[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21351-21363]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09183]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0198; FRL-9961-16-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; CT; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the remaining portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision addresses
the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
referred to as the good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). This action proposes to approve Connecticut's demonstration
that the state is meeting its obligations regarding the transport of
SO2 emissions into other states. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2015-0198 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0198,''
Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics,
and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. At the previously listed EPA Region I
address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2015-0198. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at 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.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; 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: Donald Dahl,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Action
III. Section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
    A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
    B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
of the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Connecticut

    C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    1. SO2 Emissions Trends
    2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    3. SO2 Air Dispersion Modeling
    a. Emission Rates and Modeling Domain
    b. Meteorology and Background Air Quality
    i. Interpretation of Modeling Results
    ii. Modeled Results and Impacts on Neighboring States
    4. SIP Approved Regulations Specific to SO2 and
Permitting Requirements
    5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally Enforceable Regulations
    6. Conclusion
    D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIPs,
which EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are
to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibility under the CAA. A
detailed history, interpretation, and rationale of these SIPs and their
requirements can be found among other citations, in EPA's May 13, 2014
proposed rule titled, ``Infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008
Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?''
(see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245). Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the
revisions proposed in such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon
what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains.
    On May 30, 2013, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its SIP,
certifying its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. On June 3, 2016 (81
FR 35636), EPA approved CT DEEP's certification that its SIP was
adequate to meet most of the program elements required by section
110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
However, at that time, EPA did not take action on CT DEEP's
certification that its SIP met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is now proposing to act on this element,
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of CT DEEP's May 30, 2013 submission to
address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

II. Summary of the Proposed Action

    This proposed approval of Connecticut's SIP addressing interstate
transport of SO2 is intended to show that the state is
meeting its obligations regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\1\ Interstate transport
requirements for all NAAQS pollutants prohibit any source--or other
type of emissions activity--in one state from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
state. As part of this analysis, and as explained in detail below, EPA
has taken several approaches to addressing interstate transport in
other actions based on the characteristics of the pollutant, the
interstate problem presented by emissions of that pollutant, the
sources that emit the pollutant, and the information available to
assess transport of that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed approval of Connecticut's SIP under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information contained in
the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any
other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding
Connecticut's air quality status. Any such future actions, such as
area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own
administrative records and EPA's analyses of information that
becomes available at those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling
analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's Data Requirements Rule (80 FR
51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to EPA by states,
air agencies, and third party stakeholders such as citizen groups
and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone that EPA has
addressed in other actions in that SO2 is not a regional
mixing pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large (and often multi-state) area.
While transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of
lead (Pb) since its physical properties result in localized pollutant
impacts very near the emissions source, the physical properties and
release height of SO2 are such that impacts of
SO2 do not experience the same sharp decrease in ambient
concentrations as rapidly and as nearby as for Pb. Emissions of
SO2 travel further and have sufficiently wider ranging
impacts than emissions of Pb to require a different approach than
handling Pb transport, but not far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to regional transport pollutants such as ozone or
PM2.5.
    Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport
of SO2: The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport are
too tightly circumscribed to the source, and the approaches for ozone
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's
evaluation of whether Connecticut has met is transport obligations was
accomplished in several discrete steps. First, EPA evaluated what
universe of sources are likely to be responsible for SO2
emissions that could contribute to interstate transport. An assessment
of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Connecticut made it
clear that the vast majority of SO2 emissions in Connecticut
are from fuel combustion at point and nonpoint sources, and therefore
it would be reasonable to evaluate the downwind impacts of emissions
from the combined fuel combustion source categories in order to help
determine whether the state has met is transport obligations.
    Second, EPA selected a spatial scale--essentially, the geographic
area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably
expect SO2 impacts to occur--that would be appropriate for
its analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an ``urban scale'' with
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers from point sources given the
usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-wide air
quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies at those point sources. As such, EPA utilized an assessment
up to 50 kilometers from fuel-combustion point sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality that might have an impact on the
transport of SO2 from Connecticut to downwind states.
    Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in Connecticut and their
possible impacts in downwind states, including: SO2 ambient
air quality; SO2 emissions and SO2 emissions
trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations and permitting
requirements; available air dispersion modeling; and, other SIP-
approved or Federally promulgated regulations which may yield
reductions of SO2 at Connecticut's fuel-combustion point and
nonpoint sources.

    Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3
(i.e., emissions sources, spatial scale and available data, modeling
results and enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an analysis
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether or not fuel-
combustion sources in Connecticut would significantly contribute to
nonattainment in other states, and then whether they would interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states.
    Based on the analysis provided by the state in its SIP submission
and EPA's assessment of the information in that submittal for each of
the factors discussed at length below in this action, EPA proposes to
find that sources or emissions activity within Connecticut will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor will they interfere with
maintenance of, the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.

III. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport

A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
    EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\2\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, EPA has addressed interstate transport in
eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking actions that
quantify state emission reduction obligations.\3\ In other actions,
such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, EPA has considered a variety of factors on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In
such actions, EPA has considered available information such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011), designed to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
    \3\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \4\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be
met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that
impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example,
EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,'' \5\ that the physical properties of
Pb prevent its emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation
phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease
in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance
from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.\6\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the October 14, 2011 guidance document, can be found
among other instances, in the proposed approval and a subsequent final
approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
    \6\ Id. at pp 7-8.
    \7\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Connecticut

    As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state and how emissions from these source categories may impact air
quality in other states. The EPA believes that a reasonable starting
point for determining which sources and emissions activities in
Connecticut are likely to impact downwind air quality with respect to
the SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the NEI.\8\ The NEI
is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions of criteria
pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air
emissions sources, and is updated every three years using information
provided by the states. At the time of this rulemaking, the most
recently available dataset is the 2014 NEI, and the state summary for
Connecticut is included in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.

          Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emissions
                          Category                             (tons per
                                                                 year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities.........................       1,511
Fuel Combustion: Industrial.................................         759
Fuel Combustion: Other......................................       9,170
Waste Disposal and Recycling................................         466
Highway Vehicles............................................         267
Off-Highway.................................................         244
Miscellaneous...............................................           8
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................      12,425
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority
of SO2 emissions in Connecticut originate from fuel
combustion at point and nonpoint sources. Therefore, an assessment of

Connecticut's satisfaction of all applicable requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may be
reasonably based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of emissions from
the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric utilities,
industrial processes, and other sources \9\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``other'' category of fuel combustion in Connecticut is
comprised almost entirely of residential heating through fuel oil
combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definitions contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are
helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for
SO2 in its stoichiometric gaseous form in the context of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS originating from stationary sources.
Notably, section 4.4 of this appendix titled, ``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria'' provides definitions for
SO2 Monitoring Spatial Scales for microscale, middle scale,
neighborhood, and urban scale monitors. The microscale includes areas
in close proximity to SO2 point and area sources, and extend
approximately 100 meters from a facility. The middle scale generally
represents air quality levels in areas 100 meters to 500 meters from a
facility, and may include locations of maximum expected short-term
concentrations due to proximity of major SO2 point, area,
and non-road sources. The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality
conditions between 0.5 kilometers and 4 kilometers from a facility, and
emissions from stationary and point sources may under certain plume
conditions, result in high SO2 concentrations at this scale.
Lastly, the urban scale is used to estimate concentrations over large
portions of an urban area with dimensions of 4 to 50 kilometers from a
facility, and such measurements would be useful for assessing trends
and concentrations in area-wide air quality, and hence, the
effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies. Based on
these definitions contained in EPA's own regulations, we believe that
it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from electric
utilities and industrial processes in Connecticut in distances ranging
from 0 km to 50 km from the facility. In other words, SO2
emissions from stationary sources in the context of the 2010 primary
NAAQS do not exhibit the same long-distance travel, regional transport
or formation phenomena as either ozone or PM2.5, but rather,
these emissions behave more like Pb with localized dispersion.
Therefore, an assessment up to 50 kilometers from potential sources
would be useful for assessing trends and SO2 concentrations
in area-wide air quality.\10\ Based on the fact that SO2
emissions from residential fuel combustion consists of 73% of all
SO2 emissions in the NEI, EPA believes it is reasonable to
evaluate any regulations intended to address fuel oil, specifically
with respect to the sulfur content in order to determine interstate
transport impacts from the category of ``other'' sources of fuel
combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA recognizes in Appendix A.1 titled, ``AERMOD (AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model)--'' of appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 that the model
is appropriate for predicting SO2 up to 50 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary sources via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration,
or air dispersion modeling.\11\ Our assessment of SO2
emissions from fuel combustion categories in the state and their
potential on neighboring states are informed by all available data at
the time of this rulemaking, and include: SO2 ambient air
quality; SO2 emissions and SO2 emissions trends;
SIP-approved SO2 regulations and permitting requirements;
available air dispersion modeling; and, other SIP-approved or Federally
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2.
This notice describes EPA's evaluation of Connecticut's May 30, 2013
infrastructure SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/2010-1-hour-sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
    \12\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can
be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking,
but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for Connecticut, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Connecticut's
satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the state's SIP submission with
respect to the following four factors: (1) SO2 ambient air
quality and emissions trends for Connecticut and neighboring states;
(2) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Connecticut on neighboring states based on available air
dispersion modeling results; (3) SIP-approved regulations specific to
SO2 emissions and permit requirements; and (4) other SIP-
approved or Federally enforceable regulations that, while not directly
intended to address or reduce SO2 emissions, may yield
reductions of the pollutant. A detailed discussion of each of these
factors is below.
1. SO2 Emissions Trends
    Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submission refers to EPA's
previous designation efforts for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In
particular, Connecticut explains that on February 7, 2013, EPA
transmitted a letter to the state observing that, based on ambient air
quality data collected between 2009 and 2011, no monitored violations
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS had been recorded in Connecticut.\13\
Additionally, the state references a technical support document it
submitted with its SIP titled, ``Technical Justification to Support a
Designation of Attainment of the 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS for Connecticut'' (hereafter referred to as the Technical
Justification), which includes state-specific information about ambient
monitoring data, large sources of SO2, and air dispersion
modeling.\14\ Where applicable, supporting information from the
Technical Justification will be referenced in the discussions below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated final nonattainment
designations for 29 areas in 16 states in which monitors had
recorded violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, based on data
from 2009-2011. See 78 FR 47191. As Connecticut contained no such
areas, no areas in Connecticut were designated in that action. The
EPA is now subject to a court order to complete designations under
the NAAQS for the rest of the nation, including Connecticut.
However, as of the date of this notice EPA has not designated any
areas in Connecticut under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    \14\ See http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/air/so2/so2_designation_tsd_final_13mar2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate
transport of SO2 in Connecticut is based upon emissions from
fuel combustion at electric utilities, industrial sources, and
residential heating. As part of the Technical Justification document,
Connecticut observed that, in accordance with the most recently
available designations guidance at the time,\15\ there were four
facilities (all electric utilities) in Connecticut with reported actual
emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2 in any given year between 2009 and 2011. The four
facilities and each facility's maximum SO2 emissions in

any one year between 2009 and 2011 are presented in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ March 24, 2011 guidance document titled, ``Area
Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' See, e.g. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/documents/SO2DesignationsGuidance2011.pdf.

    Table 2--Connecticut Facilities With Emissions in Any Single Year
 Between 2009-2011 Exceeding 100 tons per year (tpy), as Provided in the
                     State's Technical Justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Highest yearly
                                                         SO2 emissions
                                                         (tpy) between
                    Facility name                        2009 and 2011
                                                          (state point
                                                       source inventory)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power.....................................              235.2
Norwalk Power *......................................              489.0
PSEG Power New Haven.................................              216.9
PSEG Power BPT Harbor................................            2,974.6
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................            3,915.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Norwalk Power is included in this summary because it was part of the
  state's Technical Justification. The facility was deactivated on June
  1, 2013, and the permit was officially revoked in November 2013.

    While the information in Table 2 provides the highest yearly
SO2 emissions between 2009 and 2011 based on the state point
source inventory, an emissions summary for all electric utilities
within the state subject to the federal Acid Rain Program will help
determine whether the emissions from the facilities above can be relied
upon as a general indicator of state-wide SO2 emissions from
all electric utilities. Data for this purpose can be found in the most
recent EPA Air Markets Program Data (2016 AMPD).\16\ The 2016 AMPD is
an application that provides both current and historical data collected
as part of EPA's emissions trading programs. A summary of all 2016
SO2 emissions from electric utilities in Connecticut subject
to the Acid Rain Program is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.

 Table 3--2016 AMPD Data for All Connecticut Electric Utilities in tons
                             per year (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2016 AMPD
                       Facility name                             data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSEG Power BPT Harbor......................................        238.8
Middletown Power...........................................         29.8
PSEG Power New Haven.......................................         29.3
Montville Station..........................................         26.1
Lake Road Generating Company...............................         11.9
Kleen Energy Systems Project...............................          8.5
Bridgeport Energy..........................................          7.8
Milford Power Company, LLC.................................          6.9
Waterbury Generation.......................................          1.3
Wallingford Energy, LLC....................................          0.6
Devon......................................................          0.3
Capitol District Energy Center.............................          0.3
Alfred L Pierce Generating Station.........................          0.0
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................        361.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 provides several key pieces of information. First, the
emissions from the still-operational facilities referenced in the
state's Technical Justification have decreased significantly compared
to the historical high level during the 2009 to 2011 time period. The
combined emissions from PSEG Power BPT Harbor, PSEG Power New Haven,
and Middletown Power were 3,426.7 tons according to the state point
source inventory during the highest year between for 2009-2011, whereas
the 2016 AMPD data indicate that the combined emissions from these same
facilities is slightly less than 300 tons. Additionally, the combined
emissions from the still operational facilities referenced in the
Technical Justification from the state point source inventory between
2009-2011 is significantly higher than the combined 2016 AMPD emissions
from all electric utilities, indicating that the overall SO2
emissions from large sources (such as electric generating units) within
Connecticut has decreased substantially between 2009 and the time of
this rulemaking. Lastly, according to the 2016 AMPD, SO2
emissions from the still-operational facilities referenced in the
Technical Justification account for the vast majority of the
SO2 emissions from all electric utilities in the state;
therefore, EPA believes that any assessment of SO2 emissions
from electric utilities in the state may be informed by the emissions
from PSEG Power BPT Harbor, PSEG Power New Haven, and Middletown Power.
As previously noted, Norwalk Power was deactivated on June 1, 2013, and
the permit for the facility was officially revoked in November 2013.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    Data collected at ambient air quality monitors indicate the
monitored values of SO2 in the state have remained below the
NAAQS. Relevant data from AQS Design Value (DV) \17\ reports for recent
and complete 3-year periods are summarized in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the primary 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(set at 75 parts per billion (ppb)) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance
with the NAAQS can be found in appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.

                   Table 4--Trend in SO2 Design Values in ppb for AQS Monitors in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2009-2011  2011-2013  2013-2015
               AQS monitor site                        Monitor location          DV  (ppb)  DV  (ppb)  DV  (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-001-0012..................................  Edison School, Bridgeport.......         20         14          9
09-005-0005..................................  Mohawk Mountain, Cornwall.......        (*)          7          5

09-009-0027..................................  Criscuolo Park, New Haven.......         36         23         13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The design value for this site is invalid due to incomplete data for these years and not for use in comparison
  to the NAAQS.

    As shown in Table 4 above, the DVs for the two monitoring sites for
which there are complete data for all years between 2009 and 2015 have
decreased between each of the 3-year blocks shown in the table. The
highest valid DV in Connecticut for 2013-2015 is 13 ppb, which is well
below the NAAQS.
    It is not known whether the monitors in Table 4 were sited to
capture points of maximum impact from PSEG Power BPT Harbor, PSEG Power
New Haven, and Middletown Power. The monitoring information, when
considered alone, might not support a conclusion that the areas most
impacted by these sources are attaining the NAAQS when considered in
the context of the spatial scales defined in the background section of
this rulemaking.

  Table 5--Distances Between Still-Operational Electric Utilities in Connecticut's Technical Justification and
                                Regulatory Monitors With Complete 2013-2015 Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Distance to
                                               closest AQS                                         2013-2015 DV
                  Facility                    monitor in CT             Spatial scale                  (ppb)
                                                  (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSEG Power BPT Harbor......................             3.2  Neighborhood.......................               9
PSEG Power New Haven.......................             1.5  Neighborhood.......................              13
Middletown Power...........................            37.5  Urban..............................              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 indicates that while the monitors closest to PSEG Power BPT
Harbor (AQS Site ID 09-001-0012) and PSEG New Haven (AQS Site ID 09-
009-0027) may not be sited in the area to capture points of maximum
concentration from the facilities, the monitors are located in the
neighborhood spatial scale in relation to the facilities, i.e.,
emissions from stationary and point sources may under certain plume
conditions, result in high SO2 concentrations at this scale.
Forty CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4.4(3) defines neighborhood
scale as ``[t]he neighborhood scale would characterize air quality
conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use areas with
dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometer range.'' The closest AQS monitor
to Middletown Power with complete 2013-2015 data (AQS Site ID 09-009-
0027) would be considered an urban scale monitor when compared to the
location of the facility. The most recently available DVs based on
2013-2015 at all three monitors are well below the NAAQS.
    However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the state is insufficient to demonstrate that Connecticut has
met its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs and
their associated spatial scales support the notion that emissions
originating within Connecticut are not contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS within the state, prong 1 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
specifically addresses the effects that sources within Connecticut have
on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, an evaluation and
analysis of SO2 emissions data from facilities within the
state, together with the potential effects of such emissions on ambient
data in neighboring states, is appropriate.
    As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for
SO2 monitoring networks indicate that the maximum impacts
from stationary sources can be expected within 4 kilometers of such
sources, and that distances up to 50 kilometers would be useful for
assessing trends and concentrations in area-wide air quality. The only
nearby state within 50 km of any of the currently operating facilities
in Connecticut is New York; all other areas within 50 km of these
facilities are contained within Connecticut's borders.\18\ As a result,
no further analysis of the other neighboring states (Rhode Island and
Massachusetts) or any other states is necessary for assessing the
impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 pollution from
these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ New Jersey is within 50 km of Norwalk Power, but as
previously mentioned, the facility was deactivated in June 2013, and
its permit was revoked in November 2013. As a result, its current
and future emissions are effectively zero and EPA does not believe
that its emissions are contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in
New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. SO2 Air Dispersion Modeling
    As discussed in the Section I of this rulemaking, EPA's current
approach for implementing the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
provides the flexibility to characterize air quality from stationary
sources through either air dispersion modeling or ambient air quality
monitors that have been sited to capture the points of maximum
concentration. EPA observes that Appendix A.1 titled, ``AERMOD (AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model)'' of appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 is appropriate for
SO2 in instances where transport distances over which
steady-state assumptions are appropriate, up to 50 kilometers. While
not written specifically to address interstate transport, the 50
kilometer range in AERMOD aligns with the urban monitoring scale, and
thus, EPA believes that the use of AERMOD provides a reliable
indication of air quality for transport purposes. In order to further
analyze the impact of certain electric utilities in Connecticut on air
quality in neighboring states, the state performed air dispersion
modeling using emissions data from 2009-2011, which reflects emissions
from PSEG Power Bridgeport Harbor, PSEG Power New Haven, and Middletown
Power, as well as the now deactivated Norwalk Power Station. As
previously discussed, each of these facilities emitted at least 100 tpy
of SO2 or more in any given year between 2009 and 2011, and
based on the 2016 AMPD, the emissions from the

still-operational facilities account for almost 80% of the total
SO2 emissions from all electric utilities in Connecticut
subject to the Acid Rain Program.
    The state performed the air dispersion modeling using the most
recent version of the AERMOD modeling system available at the time,
which included the dispersion model AERMOD (version 12345), along with
its pre-processor modules AERMINUTE, AERMET, AERSURFACE, and AERMAP. A
discussion of the state's procedures and results follows below, with
references to EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document'' (Modeling TAD), most recently updated
in August 2016, as appropriate. The EPA observes that while the
Modeling TAD is intended to assist states and other interested parties
in characterizing local air quality for designations purposes, these
same methodologies can be used to determine whether SO2
emissions from electric utilities in Connecticut are leading to
exceedances of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. As a result of the
localized dispersion pattern and ranges of expected maximum impacts of
SO2 emissions from stationary sources in the context of the
2010 primary NAAQS along with our current flexibility to characterize
air quality through either properly sited monitors or air dispersion
monitoring, EPA believes that the analysis performed by Connecticut for
designations purposes is also adequate to address interstate transport
requirements.
a. Emission Rates and Modeling Domain
    Individual unit emission rates modeled at the four facilities
reflected either the allowable hourly rates based on the maximum firing
rate of the unit or hourly continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) data
correlated with hourly meteorological data. In other words, Connecticut
modeled actual emissions for units at each facility based on CEMs data
where it was available, and modeled the allowable hourly rates for
units at each facility where CEMs data was not available. EPA believes
the use of actual and allowable emissions adequately represented
operating conditions at the time of Connecticut's overall
infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore the modeled concentrations
adequately characterized air quality with respect to emissions from the
four facilities.
    Furthermore, the overall SO2 emissions levels in
Connecticut from these four sources are declining, and the higher
emissions levels reflected in the state's modeling analysis represent a
conservative estimate of future emissions from these facilities. In
particular, EPA expects continued lower emissions from these four
facilities as a result of Norwalk Power's closure and permit
revocation, along with the measures contained in Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-174-19a \19\ intended to
limit SO2 emissions within the state. The EPA believes that
the 2016 AMPD data presented in Table 3, which shows an overall
decrease at each facility, adequately characterizes the extent of these
sources' contribution to future air quality in the area.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA published the final rulemaking approving RCSA Section
22a-174-19a on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39322).
    \20\ The Modeling TAD notes that the most recent three years of
actual emissions should be used, and as part of this analysis CT
used 2009-2011 emissions which are significantly higher than the
2016AMPD actual emissions data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the receptor networks for the modeling domains, the
state used the AERMOD terrain pre-processor AERMAP. EPA's recommended
procedure for characterizing an area by prevalent land use is based on
evaluating the dispersion environment within 3 kilometers of the
facility. According to EPA's modeling guidelines contained in documents
such as the Modeling TAD, rural dispersion coefficients are to be used
in the dispersion modeling analysis if more than 50% of the area within
a 3 km radius of the facility is classified as rural. Conversely, if
more than 50% of the area is urban, urban dispersion coefficients
should be used in the modeling analysis. Consistent with these
guidelines, the state modeled three of the facilities using urban
dispersion, i.e., PSEG Power New Haven, PSEG Power BPT Harbor, and
Norwalk Power, and one facility using rural dispersion, i.e.,
Middletown.
    The modeling domain for each facility consisted of a Cartesian grid
centered around the facility with each side measuring 100 km, i.e., 50
km from the center of the grid in length. Consistent with the best
practices contained in the Modeling TAD, the state's receptors for
modeling were placed as follows: 250 meter spacing from the center to 2
km from the center of the grid; 500 meter spacing from 2 km to 10 km
from the center of the grid; 1 km spacing from 10 km to 20 km from the
center of the grid; and, 2 km spacing from 20 km to 50 km from the
center of the grid. The extent of each facility's domain into counties
in New York and New Jersey is summarized in the table below.

   Table 6--Neighboring States and Counties Included in the Modeling Domains of Certain Connecticut Facilities
                               [Y indicates the county is included in that domain]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Middletown    PSEG Power  New  PSEG Power  BPT
  Extent of modeling domain county (state)         Power            Haven            Harbor       Norwalk  Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergen (New Jersey).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Bronx (New York)............................  ...............               Y   ...............               Y
Dutchess (New York).........................  ...............               Y   ...............               Y
Hudson (New Jersey).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Kings (New York)............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Nassau (New York)...........................  ...............               Y                Y                Y
New York (New York).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Orange (New York)...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Putnam (New York)...........................  ...............               Y   ...............               Y
Queens (New York)...........................  ...............               Y   ...............               Y
Richmond (New York).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Rockland (New York).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y
Suffolk (New York)..........................               Y                Y                Y                Y
Ulster (New York)...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               Y

Westchester (New York)......................  ...............               Y   ...............               Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Meteorology and Background Air Quality
    As part of its technical justification for the designation process,
Connecticut provided EPA with access to AERMOD-ready five-year
meteorological data processed through AERMET. These datasets were
generated from National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing
System (ASOS) stations in the state and upper air sounding data at
either Albany, New York or Brookhaven, New York. The state used
Integrated Surface Hourly Data (ISHD for surface observations), as well
as archived one-minute data pre-processed through AERMINUTE, which uses
the archived one-minute wind data to develop hourly average wind speed
and wind direction for use in AERMET. The meteorological databases used
by the state for each of the 4 facilities are summarized in the table
below.

   Table 7--Meteorological Databases for Each Facility/Modeling Domain
  Provided in Connecticut's Technical Justification for the Designation
                                 Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Meteorological database  (2007-
        Facility/modeling domain                      2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power.......................  Surface: Bradley Airport
                                         Upper Air: Albany, New York
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norwalk Power..........................  Surface: Sikorsky Airport
PSEG Power New Haven...................  Upper Air: Brookhaven
PSEG Power BPT Harbor..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that, consistent with the Modeling TAD, the most
recent years of meteorological data at the time were used in the
state's modeling.
    Consistent with EPA's March 1, 2011 memorandum titled, ``Additional
Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for
the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,''
Connecticut developed background values from hourly SO2
levels measured by Federal Reference Method (FRM) equivalent monitors
located throughout the state. The FRM monitors corresponding to each of
the facilities' modeling domain are listed in the table below.

   Table 8--Background Air Quality Monitoring Sites for Each Facility/
  Modeling Domain Provided in Connecticut's Technical Justification for
                         the Designation Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monitor location for      Corresponding
    AQS monitor site for         background air       facility/modeling
   background air quality            quality               domain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
09-001-0012.................  Edison School,        Middletown Power
                               Bridgeport.
09-003-1003.................  McAuliffe Park, East  Norwalk Power and
                               Hartford.             PSEG Power BPT
                                                     Harbor
09-009-0027.................  Criscuolo Park, New   PSEG Power New Haven
                               Haven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the development of background concentrations, the state adopted
what is referred to as a ``Tier II'' approach: A multi-year average of
2nd high measured 1-hour concentrations of each season and hour-of-day
combinations from 2009-2011. These concentrations represent
SO2 emissions from out-of-state transport, as well as local/
state point, area, and mobile source emissions that were not explicitly
modeled. These background concentrations were included in Connecticut's
final AERMOD modeling results for the four facilities emitting at or
above 100 tpy in any given year between 2009 and 2011. The ``Tier II''
approach adopted by the state for incorporating background
concentration into the total modeled impacts from the four facilities
is consistent with EPA guidelines. Furthermore, EPA notes that the
emissions from any un-modeled large emissions sources which emit
SO2 through fuel combustion can be adequately represented
through the calculated background concentrations because of their low
emissions. As shown in Table 3, the remaining SO2 emissions
from all electric utilities in Connecticut subject to the Acid Rain
Program sum to only 63.7 tons, and the largest of these facilities,
Montville Station (26.1 tpy), is approximately 70 kilometers away from
the closest modeled facility. Based on these low emissions and distance
from any of the modeled domains, EPA does not believe that emissions
from Montville Station have the potential to alter the concentration
gradient around the modeled sources. In a similar manner, EPA does not
believe that the remaining 37.6 tpy of SO2 from the
remaining electric utilities subject to the Acid Rain Program, ranging
from just 11.9 tons per year to almost 0 tons per year, have the
potential to alter the concentration gradient around the modeled
sources. While data is not available for any year after the 2014 NEI
for SO2 emissions as

a result of fuel combustion at industrial processes, EPA believes that
based on all available information, these emissions do not have the
potential to alter the concentration gradient around the modeled
sources, and can therefore be adequately represented as background
concentration. Specifically, the 2014 NEI lists the sum of these
industrial processes with fuel combustion leading to SO2
emissions as approximately 759 tons. See Table 1. EPA has confirmed
these industrial processes are not centralized in such a manner that
all 759 tons are concentrated in one area.
i. Interpretation of Modeling Results
    Due to the proximity between Norwalk Power, PSEG Power BPT Harbor,
and PSEG Power New Haven, the emissions units from all three facilities
were included in each facility's modeling domain. Middletown Power
emissions were modeled separately in the Middletown Power domain, and
no other emission units were included in the Middletown Power domain.
The modeling results, including the impacts of background
concentration, are summarized in the table below.

Table 9--AERMOD Modeling Results Accounting for Background Concentration
  for Facilities in Connecticut Emitting at Least 100 tpy of SO2 in Any
Given Year Between 2009 and 2011 and the Corresponding Percentage of the
                             2010 SO2 NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     4th high average
                                        1-hour SO2      Percent of 2010
                                      concentrations     SO2 NAAQS  (75
          Facility/domain             in micrograms       ppb or 196.0
                                     per cubic meter     [micro]g/m\3\)
                                    ([micro]g/m\3\) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power..................               89.7               45.7
Norwalk Power.....................               88.1               44.9
PSEG Power New Haven..............               87.5               44.6
PSEG Power BPT Harbor.............              159.0               81.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It should be noted that these modeled results are expressed in
  [micro]g/m\3\; the 2010 SO2 NAAQS set at 75 ppb is approximately
  equivalent to 196 [micro]g/m\3\

    Table 9 above shows that the highest modeled concentration of
SO2 for areas within the modeling domain (including areas
outside of Connecticut) of the four facilities in Connecticut emitting
at least 100 tpy of SO2 in any given year between 2009 and
2011 is 159 [micro]g/m\3\, which corresponds to slightly over 80% of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (set at 75 ppb or approximately 196
[micro]g/m\3\). This value was modeled at the PSEG Power BPT Harbor
domain, and can be attributed to the higher modeled emissions rate
input than any of the other three facilities. As displayed above in
Table 2, the PSEG Power BPT Harbor facility had the highest
SO2 emissions according to the state provided point source
inventory, and the facility also has the highest SO2
emissions according to the 2014 NEI.
    As noted earlier, the emissions from all facility units except for
Middletown Power were used in the modeling domains for Norwalk Power,
PSEG Power BPT Harbor, and PSEG Power New Haven. The modeling results
consistently demonstrate that the points of maximum impact for these
three facilities, all of which are below the level of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, are located within 2.5 km of the center of each
facility and are not located in neighboring states. Furthermore, the
modeled concentrations of SO2 decrease dramatically to
levels under 80 [micro]g/m\3\ (approximately 30.5 ppb, or 41% of the
NAAQS) at a distance of no more than 10 km away from the center of each
facility; therefore, the cumulative impacts from the three facilities'
SO2 emissions are not expected to contribute to a violation
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. It should also be noted that the
modeled concentrations at each of these modeling domains are
potentially over-estimating current impacts from the facilities because
of the permanent closure and permit revocation of Norwalk Power, which
occurred after Connecticut developed its Technical Justification for
this submission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Connecticut's technical justification was prepared and
submitted to EPA in March, 2013, and as previously noted, EPA
published its final approval of RCSA Section 22a-174-19a on July 10,
2014 (79 FR 39322).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeled results for Middletown Power indicate the maximum
concentration of 89.7 [micro]g/m\3\, or approximately 34 ppb (45% of
the NAAQS), is expected no more than 2.5 km from the center of the
facility and are not located in neighboring states. Furthermore,
modeled concentrations where the Middletown Power domain intersects
with that of the closest facility (PSEG Power New Haven) specifically
in areas encompassed by the town of North Branford, would be at most
125 [micro]g/m\3\, or approximately 48 ppb (64% of the NAAQS). EPA
believes that this cumulative value potentially overestimates the
impacts of the facilities' emissions at the intersection of the domains
because this value was obtained by adding the highest values in the
range of concentrations corresponding to the modeling results at the
intersection of the domains. As a result, EPA believes that the
SO2 emissions from Middletown Power, when considered alone
or in aggregate with the SO2 emissions from the PSEG Power
North Haven domain, are not expected to contribute to a violation of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS either within or outside of the modeling
domain.
ii. Modeled Results and Impacts on Neighboring States
    EPA believes that based on all available information at the time of
this rulemaking, including the Technical Justification provided by the
state, a reasonable way to estimate the impacts from SO2
emissions as a result of electric utility or industrial fuel combustion
originating in Connecticut on its neighboring states is to evaluate the
following two factors in tandem: (1) The most recent and highest DV
based on data collected from ambient air quality monitors in any county
included in the individual domains for the four sources in Connecticut,
i.e., the counties listed in Table 6; and, (2) the modeled
concentrations from each of the facilities in the areas closest to the
neighboring states. The approach described below combines the modeled
impacts from the electric utilities and industrial processes in
Connecticut without a background concentration with a reasonable
background concentration in neighboring states to yield a final
estimated impact that reflects projected air quality in those

neighboring states. The resultant calculated impacts support the notion
that based on all available information, emissions from facilities in
Connecticut are not contributing significantly to a violation of the
NAAQS in neighboring states under a worst case scenario analysis.
    As noted in the discussion above, the modeled concentrations of
SO2 originating from Norwalk Power, PSEG Power BPT Harbor,
and PSEG Power New Haven (and representative of all electric utilities
and industrial processes in Connecticut that emit SO2 as a
result of fuel combustion) dramatically decrease after 2.5 km from the
center of each facility, and at a distance of no more than 10 km from
the center of each of these facilities the modeled concentrations are
under 30.5 ppb. All emissions from the three sources were included in
each individual facility's modeling domain. Therefore, EPA believes
that 30.5 ppb is a reasonable value that represents the worst-case
potential combined contribution from any electric utility or industrial
process in Connecticut which emits SO2 via fuel combustion
on any neighboring county included in the modeling domains,
particularly because Norwalk Power has ceased operation and its permit
has been revoked following Connecticut's infrastructure SIP submission.
This value includes background concentrations of SO2
calculated by Connecticut using a Tier II approach, which consisted of
the multi-year average of 2nd high measured 1-hour concentrations for
each season and hour-of-day combination from 2009-2011. Although
Connecticut's Technical Justification did not include the numerical
background concentration value for each of the modeling domains, EPA
believes that a reasonable background air quality concentration for any
of the domains can be estimated using a Tier Ib approach, which
consists of the 1-hour DV for the most recent 3-year period from
ambient air quality monitors located in Connecticut. The lowest valid
DV at any of the monitors listed above (AQS Site ID 09-001-0012) in
Table 8 based on ambient air quality data collected between 2013 and
2015 is 9 ppb. The worst-case potential combined contribution from the
combined electric utilities and industrial processes on any neighboring
county included in the modeling domain, not including background
concentrations of SO2, can therefore be estimated to be 21.5
ppb. Additionally, this 21.5 ppb value can be used to estimate the
worst case impacts from these sources on any neighboring state, without
taking into account the background concentrations of SO2 in
those neighboring states.
    In order to estimate the worst case combined SO2 impacts
from electric utilities and industrial processes in Connecticut on any
neighboring state with an appropriate background concentration, EPA
added the 21.5 ppb described above to the highest DV in each
neighboring county included in the modeling domains for Norwalk Power,
PSEG Power BPT Harbor, and PSEG Power New Haven. It should be noted
that the DV in each neighboring county included in the modeling domains
already includes a monitored background concentration of
SO2, and therefore adding a worst case potential combined
contribution from the 3 sources of 21.5 ppb using the process described
above, instead of 30.5 ppb from the state's Technical Justification,
eliminates the double counting of background SO2
concentrations:

Table 10--Worst Case Combined SO2 Impacts From Norwalk Power, PSEG Power
       BPT Harbor, and PSEG Power New Haven on Neighboring States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Superimposed
                                      2013-2015 county      worst case
    Neighboring county (state)         level DV  (ppb)      SO2 impact
                                                               (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergen (New Jersey)...............  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Bronx (New York)..................  16..................            37.5
Dutchess (New York)...............  5...................            26.5
Hudson (New Jersey)...............  7...................            28.5
Kings (New York)..................  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Nassau (New York).................  Incomplete data.....        \a\ 37.5
New York (New York)...............  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Orange (New York).................  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Putnam (New York).................  6...................            27.5
Queens (New York).................  11..................            32.5
Richmond (New York)...............  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Rockland (New York)...............  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Suffolk (New York)................  Incomplete data.....        \a\ 37.5
Ulster (New York).................  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
Westchester (New York)............  No monitors.........        \b\ 37.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The design values for these sites are invalid due to incomplete data
  for partial years between 2013 and 2015; therefore, the worst case SO2
  impacts were calculated by adding the highest DV for any county listed
  in the table to 21.5 ppb. The resulting worst case scenario is for
  illustrative purposes only.
\b\ In the absence of ambient air quality monitors in the county, the
  worst case SO2 impacts were calculated by adding the highest DV for
  any county in the state listed in the table to 21.5 ppb. The resulting
  worst case scenario is for illustrative purposes only.

    As shown in Table 10, the estimated highest worst case
SO2 concentrations for all contributing sources, given
background combined with all of the potential effects of transport from
Norwalk Power, PSEG Power BPT Harbor, and PSEG Power New Haven (also
representative of all electric utilities and industrial processes in
Connecticut that emit SO2 via fuel combustion) on
neighboring states is no greater than 37.5 ppb, or approximately 50% of
the NAAQS, and not contributing to a violation of the 2010 standard.
This superimposed value includes a valid 2013-2015 DV (which is
representative of background concentration) for the monitor in Bronx
County, New York (AQS ID 36-005-0133), and modeled concentrations of
SO2 that represent the worst case currently and the upper
bound for projected future emissions from all electric utilities and
industrial processes in Connecticut that emit SO2 through
fuel combustion, one of which is no longer operating. After
consideration of

these factors and based on all available information at the time of
this rulemaking, and including an analysis of the worst case scenario
including all relevant emissions sources, EPA does not believe that
combined emissions from the two remaining operational facilities in
Connecticut closest to New York and New Jersey, i.e., PSEG Power BPT
Harbor and PSEG Power New Haven, would contribute significantly to a
violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS anywhere in either New York
or New Jersey.
    In a similar manner for Middletown Power, EPA observes that the
modeling domain for the facility extends only into a small portion of
Suffolk County, New York; all other areas in the modeling domain are
contained within Connecticut's borders. PSEG Power New Haven is the
only other modeled source where the modeling domain intersects the
portion of the modeling domain in New York from Middletown Power. As
described earlier, the predicted modeled concentration of
SO2 at the intersection of the Middletown Power and the PSEG
Power New Haven domains is no more than 48 ppb. Subtracting a
reasonable estimate of background concentration of SO2 via a
Tier 1b approach using the 1-hour design value for the latest 3-year
period, the predicted modeled concentration of SO2 at the
intersection of the two domains is 39 ppb. Therefore, the estimated
worst case SO2 impact on Suffolk County, New York that
superimposes the modeled SO2 concentrations from the
intersection of the two modeling domains, and the 2013-2015 DV (which
includes background) for Suffolk County, New York (AQS ID 36-103-0009)
is 48 ppb, or approximately 64% of the NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that the
2013-2015 DV for Suffolk County of 9 ppb is not valid for comparison to
the NAAQS due to an incomplete dataset. Available data reported into
AQS from the monitor between 2013 and 2015 indicates that the highest
99th percentile 1-hour concentration of SO2 was 10 ppb.
Thus, an even more conservative estimate of the worst case
SO2 impact on Suffolk County, New York is 49 ppb, or
approximately 65% of the NAAQS. Based on all available information at
the time of this rulemaking, EPA therefore does not believe that
sources or emissions activity originating from Middletown Power, when
considered alone or along with those from PSEG Power New Haven, would
contribute significantly to a violation of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in New York. Because the modeling results also adequately account
for SO2 emissions originating from fuel combustion at all
other electric utilities and industrial process, EPA does not believe
that such facilities would contribute significantly to a violation of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS anywhere in New York.
    With respect to the potential transport impacts from sources or
emissions activity originating in Connecticut on the neighboring states
of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, EPA reiterates that all other areas
within 50 km of the currently operating sources modeled by the state
are contained within Connecticut's borders. In addition, the design
value for 2015 for all SO2 monitors within Massachusetts and
Rhode Island were below 75 ppb. The monitor with the highest design
value in 2015 in either Rhode Island or Massachusetts was 28 ppb (37%
of the standard) in Fall River, Massachusetts. As a result, no further
analysis of these states is provided, nor does EPA believe that further
analysis is needed to establish that SO2 emissions
originating in Connecticut as a result of fuel combustion from electric
utilities or industrial processes do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in those neighboring
states.
4. SIP Approved Regulations Specific to SO2 and Permitting
Requirements
    The state has various provisions and regulations to ensure that
SO2 emissions are not expected to substantially increase in
the future. Notably, federally enforceable conditions contained in RCSA
Section 22a-174-19a, ``Control of sulfur dioxide emissions from power
plants and other large stationary sources of air pollution,''apply to
emissions at the four facilities outlined in the state's Technical
Justification as well as other sources of SO2 emissions.
Specifically, this SIP-approved regulation requires these four
facilities, and some others such as fossil-fuel-fired boilers with a
maximum heat input capacity of 250 MMBTU/hr or more, to limit their
SO2 emissions by either meeting an SO2 emission
limit of 0.33 lbs/MMBtu or limiting the amount of sulfur contained in
any liquid or gas the facilities may burn to 0.3% sulfur by weight. The
recently revised RSCA Section 22a-174-19b \22\ will limit those
stationary sources that are not subject to RSCA 22a-174-19a to
combusting residual fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.3% or less by
weight and distillate fuel oil of 0.0015% or less by weight by July 1,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 81 FR 33134 (May 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 NEI indicates the single largest, albeit diffuse, source
category of SO2 emissions from Connecticut is from fuel
combustion for residential heating, in excess of 9,000 tons. To address
SO2 emissions originating from the combustion of residential
heating, the state's Legislature adopted Connecticut General Statute
Title 16a, Chapter 296, Section 16a-21a.\23\ As of July 1, 2014 the
sulfur content for home heating oil in Connecticut is 500 parts per
million (ppm), or 0.05% by weight. The new limit of 15 ppm or 0.0015%
by weight, which will be federally effective on July 1, 2018,
represents a 97% reduction in emissions compared with allowable levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 81 FR 35636 (June 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to EPA's guidance ``Air Emission Factors and
Quantification AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors''
Chapter 1.3 titled, ``Fuel Oil Combustion,'' \24\ more than 95% of the
sulfur in fuel is converted to SO2. The Census Bureau
estimates that in 2000 approximately 52.4% of the 1.3 million
households in Connecticut relied on fuel oil as their heating fuel, or
681,200 households.\25\ It is not uncommon for typical households in
northeastern states such as Connecticut to use 800 gallons of fuel oil
per season, and prior to July 1, 2014, the sulfur content in fuel oil
in Connecticut ranged between 2,000-3,000 ppm, approximately six times
the current limit. EPA's emission factor to determine the approximate
amount of SO2 per 1000 gallons of fuel oil is 142 x S, where
S is the percent by weight of sulfur in fuel oil.\26\ At 3,000 ppm, the
percent by weight is 0.3, and therefore the amount of SO2
produced by the combustion of 1000 gallons of fuel oil is approximately
42.6 pounds. This yields an approximate yearly mass amount
SO2 emissions, as a result of fuel oil combustion, of over
11,600 tons, which is consistent with the 2011 NEI data of 11,437 tons
for home heating oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf.
    \25\ https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/fuels.html.
    \26\ See EPA's guidance ``Air Emission Factors and
Quantification AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors,'' page 1.3-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of this proposed rulemaking, the maximum allowable
sulfur content in fuel oil allowed by the Connecticut SIP is 0.05% by
weight, which should yield estimated yearly SO2 emissions of
1,900 tons from these diffuse emissions sources, which is substantially
less than the 2011 NEI data. By 2018, the annual SO2
emissions in Connecticut as a result of the 0.0015% maximum sulfur
content in heating oil will be approximately 60 tons. While EPA does
not currently have

a way to quantify the impacts of multiple small sources of
SO2 (the current estimate is approximately 6 pounds of
SO2 per year per household that uses fuel oil) in
neighboring states, the drastic decrease in the allowable sulfur
content in fuel oil and the associated reductions in SO2
emissions, combined with the diffuse nature of these emissions, make it
unlikely that the current and future emissions from residential
combustion of fuel oil are likely to lead to an exceedance of the NAAQS
in a neighboring state. Specifically, by 2018, the yearly
SO2 emissions per household using fuel oil will drop to
under 0.20 pounds per year.
    Lastly, for the purposes of ensuring that SO2 emissions
at new or modified sources in Connecticut do not adversely impact air
quality, the state's SIP-approved new source review (NSR) and
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) programs are contained in
RCSA Section 22a-174-2a, ``Procedural Requirements for New Source
Review and Title V Permitting'' and RCSA Section 22a-174-3a, ``Permit
to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources.'' Both sets of regulations
ensure that SO2 emissions due to new facility construction
or modifications at existing facilities will not adversely impact air
quality in Connecticut or in neighboring states.
5. Other SIP-Approved or Federally Enforceable Regulations
    In addition to the state's SIP-approved provisions that directly
control emissions of SO2, sources in Connecticut are also
subject to additional requirements that will have the effect of further
limiting SO2 emissions. On September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58467),
EPA published its final rulemaking approving Connecticut's request to
re-designate the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment. The
controls and federally enforceable measures approved into the SIP were
for the purposes of attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, as part of state's re-designation
request and consistent with the requirements of the CAA, Connecticut
submitted SO2 emissions projections for Fairfield and New
Haven Counties, showing that SO2 emissions in those counties
are projected to decrease by more than 50% between 2007 and 2025 as a
result of federal regulations and state regulations adopted into the
Connecticut SIP. EPA expects similar reductions throughout the rest of
the state following the state's adoption of a low sulfur fuel
regulation that requires further reductions in the fuel oil sulfur
content by July 1, 2018.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The reductions are due to a supplement to Connecticut's
Regional Haze Plan. See 81 FR 33134 (May 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the SIP-approved regulations in RCSA, EPA observes
that facilities in Connecticut are also subject to the Federal
requirements contained in regulations such as Mercury Air Toxic
Standards, and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Boilers and Process Heaters. These regulations reduce acid gases, which
includes reductions in SO2 emissions.
6. Conclusion
    As discussed in more detail above, EPA has considered the following
information in evaluating the state's satisfaction of the requirements
of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
    (1) EPA has not identified any current air quality problems in
nearby areas in the adjacent states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
New York) relative to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS;
    (2) Connecticut demonstrated using air dispersion modeling, that
its largest stationary source SO2 emitters are not expected
to cause SO2 air quality problems in other states relative
to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS;
    (3) Past and projected future emission trends demonstrate that such
air quality problems in other nearby states are unlikely to occur due
to sources in Connecticut; and
    (4) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further
reduce SO2 emissions from sources within Connecticut.
    Based on the analysis provided by the state in its SIP submission
and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find
that that sources or emissions activity within the state will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.

D. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased emissions from
sources within Connecticut, EPA believes that reasonable criteria to
ensure that sources or emissions activity originating within
Connecticut do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to
maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether these decreases in
emissions can be maintained over time.
    Table 11 below summarizes the SO2 emissions data for the
period of time between 2000 and 2015 for the four facilities in
Connecticut emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 in any given
year between 2009 and 2011. These facilities were chosen by the state
in its analysis and Technical Justification because they were the only
facilities to be emitting greater than 100 tons per year of
SO2 at the time of the state's submission.

       Table 11--Trend in SO2 Emissions in Tons per Year (tpy) for the Four Connecticut Electric Utilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Facility                           2000            2005            2010            2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown Power................................           4,396           1,298             164             147
Norwalk Power *.................................           6,759           1,001             140               0
PSEG Power New Haven............................           9,256           1,445             257             154
PSEG Power BPT Harbor...........................           9,220           2,831           1,273             707
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          29,631           6,574           1,833           1,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shows SO2 emissions from these four facilities
have decreased substantially over time, with one facility, Norwalk
Power, ceasing operations in June of 2013 and having its permit
permanently revoked in November 2013. A number of factors are involved
that caused this decrease in emissions, including the effective date of
RSCA 22a-174-19a (December 28, 2000) and the change in capacity factors
over time due to increased usage of

natural gas to generate electricity. The EPA believes that since actual
SO2 emissions from the facilities currently operating in
Connecticut have decreased between 2000 and 2015, this trend is not
expected to interfere with the neighboring states' ability to maintain
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA expects SO2 from sources other than the four
identified electric generating units will be lower in the future. In
2014, the state adopted lower sulfur-in-fuel limits for stationary
sources that are not subject to RSCA 22a-174-19a. These new limits are
codified in RSCA 22a-174-19b, which as noted above, were approved into
the SIP in 2016 as part of Connecticut's regional haze plan. The
sulfur-in-fuel limits contained in RSCA 22a-174-19b will limit these
stationary sources that are not subject to RSCA 22a-174-19a to
combusting residual fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.3% or less by
weight and distillate fuel oil of 0.0015% or less by weight will take
effect on July 1, 2018.
    Significant reductions from the largest category of SO2
emissions in Connecticut, home heating oil, will also continue into the
future. According to the NEI, there already was a reduction of
SO2 emissions from this source category of over 3,000 tons
between 2011 and 2014. Further reductions will occur as the sulfur-in-
fuel limit for home heating oil was lowered to 0.05% by weight on July
1, 2014, therefore only impacting half of the heating season in 2014,
and an even more restrictive limit of 0.0015% by weight on July 1,
2018.
    Lastly, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will
be addressed by Connecticut's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. Future minor sources with SO2
emissions of 15 tons but less than the PSD thresholds will be addressed
by the state's minor new source review permit program. The permitting
regulations contained within these programs are expected to ensure that
ambient concentrations of SO2 in Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island are not exceeded as a result of new
facility construction or modification originating in Connecticut.
    It is worth noting air quality trends for concentrations of
SO2 in the Northeastern United States.\28\ This region has
experienced a 77% decrease in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between 2000 and 2015 based on 46 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available data for 2015 indicates that the
mean value at these sites was 17.4 ppb, or less than 25% of the NAAQS.
When this trend is evaluated alongside the monitored SO2
concentrations within the state of Connecticut as well as the
SO2 concentrations recorded at monitors in Massachusetts,
New York, and Rhode Island, EPA does not believe that sources or
emissions activity from within Connecticut are significantly different
than the overall decreasing monitored SO2 concentration
trend in the Northeast region. As a result, EPA finds it unlikely that
sources or emissions activity from within Connecticut will interfere
with other states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on each of factors contained in the maintenance analysis, EPA
proposes to find the sources or emissions activity within the state
will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state.

IV. Proposed Aaction

    In light of the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Connecticut's infrastructure submittal for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS as it pertains to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to EPA New England Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register or by
submitting comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/
courier following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 16, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-09183 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13373]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST--2014-0011]

National Freight Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a public
meeting of its National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) to provide
recommendations to the Department as it continues to develop the
National Freight Strategic Plan (Plan). Meetings are open to the public
and there will be a period of time at the end of the second day of the
meeting for public comment.

DATES: Dates and Times: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 25,
2014, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time and March 26,
2014 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
    Location: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tretha Chromey, Designated Federal
Officer at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the NFAC Web site
at www.dot.gov/nfac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The NFAC was established to
provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on matters related
to freight transportation in the United States, including (1)
implementation of the freight transportation requirements of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141);
(2) establishment of the National Freight Network; (3) development of
the Plan; (4) development of strategies to help States implement State
Freight Advisory Committees and State Freight Plans; (5) development of
measures of conditions and performance in freight transportation; (6)
development of freight transportation investment, data, and planning
tools; and (7) legislative recommendations. The NFAC operates as a
discretionary committee under the authority of the DOT, established in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. See DOT's NFAC Web site for
additional information about the committee's activities at www.dot.gov/nfac.
    MAP-21 directs the DOT to develop the Plan in consultation with
State department of transportations and other appropriate stakeholders.
The Plan must include:
    (A) An assessment of the condition and performance of the national
freight network.
    (B) An identification of highway bottlenecks on the national
freight network that create significant freight congestion problems,
based on a quantitative methodology developed by the Secretary, which
shall, at a minimum, include--
    (i) information from the Freight Analysis Network of the Federal
Highway Administration; and
    (ii) to the maximum extent practicable, an estimate of the cost of
addressing each bottleneck and any operational improvements that could
be implemented.
    (C) Forecasts of freight volumes for the 20-year period beginning
in the year during which the Plan is issued.
    (D) An identification of major trade gateways and national freight
corridors that connect major population centers, trade gateways, and
other major freight generators for current and forecasted traffic and
freight volumes, the identification of which shall be revised, as
appropriate, in subsequent plans.
    (E) An assessment of statutory, regulatory, technological,
institutional, financial, and other barriers to improved freight
transportation performance (including opportunities for overcoming the
barriers).
    (F) An identification of routes providing access to energy
exploration, development, installation, or production areas.
    (G) Best practices for improving the performance of the national
freight network.
    (H) Best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on
communities.
    (I) A process for addressing multistate projects and encouraging
jurisdictions to collaborate.
    (J) Strategies to improve freight intermodal connectivity.
The Plan serves as a document to outline a long-term strategy to
implement the National freight policy. The goals of the National
freight policy are related to economic competitiveness and efficiency;
congestion; productivity; safety, security, and resilience of freight
movement; infrastructure condition; use of advanced technology;
performance, innovation, competition, and accountability in the
operation and maintenance of the network; and environmental impacts.
[23 U.S.C. 167]
    Agenda: The two day agenda will include:
    (1) Welcome, opening remarks, and introductions;
    (2) Update of the Department's National Freight Strategic Plan;
    (3) Discussion on proposed recommendations to the DOT on the
following elements of the Plan:
     An assessment of statutory, regulatory, technological,
institutional, financial, and other barriers to improved freight
transportation performance (including opportunities for overcoming the
barriers);
     Best practices for improving the performance of the
national freight network; and
     Best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement
on communities.
    (4) Public comment, which will occur at the end of day 2.
The meeting agenda will be posted on the NFAC Web site at www.dot.gov/nfac in advance of the meeting.
    Public Participation: This meeting will be open to the public.
Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your name and affiliation no later than March 18,
2014, in order to facilitate entry and guarantee seating.
    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: The public meeting is
physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals
requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other
ancillary aids, are asked to notify Ms. Tretha Chromey, at (202) 366-
1999 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>five (5) business days before the meeting.
    Written comments: Persons who wish to submit written comments for
consideration by the Committee must email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send them
to Ms. Tretha Chromey, Designated Federal Officer, National Freight
Advisory Committee, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W82-320, Washington, DC
20590 by March 18, 2014 to provide sufficient time for review. All
other comments may be received at any time before or after the meeting.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
Tretha Chromey,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-05138 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P