[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6649-6652]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02283]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD;
Amendment 39-18091; AD 2014-12-11 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-11 for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. AD
2014-12-11 required revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) to
include the appropriate operating limitations for performing Class D
external load-combination operations. As published, AD 2014-12-11
referenced an incorrect date for Revision No. 12 of Sikorsky RFM SA
S92A-RFM-003, Part 1. This AD corrects the error while retaining the
requirements of AD 2014-12-11. These actions are intended to require
appropriate operating limitations to allow operators to perform Class D
external load-combination operations, including human external cargo,
in this model helicopter that now meets the Category A performance
standard.

DATES: This AD is effective March 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2009-1088; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any
incorporated-by-reference information, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to revise AD 2014-12-11, Amendment 39-17872 (79 FR 45085,
August 4, 2014), which applied to Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. The
NPRM, published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2014 (79 FR
63855), proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2014-12-11 and
correct the date of the RFM revision that appeared in the text of the
rule.
    Specifically, AD 2014-12-11 included the following under paragraph
(f), Credit for Actions Previously Completed: ``Incorporation of the
changes contained in Sikorsky RFM SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Revision No.
12, approved March 21, 2005, before the effective date of this AD is
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
specified in paragraph (e) of this AD.'' As published, the reference to
March 21, 2005, was incorrect. The correct approval date for Revision
12 is December 9, 2010.
    The FAA has determined that it is appropriate to revise AD 2014-12-
11 to correct the RFM approval date. This revision clarifies which RFM
revision is acceptable to obtain credit for previous actions.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed. The final rule is reprinted in its entirety for the
convenience of affected operators.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 63855, October
27, 2014).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that a regulatory distinction is required, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-12-11, Amendment 39-17872 (79 FR 45085, August 4, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-12-11 R1 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-18091;
Docket No. FAA-2009-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an inaccurate Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM) provision, which was approved without
appropriate limitations for this model helicopter for carrying Class
D external rotorcraft-load combinations, including Human External
Cargo (HEC), when this model helicopter was not certificated to
Category A one-engine inoperative (OEI) performance standards,
including fly away capabilities after an engine failure, which is
required for carrying HEC.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2014-12-11, Amendment 39-17872 (79 FR 45085,
August 4, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 13, 2015.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    Within 90 days, revise the Operating Limitations section of
Sikorsky Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1,
Section I, by inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making
pen and ink changes, as follows:
    (1) In the ``Types of Operation'' section, beneath Hoist, add
the following: ``The hoist equipment certification installation
approval does not constitute approval to conduct hoist operations.
Operational approval for hoist operations must be granted by the
Federal Aviation Administration. No cabin seats may be installed in
front of station 317 when conducting Human External Cargo hoist
operations, which requires Category A performance capabilities.''
    (2) In the ``Flight Limits'' section, add the following: ``
``HOIST'' When conducting Human External Cargo operations, which
require category `A' performance capabilities, the minimum hover
height is 20 feet AGL and the maximum hover height is 80 feet AGL.
``HOIST'' The collective axis must remain uncoupled when conducting
Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance
capabilities, for the period of time that the person is off the
ground or water and not in the aircraft. This can be accomplished by
either uncoupling the collective axis or by the pilot depressing the
collective trim switch during the pertinent portion of the
maneuver.''
    (3) In the ``Weight Limits'' section:
    (i) Remove the following: ``NOTE: The 150 pound hoist decrement
does not preclude Cat A operations at a gross weight of 26,500
pounds with a hoist installed. If conditions permit, the pilot may
go to the right of the 26,500 line on Figure 1-2 to determine a
maximum gross weight up to 26,650 and then subtract 150 pounds.''
    (ii) Add the following: ``NOTE: If conditions permit, the pilot
may go to the right of the 26,500 pound line on Figure 1-2 to
determine the maximum gross weight and then subtract a 150 pound
hoist decrement. The maximum gross weight for category `A'
operations cannot exceed 26,500 pounds (12,020 kilograms).''
    (iii) Add the following and insert Figure 1 to Paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this AD:
    `` ``HOIST'' Maximum gross weight for Human External Cargo,
which requires category `A' performance capabilities, is limited to
the gross weight determined in accordance with the following Figure
1 to Paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this AD for your altitude and
temperature with the air-conditioner, anti-ice, and bleed air turned
off.''

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this AD:  Figure 1 to
Paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this AD becomes Figure 1-2A when inserted
in the ``Weight Limits'' section of your RFM.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE15.000

(g) Credit for Actions Previously Completed

    Incorporation of the changes contained in Sikorsky RFM SA S92A-
RFM-003, Part 1, Revision No. 12, approved December 9, 2010, before
the effective date of this AD is considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f)
of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: John Coffey, Flight Test
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203)
383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510 Flight
Compartment Equipment.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 16, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate Manager, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02283 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41427-41437]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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