4800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

by adding the term and symbol ‘‘minus 

(¥)’’ to express the outlet gas 

temperature threshold for surface 

condensers. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve multiple 

submissions revising South Carolina’s 

SIP to adopt the PM2.5 increments as 

amended in the October 20, 2010, PM2.5

PSD Increments-SILs-SMC Rule, to 

adopt federal NAAQS updates and VOC 

definition updates, and to make an 

administrative correction. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that these SIP submittals, with regard to 

the aforementioned proposed actions, 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA 

and EPA regulations regarding NSR 

permitting. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 F43255, 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

being proposed for approval to apply 

PSD permitting program statewide 

including the Catawba Indian Nation. 

Accordingly, EPA and the Catawba 

Indian Nation discussed South 

Carolina’s SIP submittals prior to 

today’s proposed action. EPA notes that 

this rulemaking will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 7, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01205 Filed 1–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0449; A–1–FRL– 

9773–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

State Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the State of Connecticut. 

These SIP revisions consist of a 

demonstration that Connecticut meets 

the requirements of reasonably available 

control technology for oxides of 

nitrogen and volatile organic 

compounds set forth by the Clean Air 

Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Additionally, we are 

proposing approval of three single 

source orders. This action is being taken 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0449 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0449,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 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 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0449. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 4801 

1The Connecticut submittal was made to address 

RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and does 

not address the 0.075 parts per million 2008 ozone 

standard. 

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 

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 either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittals are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Management, Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection, State 

Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, 

CT 06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail 

code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. The following outline is provided 

to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP Revision 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s SIP 

Revision 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On December 8, 2006, the State of 

Connecticut submitted a formal revision 

to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The SIP revision consists of information 

documenting how Connecticut 

complied with the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) requirements 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.1 On 

July 20, 2007, Connecticut submitted 

three single source RACT orders 

controlling volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions to EPA and requested 

that the orders be incorporated into the 

Connecticut SIP. 

Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) require states to 

implement RACT in areas classified as 

moderate (and higher) non-attainment 

for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act requires RACT in states located 

in the ozone transport region (OTR). 

Specifically, these areas are required to 

implement RACT for all major VOC and 

nitrogen oxide emissions sources and 

for all sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is 

a document issued by EPA which 

establishes a ‘‘presumptive norm’’ for 

RACT for a specific VOC source 

category. A related set of documents, 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

documents, exists primarily for NOX

control requirements. States must 

submit rules or negative declarations for 

CTG source categories, but not for 

sources in ACT categories. However, 

RACT must be imposed on major 

sources of NOX, and some of those 

major sources may be within a sector 

covered by an ACT document. 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

with regard to children and adults who 

are active outdoors and individuals with 

a pre-existing respiratory disease such 

as asthma. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register that outlined the obligations 

that areas found to be in nonattainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

needed to address (see 70 FR 71612). 

This rule, referred to as the ‘‘Phase 2 

Implementation rule,’’ contained, 

among other things, a description of 

EPA’s expectations for states with RACT 

obligations. The Phase 2 

Implementation rule indicated that 

states could meet RACT through the 

establishment of new or more stringent 

requirements that meet RACT control 

levels, through a certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

their SIP approved by EPA under the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS represent adequate 

RACT control levels for 8-hour 

attainment purposes, or with a 

combination of these two approaches. In 

addition, a State must submit a negative 

declaration in instances where there are 

no CTG sources. 

II. Summary of Connecticut’s SIP 

Revisions 

On December 8, 2006, Connecticut 

submitted a demonstration that its 

regulatory framework for stationary 

sources meets the criteria for RACT as 

defined in EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation rule. The state held a 

public hearing on the RACT program on 

October 18, 2006. Connecticut’s RACT 

submittal notes that their prior 

designation as a nonattainment area for 

the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in 

the adoption of stringent controls for 

major sources of VOC and NOX, 

including RACT level controls. 

Therefore, as allowed for within EPA’s 

Phase 2 Implementation rule, much of 

Connecticut’s submittal consists of a 

review of RACT controls adopted under 

the 1-hour ozone standard and an 

indication of whether those previously 

adopted controls still represent RACT. 

Additionally, Connecticut notes that as 

a member state of the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) it works with that 

organization to identify and adopt, as 

deemed appropriate, regulations on 

additional VOC and NOX categories 

beyond those for which EPA has issued 

CTGs or ACT documents. 

The state’s submittal identifies the 

specific control measures that have been 

previously adopted to control emissions 

from major sources of VOC emissions, 

reaffirms negative declarations for some 

CTG categories, and describes updates 

made to two existing rules to strengthen 

them so that they will continue to 

represent VOC RACT. Table 3 of 

Connecticut’s submittal contains a 

summary of the previously-adopted 

measures for each of the CTG categories 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
4802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2This rulemaking does not address Connecticut’s 

response to the CTGs that EPA issued in 2006, 

2007, and 2008. 

that EPA issued prior to 2006.2 The 

table identifies the specific state rule, 

where relevant, that is in place, the date 

of state adoption, and the date that EPA 

approved the rule into the Connecticut 

SIP. Connecticut notes that sections 

22a–174–20 and 22a–174–32 of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies, which are the principal 

regulations that apply to stationary 

sources of VOC emissions, generally 

cover sources emitting 25 or more tons 

of VOC per year in the state’s ‘‘severe’’ 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area and 

those emitting 50 or more tons of VOC 

per year in the rest of the state. 

However, for some CTG categories such 

as surface coating sources, Connecticut’s 

rules include lower applicability 

thresholds consistent with the relevant 

CTGs. 

In addition, Connecticut’s submittal 

notes that no sources exist in the state 

for some CTG categories. Specifically, 

Table 3 of Connecticut’s submittal 

makes negative declarations for the 

following CTG sectors: 

1. Automobile coating. 

2. Large petroleum dry cleaners. 

3. Large appliance coating. 

4. Natural gas and gas processing 

plants. 

5. Flat wood paneling coating. 

6. Control of VOC leaks from 

petroleum refineries. 

Finally, Connecticut updated two 

existing VOC rules in order to continue 

their status as representing RACT. 

Namely, these are rules limiting 

emissions from cutback asphalt paving 

and solvent cleaning (metal degreasing). 

The original version of the state’s 

cutback asphalt rule allowed use of 

cutback asphalt, with some restrictions, 

during the ozone season and provided 

exemptions for penetrating prime coat 

products and for long-term storage of 

asphalt. The state’s updated rule 

removed these provisions and was 

submitted to EPA on January 8, 2009 

and approved by EPA into the 

Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 

FR 50595). Additionally, Connecticut 

updated its solvent cleaning rule to 

more closely reflect the OTC’s 2001 

model rule for this activity. The update 

included a limit on the vapor pressure 

used in cold cleaning solvents and 

operating practices to further reduce 

VOC emissions. Connecticut submitted 

its updated solvent cleaning rule to EPA 

on February 1, 2008, and EPA approved 

the revised rule into the Connecticut SIP 

within the August 22, 2012 Federal 

Register rulemaking noted above. 

As required, Connecticut’s submittal 

addresses NOX emissions as well as 

VOC emissions. In particular, the 

submittal’s Table 4 lists all major 

sources of NOX (and VOC) in the state, 

and Connecticut identifies several 

regulations previously approved by EPA 

which represent RACT for NOX. 

Connecticut notes that all facilities in 

the state with the potential to emit 50 

tons or more of NOX per year (or 25 tons 

or more in the ‘‘severe’’ 1-hour ozone 

area of the state) are subject to 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies section 22a–174–22, ‘‘Control 

of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.’’ In 

addition, section 22a–174–38 regulates 

NOX emissions from Connecticut’s six 

municipal waste combustors (MWCs), 

which constitute roughly thirty percent 

of the state’s annual NOX emissions 

from major NOX sources. Connecticut 

indicates that section 22a–174–38 is as 

stringent as the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) 

requirements EPA promulgated in 2006, 

and that this rule thus represents RACT 

for MWCs in Connecticut. 

Connecticut’s submittal also points 

out that NOX emissions have been 

reduced due to the implementation of 

several NOX trading programs. 

Connecticut’s SIP includes regulations 

implementing the OTC and Federal NOX

Budget Programs and the subsequent 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

Program. All three of these programs 

and their corresponding regulations 

(Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies section 22–174–22a, 22–174– 

22b, and 22–174–22c, respectively) were 

submitted to EPA and approved into the 

Connecticut SIP. Connecticut explains 

that when its CAIR program, section 22– 

174–22c, became effective, its Federal 

NOX Budget Program contained in 

section 22–174–22b was repealed. 

In addition to these general, statewide NOX and VOC rules, Connecticut’s 

submittal addresses certain individual 

sources in the state. Table 4 of 

Connecticut’s submittal identifies the 

major NOX and VOC sources in the state 

that are not covered by an ACT or CTG 

document. The state has issued sourcespecific orders containing control 

requirements for the facilities listed in 

Table 4 of the state’s submittal, all of 

which have been previously approved 

into the Connecticut SIP. Additionally, 

on July 20, 2007, Connecticut submitted 

VOC RACT orders for the Curtis 

Packaging Corporation in Newtown, 

Sumitomo Bakelite North America, 

Incorporated, located in Manchester, 

and Cyro Industries in Wallingford. 

Connecticut’s review of its control 

program for major sources of VOC and 

NOX thus concludes that, with the 

adoption of revised rules for cutback 

asphalt and solvent cleaning, all major 

sources in the state are subject to RACT. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Connecticut’s 

SIP Revision 

EPA has reviewed Connecticut’s 

determination that it has adopted VOC 

and NOX control regulations for 

stationary sources that constitute RACT, 

and determined that the set of 

regulations cited by the state constitute 

RACT for purposes of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Additionally, we are 

proposing to approve the three VOC 

RACT orders submitted by the state on 

July 20, 2007. 

Connecticut’s submittal documents 

the state’s VOC and NOX control 

regulations that have been adopted to 

ensure that RACT level controls are 

required in the state. These 

requirements include the following 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies: section 22a–174–20, Control 

of Organic Compound Emissions; 

section 22a–174–22, Control of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions; section 22a–174–30, 

Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and 

Stage II Vapor Recovery; section 22a– 

174–32, RACT for Organic Compound 

Emissions; and 22a–174–38, Municipal 

Waste Combustors. Additionally, 

Connecticut has adopted numerous 

single source RACT orders for major 

sources of VOC and NOX that are not 

covered by one of EPA’s CTGs or ACTs, 

and these orders have been submitted to 

EPA and incorporated into the SIP. 

Also, as noted above, Connecticut 

adopted and EPA has approved into the 

Connecticut SIP updates to the state’s 

existing asphalt paving and solvent 

metal cleaning regulations that 

strengthened these two VOC control 

regulations. 

Furthermore, Connecticut notes that 

its participation within several NOX

budget trading programs also acted to 

reduce NOX emissions in the state. 

Between 1999 and 2002, Connecticut 

participated in the OTC’s NOX Budget 

Program. Connecticut implemented this 

program by adopting section 22a–174– 

22a, the NOX Budget Program, and 

submitted this regulation to EPA which 

we incorporated into the Connecticut 

SIP on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 

52233). In 2003, these NOX budget 

sources were transitioned to the Federal 

NOX budget program which Connecticut 

implemented by adopting section 22a– 

174–22b, the Post-2002 NOX Budget 

Program. Connecticut submitted this 

regulation to EPA, and we approved it 

into the Connecticut SIP on December 

27, 2000 (65 FR 81743). 

The state’s submittal documents a 

substantial downward trend in NOX and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 4803 

VOC emissions from stationary sources 

between 1990 and 2007, although part 

of that decline is attributable to RACT 

controls implemented by Connecticut in 

the early and mid 1990s to help it meet 

the older 1-hour ozone standard. Of 

more relevance is the decline in point 

source emissions that occurred since 

EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Data collected by Connecticut 

from its annual survey of industrial 

point source emitters reveals that 

between 1999 and 2005, VOC emissions 

from industrial point sources declined 

by 66%, and NOX emissions declined by 

38%. This decline in emissions was 

brought about, in part, by the RACT 

program implemented by Connecticut. 

We have determined that these 

regulatory elements and the resulting 

reduction in VOC and NOX emissions 

from major sources demonstrate that a 

RACT level of control for both 

pollutants has been implemented in the 

state. Additionally, EPA has determined 

that Connecticut’s two 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

ozone standard by their attainment date, 

based on quality assured air monitoring 

data. This determination was published 

on August 31, 2010 (75 FR 53219) for 

the Greater Connecticut area, and on 

June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36163) for the New 

York City area. The improvements in air 

quality represented by these clean data 

determinations were brought about, in 

part, by the RACT program 

implemented by Connecticut. 

EPA does not anticipate any 

difficulties with enforcing the state’s 

standards, as EPA has previously 

approved the rules Connecticut cites as 

the means by which RACT is 

implemented. Additionally, Connecticut 

acted to further reduce NOX emissions 

by adopting section 22a–174–22c, the 

Clean Air Interstate NOX Ozone Season 

trading program. Connecticut submitted 

this program to EPA, and we approved 

it into the SIP on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 

4105). Although the CAIR program was 

subject to a number of court challenges, 

a recent decision by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

issued on August 21, 2012 which 

vacated the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule provided that until the CSAPR 

litigation is resolved, the CAIR program 

remains in effect. (EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., v. EPA, No. 11–1302. 

(D.C. Cir. 2012)). 

EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX

stationary source control regulations 

which Connecticut contends meets 

RACT for the 1997 8-hour standard, and 

determined that a level of control 

consistent with RACT has been 

implemented in the state. Therefore, we 

are proposing to approve Connecticut’s 

December 8, 2006 RACT certification. 

Additionally, we are proposing 

approval of the VOC RACT orders for 

the following three companies described 

below: 

Cyro Industries 

Cyro Industries manufactures 

extruded polymer pellets that are 

molded into various shapes by the end 

user at its facility located in 

Wallingford. The facility operates VOC 

emitting process equipment including 

raw material storage tanks, monomer 

preparation equipment, polymer 

production extrusion lines, grafted 

rubber equipment, dye preparation and 

post coloring operations. Additionally, 

VOC emissions occur from fugitive 

leaks, and from a number of small 

process and space heaters. 

Cyro Industries took ownership of the 

facility from American Cyanamid in 

2005. Pursuant to Connecticut’s section 

22a–174–32(e)(6), Cyro submitted an 

alternative RACT compliance plan to 

the Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection. The facility 

essentially requested that the VOC 

RACT requirements that had formerly 

been imposed on American Cyanamid 

pursuant to Connecticut RACT order 

8012 be maintained as RACT. 

Connecticut reviewed this request and 

essentially agreed, issuing RACT order 

8268 to Cyro Industries on February 28, 

2007. The new order updated the 

equipment and process lines described 

in the prior order and ensures that VOC 

emissions are reduced by no less than 

85%. 

Sumitomo Bakelite North America 

Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly named 

Vyncolit North American, Incorporated, 

produces fiberglass impregnated and 

resinous pellets at its facility in 

Manchester. There are seven separate 

process lines in use at the facility. The 

company submitted a request that their 

emissions be controlled via an 

alternative RACT compliance plan 

under section 22a–174–32(e)(6). 

Connecticut reviewed the facility’s 

request and, on October 11, 2006, issued 

order 8245 to the facility. The order 

requires, among other things, that the 

facility comply with the following 

requirements: actual emissions may not 

exceed 45 tons of VOC for any 

consecutive 12 month period or exceed 

8,889 pounds per month for any given 

month; process lines identified as EXT2 

and EXT3 are not allowed to use VOC 

containing components except during 

the mixing process, and the vapor 

pressure of all materials used during the 

blending process shall be less than or 

equal to 1.0 millimeters of mercury 

measured at 18.5 degrees Centigrade; 

only non-VOC materials can be used in 

the manufacture of ‘‘DAP’’ products or 

in process line EXT1; and, emissions of 

VOC from new, non-extruded products 

shall not exceed 0.006 pounds of VOC 

per pound of non-extruded product 

produced. These requirements will 

yield a VOC reduction of approximately 

76% at the facility. 

Curtis Packaging Corporation 

The Curtis Packaging Corporation 

manufactures custom designed 

paperboard and cardboard packaging at 

its facility in Newtown using three 

sheet-fed offset lithographic printing 

presses. The facility is subject to EPA’s 

2006 CTG for lithographic printing. In 

an effort to comply with the 

requirements of that CTG, the company 

reformulated many of its fountain 

solutions with non-alcohol additives 

and ultra violet (UV) light cured inks 

seeking to meet the CTG’s requirements. 

However, the facility was not able to 

meet the CTG’s overall emission 

reduction requirement, and so 

submitted an alternative RACT 

compliance plan to the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

Connecticut reviewed the company’s 

request, and on May 1, 2007, issued 

order 8270 to the facility. The order 

requires, among other things, the 

following: fountain solutions must 

contain no alcohol additives, and must 

have a VOC content of 5% or less by 

weight, as applied; UV cured inks must 

be used instead of oil based inks; and, 

cleaning solutions are limited to 30% 

VOC by weight. 

EPA has reviewed these single source 

VOC RACT orders, and agrees with 

Connecticut that they represent a RACT 

level of control for each facility. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of 

these orders. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Connecticut’s December 8, 2006 SIP 

submittal that demonstrates that the 

state has adopted air pollution control 

strategies that represent RACT for 

purposes of compliance with the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we 

are proposing approval of orders 

submitted by Connecticut on July 20, 

2007 for Cyro Industries, Sumitomo 

Bakelite North America, and Curtis 

Packaging, as representing RACT for 

these three facilities. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
4804 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01340 Filed 1–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0712; FRL–9772–4] 

Revision to the Washington State 

Implementation Plan; Tacoma-Pierce 

County Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) dated 

November 28, 2012. This SIP revision 

consists of two elements proposed for 

EPA approval. First, EPA is proposing to 

approve the ‘‘2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory and Documentation’’ 

included as Appendix A to the SIP 

revision. The emissions inventory was 

submitted to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements related to the TacomaPierce County nonattainment area for 

the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). Second, EPA is proposing to 

approve updated rules submitted by 

Ecology on behalf of the Puget Sound 

Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), contained 

in Appendix B, ‘‘SIP Strengthening 

Rules.’’ The updated PSCAA rules help 

implement the recommendations of the 

Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task 

Force, an advisory committee of 

community leaders, citizen 

representatives, public health advocates, 

and other affected parties, formed to 

develop PM2.5 reduction strategies. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0712, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 

107. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012– 

0712. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with