that we earlier noted were relevant to the analysis of 
potential emissions increases and that are subject to the alternative 
opacity limit), simultaneously were to: (1) Engage in startup, 
shutdown, or any of the other listed modes of operation for which the 
alternative opacity limit is allowed; (2) for exactly the same nearly 
11-hour period; and (3) at the uppermost allowed level of 60% opacity. 
The most important limitation on any additional emissions resulting 
from this SIP revision, even under this unlikely worst-case scenario, 
is the strict limit set by CT DEEP on the amount of time per calendar 
quarter (less than 11 hours) that a facility may lawfully operate up to 
the 60% alternative opacity limit.
    Furthermore, in response to the Sierra Club's assertion that EPA 
and Connecticut failed to attempt to quantify any potential worst-case 
scenario increase in emissions, we do so here. The total amount of 
annual PM2.5 emissions (11 tons per year, as reported in the 
2011 NEI) from the nine units collectively (which we earlier noted were 
part of our analysis of potential increased emissions that may arise 
from the alternate opacity limit) is an extremely small percentage of 
the total PM2.5 emissions statewide, both in comparison to 
stationary point-source emissions (436 tons per year) and to 
PM2.5 emissions from all sources (17,151 tons per year). The 
total amount of annual PM10 emissions from the nine units 
collectively (17 tons, as reported in the 2011 NEI) is an extremely 
small percentage of the total PM10 emissions statewide, both 
in comparison to stationary point-source emissions (494 tpy) and to 
PM10 emissions from all sources (38,995 tpy). Consequently, 
any potential annual increase in PM2.5 and PM10 
emissions from these nine units during the highly unlikely worst-case 
scenario would most likely be only a portion of that small percentage, 
because the relevant analysis concerns an assessment of maximum 
potential increases in emissions from these sources during a maximum of 
just under 11 hours per calendar quarter when there is a potential 
increase from 40% opacity to 60% opacity. While it is difficult to 
quantify the precise amount of additional PM2.5 and 
PM10 emissions that could occur during such periods of 
elevated opacity, we think that the additional PM2.5 and 
PM10 is likely to be relatively small in light of the fact 
that the total PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from the 
affected sources are currently such a small amount relative to other 
sources. As explained in detail earlier in this notice, our section 
110(l) analysis shows that any potential increases will easily be 
accommodated by the wide ``compliance cushion'' in Connecticut between 
the PM2.5, and PM10 NAAQS and air quality 
concentrations of PM2.5, and PM10.
    Finally, our August 15, 2013 NPR statement about the availability 
of additional CAA authorities that EPA could use to address any future 
problems in relation to the PM NAAQS was not intended to indicate that 
we anticipate there will be such a problem and, as we have explained in 
this notice, we have no reason to expect that such a problem will 
arise. We only intended to point out that the CAA

[[Page 41434]]

provides remedies to address any unexpected problems that could arise 
as a result of this SIP revision, even though we anticipate that such 
problems are highly theoretical in this instance. We emphasize, 
however, that our section 110(l) analysis strongly demonstrates that 
any such problems are not expected to arise as a result of this SIP 
revision.
EPA Criterion 5
    Sierra Club's comment: For criterion 5, the Sierra Club 
claims that the proposed SIP revision includes nothing that will 
minimize emissions impacts on ambient air quality during periods of 
startup and shutdown. The Sierra Club also asserts that, although EPA 
identified reporting requirements contained in Connecticut's SIP, 
prompt reporting does not minimize air-quality impacts and does not 
rise to the level of taking ``all possible steps'' to minimize the 
impact of the emissions.
    EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's comments about 
criterion 5 for the following reasons. As we explained in our 
August 15, 2013 NPR, RCSA Section 22a-174-4, which is being approved as 
part of EPA's action today, requires submission of all COMS data on a 
quarterly basis, along with a quarterly quality-assurance audit, and 
the submitted data would be required to include data during periods of 
startup, shutdown or malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel 
switching or sudden load changes. The sources are not exempt from the 
opacity standards during such periods and all emissions that occur 
during such periods will be counted in the context of the SIP, such as 
for emissions inventories, modeling demonstrations, and other 
regulatory purposes. Alternative emissions limits for non-steady-state 
modes of operation are not equivalent to exemptions. We also emphasize 
that this regulation requires a facility to submit a corrective action 
plan for a failed audit. We believe that prompt reporting and the 
requirement to submit a corrective action plan (if demonstrated to be 
necessary by an audit) helps to minimize air-quality impacts by 
alerting the CT DEEP to possible operational issues so that the CT DEEP 
may then work with the facility to implement corrective actions.
    In addition, we note that the quarterly reporting requirement is 
aligned with the regulation's quarterly maximum limit on use of the 
alternative opacity limit (slightly less than 11 hours). Moreover, the 
exception in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) itself is designed on its face to 
minimize emissions during startup and shutdown; stack testing; soot-
blowing, fuel switching or sudden load changes. That is, the source 
operator must limit the time period during which the alternative 
opacity limit applies to less than 11 hours per calendar quarter, and 
must limit opacity levels during such periods to no more than 60% 
opacity during any 6-minute block average.
EPA Criterion 6
    The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club's comments on criterion 
6 are related to those for criterion 5. Specifically, 
the Sierra Club claims that EPA does not point to anything that 
requires continuous minimization of emissions.
    EPA's response: We incorporate by reference here the entirety of 
our responses (above) to the Sierra Club's comments on EPA criterion 
5 due to the similarity of the Sierra Club's comments on 
criteria 5 and 6.
EPA Criterion 7
    The Sierra Club did not submit an adverse comment on criterion 
7, noting that the criterion ``is met by Connecticut's 
proposed opacity SIP revisions.'' Accordingly, no response from EPA is 
necessary or provided here.
    Comment 4: The Sierra Club claims that EPA's evaluation of the 
``exemption'' in Connecticut's revised Section 22a-174-18 (visible 
emissions regulation) for sources subject to federal NSPS set forth in 
40 CFR 60 is flawed and that the ``exemption'' is unlawful. The Sierra 
Club argued that EPA's approval of a SIP revision that eliminates the 
currently applicable opacity standard from certain categories of 
sources has the ``practical and legal effect'' of exempting those 
sources for emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    Response 4: As noted earlier, by letter dated March 27, 2014, CT 
DEEP withdrew from its SIP submission Section 22a-174-18(j)(2). Thus, 
without conceding Sierra Club's arguments about the legality of Section 
22a-174-18(j)(2), EPA provides no response to those arguments because 
the SIP is not being revised to include that regulatory provision.

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)

    Comment: CLF asserts that the provision in Connecticut's SIP 
revision that allows deviations from otherwise applicable visible 
emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and other 
discrete periods of routine operations, like those set forth in RCSA 
Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), is illegal. CLF further commented that if EPA 
determines that this provision does not violate the CAA and approves 
it, such approval should clearly state that (1) the SIP revision is 
effective prospectively, beginning on the date that EPA officially 
approves it; and (2) for that reason, approval of the exemption for 
periods of startup, shutdown, and other listed modes of operation into 
the federally-enforceable SIP has no retroactive effect on past 
violations. CLF's September 16, 2013 comment letter included, as an 
attachment, other comments that CLF submitted to the CT DEEP on 
February 14, 2012 regarding Bridgeport Harbor Station's CAA Title V 
operating permit renewal (2012) which, in relevant part, addresses 
Connecticut's visible emissions rule and RCSA Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), 
which CLF asserts is illegal under the CAA. Also attached to CLF's 
September 16, 2013 letter were comments submitted by CLF to EPA 
regarding EPA's proposed SIP Call.
    Response: EPA disagrees with CLF's assertion that the alternative 
emission limits for opacity during modes of operation such as startup, 
shutdown, and others contained in RCSA Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), which 
differ from opacity limits that apply during normal steady-state 
operating conditions, are illegal under the CAA. In fact, as discussed 
in our August 15, 2013 NPR, EPA has longstanding SIP guidance that 
recommends criteria relevant to development of such alternative opacity 
limits or other control measures that may apply during specific modes 
of source operation such as startup and shutdown, if properly supported 
and established.\11\ EPA has also recently reiterated these criteria in 
a proposed rulemaking relevant to its interpretation of CAA 
requirements applicable to SIP provisions.\12\ These criteria are 
intended to ensure that opacity limits or other control measures or 
techniques in SIPs that apply during specific modes of source 
operation, such as startup or shutdown, are designed to minimize 
emissions in order to provide for attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements (e.g., enforceability). As 
discussed above, we believe that these

[[Page 41435]]

criteria have been met with respect to the revisions at issue in 
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum entitled ``State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant 
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert 
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the 
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on September 20, 1999.
    \12\ See, ``State Implementation Plans; Response to Petition for 
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule,'' 78 FR 12459 
(Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to CLF's comments about the effective date of our 
approval of Connecticut's SIP revision and the relationship of these 
specific revisions to factual circumstances that pre-date the effective 
date of the SIP revisions, the SIP revisions we are approving today are 
effective on August 15, 2014. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions 
does not change the legal requirements that applied under the SIP, 
prior to this action.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP three 
regulations submitted by the State of Connecticut on December 1, 2004. 
Specifically, EPA is approving revised RCSA Section 22a-174-18 
``Control of particulate matter and visible emissions,'' except for the 
phrase ``or malfunction'' in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) and all of 
Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP 
submission. EPA is also approving revised RCSA Section 22a-174-4 
``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting,'' and revised RCSA 
Section 22a-174-7 ``Air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment operation.'' These latter two regulations strengthen 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which improve 
the state's ability to detect violations of emissions limits. As noted 
earlier, because Connecticut withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) from its 
SIP submission, stationary sources subject to a federal NSPS will 
remain subject to the opacity limits contained in ``Control of 
particulate emissions'' under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).
    Revised Section 22a-174-18 establishes and requires limitations on 
visible and PM emissions from certain stationary sources, identifies a 
standardized method for determining compliance for sources without 
COMS, and establishes an alternative opacity limit of up to 60 percent 
opacity (during any 6-minute block average) during certain non-steady-
state modes of operation for sources with COMS. In addition, the 
revised regulation sets a strict limit on the amount of time (0.5 
percent of a facility's total operating hours during any calendar 
quarter) that sources with COMS can operate under the alternative 
opacity limit. As described earlier in this notice, we believe that the 
revision of Section 22a-174-18 will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of any NAAQS or other applicable CAA requirements, and thus 
is approvable with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA.

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 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.
    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 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 15, 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on July 9, 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.

[[Page 41436]]

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (104) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on December 1, 2004.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection dated December 1, 2004 submitting a revision to the 
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, Section 22a-174, 
Abatement of Air Pollution Regulations, amended April 1, 2004:
    (1) Section 22a-174-4 ``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting.''
    (2) Section 22a-174-7 ``Air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment operation.''
    (3) Section 22a-174-18 ``Control of particulate matter and visible 
emissions,'' with the exception of the phrase ``or malfunction'' in 
Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which CT 
DEEP withdrew from the SIP submittal.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from CT DEEP dated January 14, 2013, entitled 
``Information to Support EPA's Approval of Connecticut's Requirements 
for Opacity.''
    (B) Letter from CT DEEP dated July 8, 2013, withdrawing from CT 
DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision the phrase ``and malfunction'' 
from Subsection (j)(1) of RCSA Section 22a-174-18.
    (C) Letter from CT DEEP dated March 27, 2014, withdrawing from CT 
DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision Section 22a-174-18(j)(2).

0
3. In Sec.  52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding new entries to 
existing state citations for 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-174-18 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.385  EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.

* * * * *

                                     Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Dates
                                      --------------------------
 Connecticut state    Title/subject        Date         Date     Federal Register    Section        Comments/
     citation                          adopted  by    approved        citation        52.370       description
                                          State        by EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
22a-174-4.........  Source                  4/1/04      7/16/14  [Insert Federal      (c)(104)  ................
                     monitoring,                                  Register
                     recordkeeping                                Citation].
                     and reporting.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
22a-174-7.........  Air pollution           4/1/04      7/16/14  [Insert Federal      (c)(104)  ................
                     control                                      Register
                     equipment and                                Citation].
                     monitoring
                     equipment
                     operation.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
22a-174-18........  Control of              4/1/04      7/16/14  [Insert Federal      (c)(104)  All of Section
                     particulate                                  Register                       22a-174-18 is
                     matter and                                   Citation].                     approved, with
                     visible                                                                     the exception
                     emissions.                                                                  of the phrase
                                                                                                 ``or
                                                                                                 malfunction''
                                                                                                 in Section 22a-
                                                                                                 174-18(j)(1)
                                                                                                 and all of
                                                                                                 Section 22a-174-
                                                                                                 18(j)(2), which
                                                                                                 CT DEEP
                                                                                                 withdrew from
                                                                                                 the SIP
                                                                                                 submittal.
                                                                                                 Because
                                                                                                 Connecticut
                                                                                                 withdrew
                                                                                                 Section 22a-174-
                                                                                                 18(j)(2) from
                                                                                                 its SIP
                                                                                                 submission,
                                                                                                 stationary
                                                                                                 sources subject
                                                                                                 to a federal
                                                                                                 NSPS will
                                                                                                 remain subject
                                                                                                 to the opacity
                                                                                                 limits
                                                                                                 contained in
                                                                                                 ``Control of
                                                                                                 particulate
                                                                                                 emissions''
                                                                                                 under the SIP
                                                                                                 (See 37 FR
                                                                                                 10842). See
                                                                                                 Section 19-508-
                                                                                                 18, ``Control
                                                                                                 of Particulate
                                                                                                 Emissions''
                                                                                                 posted at http://www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41437]]

[FR Doc. 2014-16469 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P