81 FR 38999 - Air Plan Approval; CT; NOX
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 115 (June 15, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 115 (June 15, 2016)
| Page Range | 38999-39001 | |
| FR Document | 2016-14100 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 38999-39001] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-14100] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0238, FRL-9947-68-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; CT; NOX Emission Trading Orders as Single Source SIP Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision continues to allow facilities to create and/or use emission credits using NOX Emission Trading and Agreement Orders (TAOs) to comply with the NOX emission limits required by Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the individual trading orders to allow facilities to determine the most cost-effective way to comply with the state regulation. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 15, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA- R01-OAR-2015-0238 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number (617) 918-1657, fax number (617) 918-0657, email [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose. II. Analysis of State Submission III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose On November 15, 2011, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP revision consists of eighty- nine source-specific Trading Agreement and Orders (TAOs) that allow twenty-four individual stationary sources of nitrogen oxide (NOX ) emissions to create and/or trade NOX emission credits in order to ensure more effective compliance with EPA SIP-approved state regulations for reducing NOX emissions. We previously approved source-specific TAOs of the same kind issued by CT DEEP under this program for these same sources on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The SIP submittal also includes Consent Order 8029A issued to Hamilton Sundstrand which addresses Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions. In our September 9, 2013 approval, EPA acted on most of the TAOs contained in CT DEEP's July 1, 2004 SIP revision submission to EPA. At that time, EPA did not act on (1) TAO 8021 issued to Pfizer; (2) TAO 8246 issued to Sikorsky Aircraft; (3) TAO 8110A issued to Yale University; and (4) Consent Order 7019A issued to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. On May 29, 2015, CT DEEP revised its July 1, 2004 SIP revision submittal to EPA by modifying TAO 8110A. Today we are acting on the modified version of TAO 8110A. EPA will take action on TAOs 8246 and 8021 at a future date. Lastly, on April 22, 2014 the CT DEEP withdrew Consent Order 7019A from the 2004 SIP submittal. The CAA requires states to develop Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations for all major stationary sources of NOX in areas which have been classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' and ``extreme'' as well as in all areas of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). This requirement is established by sections 182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA. Connecticut, as part of the OTR as well as being designated nonattainment for ozone, established NOX emission limits for existing major sources in order to meet the RACT requirement. The NOX emission limits are codified in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). These state regulations were last approved by EPA into the Connecticut SIP on October 6, 1997. (See 62 FR 52016). As stated above, when determining what constitutes RACT for a source, a state and EPA need to consider both technology and economic feasibility. For example, it is technically possible for a source to install pollution control devices in series to further reduce emissions. However, if a state and EPA [[Page 39000]] determined that such an installation would be economically infeasible in relation to the additional emissions reductions achieved, then the RACT emission limit under Connecticut's regulations could legitimately be established at a higher rate than would be achieved by installing control devices in series. RCSA 22a-174-22 establishes NOX emission limits for several types of fossil-fuel firing emission units. RCSA 22a-174-38 establishes NOX emission limits for municipal waste combustors. Since RACT is determined on a source-by-source basis, a fossil-fuel firing source may under Connecticut's regulations request a higher emission limit by making a demonstration to the CT DEEP that it is either technologically or economically infeasible, or both, to meet the NOX RACT limit in RCSA 22a-174-22. CT DEEP's use of the NOX TAOs has rendered the need for higher source-specific emission rates, based on demonstrations of technological and/or economic feasibility, less frequent, thus having the effect of reducing overall NOX emissions to a greater degree than would be the case without the TAO trading mechanism. For example, in its RACT Analysis for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) submitted to EPA on July 18, 2014 (2014 RACT Analysis), CT DEEP stated that ``[t]he traditional cost effectiveness ($/ton of NOX emitted) evaluation of controlling NOX emissions from the load-following boilers and uncontrolled turbines will not address high electric demand day (HEDD) emissions because the addition of controls on existing units that operate infrequently will nearly always result in a cost of control that is not reasonable.'' Accordingly, as an alternative to these potential single source SIP determinations, which can lead to higher levels of NOX emissions, Connecticut established an emission trading program in RCSA 22a-174-22(j) for fossil-fuel firing emission units and RSCA 22a-174- 38(d) for municipal waste combustors. These two SIP-approved regulations allow a source to participate in Connecticut's NOX emission trading program using two different mechanisms. RSCA 22a-174-22(j) requires a source that wants to participate in the program to enter into a TAO with the CT DEEP. RSCA 22a-174-38(d) does not require a municipal waste combustor (MWC) to enter into a TAO and instead contains specific requirements that an MWC must meet in order to create a NOX emission reduction credit that can be used in Connecticut's trading program. These emission trading programs provide incentives for some facilities subject to the NOX emission limits in either RSCA 22a-174-22 or RSCA 22a-174-38 to reduce their NOX emissions beyond what is required to meet RACT by allowing them to create discrete emission reduction credits (DERCs).\1\ The DERCs may then be purchased by other sources which otherwise may have needed a higher source-specific NOX emission limit due to technological and/or economic infeasibility. DERCs are created when a facility installs and operates a control device which reduces emissions beyond what is required to meet the NOX emission limitations in RSCA 22a-174-22 or in RSCA 22a-174-38(d). Once a DERC is created, it can then be sold to another source that is unable to meet the NOX limit in RSCA 22a-174-22 .\2\ The incentive to over control leads to a greater NOX emission reduction than the reduction that would have occurred if Connecticut had to establish a higher NOX emission limit for those sources which demonstrated that they would be unable to meet the NOX limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 due to cost or technological infeasibility, or both. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The NOX emission credits created pursuant to RSCA 22a-174-38(d) are referred to as emission reduction credits. \2\ RSCA 22a-174-38(d)(1) also allows a municipal waste combustor that commenced construction prior to December 20, 1989 to use emission credits created under RSCA 22a-174-38 to comply with the NOX emission limits contained in RSCA 22a-174- 38(c)(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the time Connecticut instituted the NOX emission trading program in 1995, the sources generating NOX emission credits in Connecticut were reducing their emissions to levels below those required by Connecticut's RACT regulations. Since that time, in more recent years, other states have established NOX RACT emission limits for emission units similar to those in Connecticut, at levels lower than the emission limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 which are currently approved in the Connecticut SIP as meeting RACT for the 1997 ozone standard. CT DEEP is now required by the CAA to recertify that its regulations meet RACT for the 2008 ozone standard. During this recertification process, CT DEEP recognized the fact the NOX emission limits contained in RSCA 22a-174-22 may not be stringent enough for the 2008 ozone standard by stating in its 2014 RACT Analysis that ``[w]hile the combination of emissions limits and trading initially led (sic) to significant system-wide emission reductions throughout Connecticut in 1995, the efforts to ``over-control'' to generate credits are now merely RACT in many other states. DEEP must therefore consider elimination of the single source emissions trading program, as well as more stringent emission limits, to meet current RACT levels and realize additional reductions in Connecticut emissions.'' In other words, CT DEEP's NOX emission trading program, as presently structured in RSCA 22a-174-22, may no longer be viable in the future to meet today's standards for RACT, as emission limits in RSCA 22a-174-22 may need to be revised in order for CT DEEP to demonstrate attainment with the 2008 ozone standard. In fact, CT DEEP's July 1, 2014 RACT submittal states, ``DEEP commits to perform further evaluation of Connecticut's municipal waste combustor and fuel- burning source NOX requirements and to seek any regulatory revisions necessary to revise the control requirements to a RACT level for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,'' and also states, ``DEEP commits to begin a review of NOX emissions and emissions controls for the sources now subject to RCSA section 22a-174-22 with the goal of developing changes to RCSA section 22a-174-22 sufficient to satisfy RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' \3\ Therefore, EPA is not deciding if the NOX trading program allowed by RSCA 22a-174-22 is sufficient to meet RACT for the 2008 ozone standard and is not taking any action on Connecticut's July 1, 2014 RACT SIP revision in this action. Rather, EPA will address those issues in a future rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Furthermore, CT DEEP is currently working with a RACT stakeholder workgroup on draft regulations. See www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&q=546804&deepNav_GID=1619. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Banked emission reduction credits must be correctly accounted for in attainment plans in order to prevent unplanned future emissions. On February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted its 2002 to 2008 reasonable further progress (RFP) plan and 2002 base year inventory to EPA as part of its attainment demonstration SIP submittal for the 1997 8-hr ozone standard. On October 14, 2009, Connecticut submitted a revision to the RFP plan. EPA approved Connecticut's RFP plan, as revised, on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50595). In the October 14, 2009 revision, Connecticut explained that any DERCs that existed in the base year 2002 will have expired by the end of the RFP period in 2008. This is based on the fact that under Connecticut's NOX emission trading program, DERCs expire within five years of creation. Since any DERCs existing in 2002 would not be available for use in 2008, banked DERCs need not be accounted for in a state's RFP [[Page 39001]] analysis, and Connecticut has properly done that. Therefore, EPA is concluding the TAO's that we are proposing to approve into the SIP today have been properly accounted for in Connecticut's attainment plan. With respect to the 2008 ozone standard, both Connecticut nonattainment areas were initially designated ``marginal'' nonattainment for this standard on May 21, 2012. (See 77 FR 30088). However, on May 4, 2016, EPA re-classified or ``bumped-up'' these areas to moderate nonattainment. (See 81 FR 26697). Connecticut will need to account for DERCs in its new RFP and attainment plans for this standard which must be submitted as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 2017. II. Analysis of State Submission EPA issued a guidance document ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' (EIP Guidance) .\4\ This guidance applies to discretionary economic incentive programs (EIPs). EPA's final action on these discretionary economic incentive programs occurs when EPA acts on a state's request to revise the SIP. EPA reviewed the source- specific TAOs with respect to the expectations of the EIP Guidance. EPA has concluded, after review and analysis of the source-specific TAOs, that they are consistent with the EIP Guidance. See the Technical Support Document in the docket for this action for EPA's analysis of why the TAO's are consistent with the EIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone standard, Connecticut was divided into two separate areas, the Greater Connecticut Area and the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area. CT DEEP and EPA analyzed emission trading data for the period of time the TAOs were in effect to determine if more emission reduction credits were being used for compliance than were generated or created in any of Connecticut's two nonattainment areas. EPA has determined the TAOs have resulted in RACT equivalent emission reductions in each of the two nonattainment areas. See the Technical Support Document in the docket for this action for an explicit accounting of the emissions from each facility in each nonattainment area. The TAOs being approved into Connecticut's SIP today are limited to facilities which have already been authorized in the past by the State to operate under a TAO and those TAOs continue to authorize the sources until May 31, 2014 to create and/or use NOX emission credits and allow for unused NOX allowances to be converted into NOX emission credits. The TAOs previously issued by Connecticut to these facilities were approved by EPA into the Connecticut SIP on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The reason the TAOs must be approved at this time for these same facilities is that the TAOs previously approved had all expired by May 1, 2007. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's submitted SIP revision for the NOX TAOs submitted on November 15, 2011. EPA is not taking action on Consent Order 8029A issued to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. EPA will take action on this Consent Order at a later date. EPA is also proposing to approve TAO 8110A, submitted on July 1, 2004 and amended on May 29, 2015. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 31, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. 2016-14100 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38999
health or environmental effects, using ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, ensure more effective compliance with
practicable and legally permissible identified by Docket ID Number EPA– EPA SIP-approved state regulations for
methods, under Executive Order 12898 R01–OAR–2015–0238 at http:// reducing NOX emissions. We previously
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). www.regulations.gov, or via email to approved source-specific TAOs of the
In addition, this proposed rule, Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. For comments same kind issued by CT DEEP under
regarding the Philadelphia RACT submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the this program for these same sources on
requirements under the 1997 8-hour online instructions for submitting September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233),
ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal comments. Once submitted, comments March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and
implications as specified by Executive cannot be edited or removed from September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Regulations.gov. For either manner of SIP submittal also includes Consent
2000), because the SIP is not approved submission, the EPA may publish any Order 8029A issued to Hamilton
to apply in Indian country located in the comment received to its public docket. Sundstrand which addresses Volatile
state, and EPA notes that it will not Do not submit electronically any Organic Compound (VOC) emissions.
impose substantial direct costs on tribal information you consider to be In our September 9, 2013 approval,
governments or preempt tribal law. Confidential Business Information (CBI) EPA acted on most of the TAOs
or other information whose disclosure is contained in CT DEEP’s July 1, 2004 SIP
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 restricted by statute. Multimedia revision submission to EPA. At that
Environmental protection, Air submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be time, EPA did not act on (1) TAO 8021
pollution control, Incorporation by accompanied by a written comment. issued to Pfizer; (2) TAO 8246 issued to
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, The written comment is considered the Sikorsky Aircraft; (3) TAO 8110A issued
Reporting and recordkeeping official comment and should include to Yale University; and (4) Consent
requirements, Volatile organic discussion of all points you wish to Order 7019A issued to Hamilton
compounds. make. The EPA will generally not Sundstrand Corporation. On May 29,
consider comments or comment 2015, CT DEEP revised its July 1, 2004
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
contents located outside of the primary SIP revision submittal to EPA by
Dated: June 3, 2016. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or modifying TAO 8110A. Today we are
Shawn M. Garvin, other file sharing system). For acting on the modified version of TAO
Regional Administrator, Region III. additional submission methods, please 8110A. EPA will take action on TAOs
[FR Doc. 2016–14102 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am] contact the person identified in the FOR 8246 and 8021 at a future date. Lastly,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. on April 22, 2014 the CT DEEP
For the full EPA public comment policy, withdrew Consent Order 7019A from
information about CBI or multimedia the 2004 SIP submittal.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submissions, and general guidance on The CAA requires states to develop
AGENCY making effective comments, please visit Reasonably Available Control
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Technology (RACT) regulations for all
40 CFR Part 52 commenting-epa-dockets. major stationary sources of NOX in areas
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which have been classified as
[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0238, FRL–9947–68- Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and
Region 1] Indoor Programs Unit, Office of ‘‘extreme’’ as well as in all areas of the
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has
Air Plan Approval; CT; NOX Emission Environmental Protection Agency, EPA defined RACT as the lowest emission
Trading Orders as Single Source SIP New England Regional Office, 5 Post limitation that a particular source is
Revisions Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05–2), capable of meeting by the application of
Boston, MA 02109–3912, phone number control technology that is reasonably
AGENCY: Environmental Protection available considering technological and
Agency (EPA). (617) 918–1657, fax number (617) 918–
0657, email Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. economic feasibility (44 FR 53762;
ACTION: Proposed rule. September 17, 1979). This requirement
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
is established by sections 182(b)(2),
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Throughout this document whenever
182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean Connecticut, as part of the OTR as
State Implementation Plan (SIP) EPA. well as being designated nonattainment
revision submitted by the State of Table of Contents for ozone, established NOX emission
Connecticut. This revision continues to limits for existing major sources in order
allow facilities to create and/or use I. Background and Purpose.
II. Analysis of State Submission to meet the RACT requirement. The
emission credits using NOX Emission NOX emission limits are codified in
III. Proposed Action
Trading and Agreement Orders (TAOs) IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Regulations of Connecticut State
to comply with the NOX emission limits Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174–22
required by Regulations of Connecticut I. Background and Purpose (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). These
State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174– On November 15, 2011, the state regulations were last approved by
22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). The Connecticut Department of Energy and EPA into the Connecticut SIP on
intended effect of this action is to Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) October 6, 1997. (See 62 FR 52016).
propose approval of the individual submitted a formal revision to its State As stated above, when determining
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
trading orders to allow facilities to Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP what constitutes RACT for a source, a
determine the most cost-effective way to revision consists of eighty-nine source- state and EPA need to consider both
comply with the state regulation. This specific Trading Agreement and Orders technology and economic feasibility.
action is being taken in accordance with (TAOs) that allow twenty-four For example, it is technically possible
the Clean Air Act (CAA). individual stationary sources of nitrogen for a source to install pollution control
DATES: Written comments must be oxide (NOX) emissions to create and/or devices in series to further reduce
received on or before July 15, 2016. trade NOX emission credits in order to emissions. However, if a state and EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:37 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_39114/page/1.svg)
![39000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules
determined that such an installation incentives for some facilities subject to other states. DEEP must therefore
would be economically infeasible in the NOX emission limits in either RSCA consider elimination of the single
relation to the additional emissions 22a–174–22 or RSCA 22a–174–38 to source emissions trading program, as
reductions achieved, then the RACT reduce their NOX emissions beyond well as more stringent emission limits,
emission limit under Connecticut’s what is required to meet RACT by to meet current RACT levels and realize
regulations could legitimately be allowing them to create discrete additional reductions in Connecticut
established at a higher rate than would emission reduction credits (DERCs).1 emissions.’’ In other words, CT DEEP’s
be achieved by installing control The DERCs may then be purchased by NOX emission trading program, as
devices in series. other sources which otherwise may presently structured in RSCA 22a–174–
RCSA 22a–174–22 establishes NOX have needed a higher source-specific 22, may no longer be viable in the future
emission limits for several types of NOX emission limit due to technological to meet today’s standards for RACT, as
fossil-fuel firing emission units. RCSA and/or economic infeasibility. DERCs emission limits in RSCA 22a–174–22
22a–174–38 establishes NOX emission are created when a facility installs and may need to be revised in order for CT
limits for municipal waste combustors. operates a control device which reduces DEEP to demonstrate attainment with
Since RACT is determined on a source- emissions beyond what is required to the 2008 ozone standard. In fact, CT
by-source basis, a fossil-fuel firing meet the NOX emission limitations in DEEP’s July 1, 2014 RACT submittal
source may under Connecticut’s RSCA 22a–174–22 or in RSCA 22a–174– states, ‘‘DEEP commits to perform
regulations request a higher emission 38(d). Once a DERC is created, it can further evaluation of Connecticut’s
limit by making a demonstration to the then be sold to another source that is municipal waste combustor and fuel-
CT DEEP that it is either technologically unable to meet the NOX limit in RSCA burning source NOX requirements and
or economically infeasible, or both, to 22a–174–22 .2 The incentive to over to seek any regulatory revisions
meet the NOX RACT limit in RCSA 22a– control leads to a greater NOX emission necessary to revise the control
174–22. CT DEEP’s use of the NOX reduction than the reduction that would requirements to a RACT level for the
TAOs has rendered the need for higher have occurred if Connecticut had to 2008 ozone NAAQS,’’ and also states,
source-specific emission rates, based on establish a higher NOX emission limit ‘‘DEEP commits to begin a review of
demonstrations of technological and/or for those sources which demonstrated NOX emissions and emissions controls
economic feasibility, less frequent, thus that they would be unable to meet the for the sources now subject to RCSA
having the effect of reducing overall NOX limits in RSCA 22a–174–22 due to section 22a–174–22 with the goal of
NOX emissions to a greater degree than cost or technological infeasibility, or developing changes to RCSA section
would be the case without the TAO both. 22a–174–22 sufficient to satisfy RACT
trading mechanism. For example, in its At the time Connecticut instituted the under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.’’ 3
RACT Analysis for the 2008 ozone NOX emission trading program in 1995, Therefore, EPA is not deciding if the
national ambient air quality standard the sources generating NOX emission NOX trading program allowed by RSCA
(NAAQS) submitted to EPA on July 18, credits in Connecticut were reducing 22a–174–22 is sufficient to meet RACT
2014 (2014 RACT Analysis), CT DEEP their emissions to levels below those for the 2008 ozone standard and is not
stated that ‘‘[t]he traditional cost required by Connecticut’s RACT taking any action on Connecticut’s July
effectiveness ($/ton of NOX emitted) regulations. Since that time, in more 1, 2014 RACT SIP revision in this
evaluation of controlling NOX emissions recent years, other states have action. Rather, EPA will address those
from the load-following boilers and established NOX RACT emission limits issues in a future rulemaking.
uncontrolled turbines will not address for emission units similar to those in Banked emission reduction credits
high electric demand day (HEDD) Connecticut, at levels lower than the must be correctly accounted for in
emissions because the addition of emission limits in RSCA 22a–174–22 attainment plans in order to prevent
controls on existing units that operate which are currently approved in the unplanned future emissions. On
infrequently will nearly always result in Connecticut SIP as meeting RACT for February 1, 2008, Connecticut
a cost of control that is not reasonable.’’ the 1997 ozone standard. CT DEEP is submitted its 2002 to 2008 reasonable
Accordingly, as an alternative to these now required by the CAA to recertify further progress (RFP) plan and 2002
potential single source SIP that its regulations meet RACT for the base year inventory to EPA as part of its
determinations, which can lead to 2008 ozone standard. During this attainment demonstration SIP submittal
higher levels of NOX emissions, recertification process, CT DEEP for the 1997 8-hr ozone standard. On
Connecticut established an emission recognized the fact the NOX emission October 14, 2009, Connecticut
trading program in RCSA 22a–174–22(j) limits contained in RSCA 22a–174–22 submitted a revision to the RFP plan.
for fossil-fuel firing emission units and may not be stringent enough for the EPA approved Connecticut’s RFP plan,
RSCA 22a–174–38(d) for municipal 2008 ozone standard by stating in its as revised, on August 22, 2012 (77 FR
waste combustors. These two SIP- 2014 RACT Analysis that ‘‘[w]hile the 50595). In the October 14, 2009 revision,
approved regulations allow a source to combination of emissions limits and Connecticut explained that any DERCs
participate in Connecticut’s NOX trading initially led (sic) to significant that existed in the base year 2002 will
emission trading program using two system-wide emission reductions
different mechanisms. RSCA 22a–174– have expired by the end of the RFP
throughout Connecticut in 1995, the period in 2008. This is based on the fact
22(j) requires a source that wants to
efforts to ‘‘over-control’’ to generate that under Connecticut’s NOX emission
participate in the program to enter into
credits are now merely RACT in many trading program, DERCs expire within
a TAO with the CT DEEP. RSCA 22a–
five years of creation. Since any DERCs
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
174–38(d) does not require a municipal 1 The NO emission credits created pursuant to
waste combustor (MWC) to enter into a
X existing in 2002 would not be available
RSCA 22a–174–38(d) are referred to as emission
TAO and instead contains specific reduction credits.
for use in 2008, banked DERCs need not
requirements that an MWC must meet in 2 RSCA 22a–174–38(d)(1) also allows a municipal be accounted for in a state’s RFP
order to create a NOX emission waste combustor that commenced construction
prior to December 20, 1989 to use emission credits 3 Furthermore, CT DEEP is currently working
reduction credit that can be used in created under RSCA 22a–174–38 to comply with with a RACT stakeholder workgroup on draft
Connecticut’s trading program. These the NOX emission limits contained in RSCA 22a– regulations. See www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/
emission trading programs provide 174–38(c)(8). view.asp?a=2684&q=546804&deepNav_GID=1619.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:37 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_39114/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 39001
analysis, and Connecticut has properly May 31, 2014 to create and/or use NOX under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
done that. Therefore, EPA is concluding emission credits and allow for unused U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
the TAO’s that we are proposing to NOX allowances to be converted into • Does not contain any unfunded
approve into the SIP today have been NOX emission credits. The TAOs mandate or significantly or uniquely
properly accounted for in Connecticut’s previously issued by Connecticut to affect small governments, as described
attainment plan. these facilities were approved by EPA
With respect to the 2008 ozone in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
into the Connecticut SIP on September
standard, both Connecticut of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001
nonattainment areas were initially (66 FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 • Does not have Federalism
designated ‘‘marginal’’ nonattainment (78 FR 54962). The reason the TAOs implications as specified in Executive
for this standard on May 21, 2012. (See must be approved at this time for these Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
77 FR 30088). However, on May 4, 2016, same facilities is that the TAOs 1999);
EPA re-classified or ‘‘bumped-up’’ these previously approved had all expired by • Is not an economically significant
areas to moderate nonattainment. (See May 1, 2007. regulatory action based on health or
81 FR 26697). Connecticut will need to
III. Proposed Action safety risks subject to Executive Order
account for DERCs in its new RFP and
attainment plans for this standard 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
EPA is proposing to approve
which must be submitted as Connecticut’s submitted SIP revision for • Is not a significant regulatory action
expeditiously as practicable, but no later the NOX TAOs submitted on November subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
than January 1, 2017. 15, 2011. EPA is not taking action on 28355, May 22, 2001);
II. Analysis of State Submission Consent Order 8029A issued to • Is not subject to requirements of
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. EPA Section 12(d) of the National
EPA issued a guidance document will take action on this Consent Order
‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Technology Transfer and Advancement
at a later date. EPA is also proposing to Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
Incentive Programs’’ (EIP Guidance) .4 approve TAO 8110A, submitted on July
This guidance applies to discretionary application of those requirements would
1, 2004 and amended on May 29, 2015. be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
economic incentive programs (EIPs). EPA is soliciting public comments on
EPA’s final action on these discretionary and
the issues discussed in this document or
economic incentive programs occurs on other relevant matters. These • Does not provide EPA with the
when EPA acts on a state’s request to comments will be considered before discretionary authority to address, as
revise the SIP. EPA reviewed the source- taking final action. Interested parties appropriate, disproportionate human
specific TAOs with respect to the may participate in the Federal health or environmental effects, using
expectations of the EIP Guidance. EPA rulemaking procedure by submitting practicable and legally permissible
has concluded, after review and analysis written comments to the EPA New methods, under Executive Order 12898
of the source-specific TAOs, that they England Regional Office listed in the (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
are consistent with the EIP Guidance. ADDRESSES section of this Federal
See the Technical Support Document in In addition, the SIP is not approved
Register. to apply on any Indian reservation land
the docket for this action for EPA’s
analysis of why the TAO’s are IV. Statutory and Executive Order or in any other area where EPA or an
consistent with the EIP. Reviews Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
When EPA designated areas for the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Under the Clean Air Act, the
2008 ozone standard, Connecticut was Indian country, the rule does not have
Administrator is required to approve a
divided into two separate areas, the tribal implications and will not impose
SIP submission that complies with the
Greater Connecticut Area and the New provisions of the Act and applicable substantial direct costs on tribal
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ- Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); governments or preempt tribal law as
CT area. CT DEEP and EPA analyzed 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
emission trading data for the period of submissions, EPA’s role is to approve FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
time the TAOs were in effect to state choices, provided that they meet
determine if more emission reduction List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
credits were being used for compliance Accordingly, this proposed action Environmental protection, Air
than were generated or created in any of merely approves state law as meeting pollution control, Incorporation by
Connecticut’s two nonattainment areas. Federal requirements and does not reference, Intergovernmental relations,
EPA has determined the TAOs have impose additional requirements beyond Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
resulted in RACT equivalent emission those imposed by state law. For that
reductions in each of the two recordkeeping requirements.
reason, this proposed action:
nonattainment areas. See the Technical Dated: May 31, 2016.
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Support Document in the docket for this H. Curtis Spalding,
subject to review by the Office of
action for an explicit accounting of the Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Management and Budget under
emissions from each facility in each
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, [FR Doc. 2016–14100 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am]
nonattainment area.
The TAOs being approved into October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
January 21, 2011);
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Connecticut’s SIP today are limited to
facilities which have already been • Does not impose an information
authorized in the past by the State to collection burden under the provisions
operate under a TAO and those TAOs of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
continue to authorize the sources until U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
4 See EPA–452/R–01–001, January 2001 at https:// significant economic impact on a
www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. substantial number of small entities
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:37 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM 15JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_39114/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-15 02:21:27
Document Modified: 2016-06-15 02:21:27
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before July 15, 2016. | |
| Contact | Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number (617) 918-1657, fax number (617) 918-0657, email [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 38999 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR