71140 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0797; FRL–9755–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Allegheny County 

Incorporation by Reference of 

Pennsylvania’s Consumer Products 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

SIP revision adds section 2105.88— 

Consumer Products to Allegheny 

County Health Department (ACHD) 

Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air 

Pollution Control, to incorporate by 

reference 25 Pa. Code sections 130.201– 

130.471 (Consumer Products) of 

PADEP’s Air Pollution Control Act to 

reduce emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). In the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the Commonwealth’s SIP 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because EPA views this 

as a noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0797 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0797, 

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0797. 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 

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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Allegheny County 

Health Department, Bureau of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Allegheny County Incorporation by 

Reference of Pennsylvania’s Consumer 

Products Regulations,’’ that is located in 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register publication. 

Dated: November 6, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28832 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0198, FRL–9755–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; NOX Emission Trading 

Orders as Single Source SIP Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. This revision allows 

facilities to create and/or use emission 

credits to comply with the NOX

emission limits required by Regulations 

of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 

section 22a–174–22 (Control of Nitrogen 

Oxides) using NOx Emission Trading 

Orders (trading orders). 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. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 31, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0198 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0657 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0198’’, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71141 

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. Deliver 

your comments to: 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, 5th floor, (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–2010– 

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 

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’’ systems, 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 

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, 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 to the publicly available 

docket materials available for inspection 

electronically in the Federal Docket 

Management System at 

www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy 

available at the Regional Office, which 

are identified in the ADDRESSES section 

of this Federal Register, copies of the 

state submittals are also available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours, by appointment at the 

State Air Agency. The Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

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 Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

III. What facilities are affected by today’s 

action? 

IV. Do these trading orders allow new 

facilities to use emission credits to 

comply with RACT? 

V. How did EPA review and evaluate these 

trading orders? 

A. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of integrity? 

1. Integrity Element One—Surplus 

2. Integrity Element Two—Enforceable 

3. Integrity Element Three—Quantifiable 

4. Integrity Element Four—Permanent 

B. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of equity? 

1. Equity Element One—General Equity 

2. Equity Element Two—Environmental 

Justice 

C. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of environmental 

benefit? 

D. What is EPA’s analysis regarding the 

RACT sources? 

E. Conclusion 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On August 18, 2000, December 12, 

2002, July 1, 2004, and January 13, 

2006, the State of Connecticut submitted 

formal revisions to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These SIP 

revisions consist of 149 source-specific 

trading orders that allow 50 sources to 

trade emission credits in order to 

comply with state regulations for 

reducing nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emissions. We previously approved 

source-specific trading orders issued by 

Connecticut under this program on 

September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233) and 

March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135). 

II. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

Today, EPA is proposing to approve 

149 NOX Emission Trading Orders that 

will allow facilities in Connecticut to 

generate and or use emission credits for 

compliance with the NOX emission 

limits that were established as part of 

Connecticut’s strategy to lower ozone 

levels, also known as reasonable 

available control technology (RACT). 

EPA is not taking action on some of the 

orders included in the July 1, 2004 

submittal: Trading Order 8021 issued to 

Pfizer, Trading Order 8246 issued to 

Sikorsky Aircraft, Trading Order 8110A 

issued to Yale University and Consent 

Order 7019A issued to Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation. EPA is also not 

taking action on the Creation Notice 

Nos. NJ–1, NJ–2, and NJ–4 included in 

the August 18, 2000 submittal. EPA will 

take action on these orders and creation 

notices at a later date. Lastly, EPA is not 

taking action on Trading Orders 8115, 

Modification 1 and 8115A issued to 

University of Connecticut in Mansfield 

because these trading orders were 

superseded by Trading Order 8115B 

which was included in the July 1, 2004 

submittal. 

III. What facilities are affected by 

today’s action? 

EPA is proposing to approve NOX

emission trading orders for the facilities 

listed in the table below. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71142 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Trading Order No(s). Name of facility Facility location 

1494A, 8116 Modification, 8116A, 8116B .............................................. Connecticut Resources Recovery 

Authority.

Hartford. 

1494 Modifications 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ....................................................... Connecticut Light and Power ........ Branford, Greenwich, Hartford, 

Montville, Middletown, Milford, 

Preston, Norwalk, and 

Torrington. 

8154 Modifications 1, 2, and 3, 8154A ................................................... Combustion Engineering ............... Windsor. 

1626, 1626 Modification 1, 8247 ............................................................. Borough of Naugatuck ................... Naugatuck. 

8159, 8181, 8181A, 8181A Modification 1, 8219, 8219A, 8219A Modification 1, 8251, 8251 Modification 1.Connecticut Light and Power/ 

Devon Power LLC.

Milford. 

8109 ......................................................................................................... Hamilton Sundstrand ..................... Windsor Locks. 

8093A, 8093B, 8093C, 8093C Modification 1, 8136, 8136A .................. Pfizer .............................................. Groton. 

8119 Modification, 8119A, 8119A Modification 1 ................................... City of Norwich, Department of 

Public Utilities.

Norwich. 

8092 Modification, 8103 Modifications 1 and 2, 8177 Modification 1, 

8241, 8241 Modification 1, 8242, 8243, 8244, 8244 Modification 1, 

8253, 8253 Modification 1.

United Illuminating/Wisvest-Connecticut LLC/PSEG Power Connecticut LLC.Bridgeport. 

8115 Modification 2, 8115B .................................................................... University of Connecticut ............... Storrs. 

8107 Modifications 1 and 2, 8152, 8152 Modification, 8152A, 8221, 

8221A, 8222, 8222A.

Northeast Nuclear Energy/Dominion Nuclear.Waterford. 

8180, 8180 Modification 1, 8180A, 8180A Modification 1 ...................... Connecticut Jet Power .................. Branford, Greenwich, and 

Torrington. 

8114 Modifications 1 and 2, 8114A ........................................................ CYTEC Industries .......................... Wallingford. 

8117, 8117A, 8117B ............................................................................... Sprague Paperboard ..................... Versailles. 

8157, 8160, 8162, 8182, 8182A, 8182A Modification 1, 8213, 8213A, 

8213A Modification 1, 8214, 8214A, 8214A Modification 1, 8215, 

8215A, 8215A Modification 1, 8227, 8227A, 8227A Modification 1.

Connecticut Light and Power/Middletown Power LLC.Middletown. 

8156, 8161, 8183, 8183A, 8183A Modification 1, 8216, 8216A, 8216A 

Modification 1, 8217, 8217A, 8217A Modification 1.

Connecticut Light and Power/ 

Montville Power LLC.

Montville. 

8158, 8184, 8184A, 8184A Modification 1, 8218, 8218A, 8218A Modification 1.Connecticut Light and Power/Norwalk Power LLC.Norwalk. 

8134, 8134A, 8248 .................................................................................. United Technologies ...................... East Hartford. 

8175, 8175 Modification 1, 8175A, 8175A Modification 1 ...................... Northeast Generation Company .... Berlin. 

8102 Modification, 8153, 8176 Modification 1, 8240, 8240 Modification 

1, 8243.

United Illuminating/Wisvest-Connecticut LLC/PSEG Power Connecticut LLC.New Haven. 

8220, 8220A, 8220A Modification 1 ........................................................ Bristol Meyers Squibb ................... Wallingford. 

8124, 8124A ............................................................................................ Stone Container ............................. Uncasville. 

8120, 8120A ............................................................................................ Sikorsky Aircraft ............................. Stratford. 

8137 Modifications 1 and 2, 8137A ........................................................ AlliedSignal and U.S. Army Tank .. Stratford. 

8188 ......................................................................................................... Allegheny Ludlum .......................... Wallingford. 

8112, 8112A, 8112A Modification 1, 8201CC ........................................ United States Naval Submarine 

Base.

Groton. 

8230 ......................................................................................................... Jacobs Vehicle Systems ............... Bloomfield. 

8110 Modification .................................................................................... Yale University ............................... New Haven. 

8123 Modification, 8123A ........................................................................ Algonquin Gas Transmission ........ Cromwell. 

8250, 8261 .............................................................................................. Algonquin Windsor Locks .............. Windsor Locks. 

8249, 8249 Modification 1 ....................................................................... Capitol District Energy Center ....... Hartford. 

8094 Modification .................................................................................... Ogden Martin ................................. Bristol. 

8095 Modification .................................................................................... American Ref-Fuel ......................... Preston. 

8100 Modification .................................................................................... Bridgeport Resco ........................... Bridgeport. 

8101 Modification .................................................................................... Connecticut Department of Mental 

Health and Addiction Services.

Middletown. 

8111 Modification .................................................................................... Uniroyal Chemical ......................... Naugatuck. 

8118 Modification .................................................................................... South Norwalk Electrical Works .... Norwalk. 

8130 Modification .................................................................................... Connecticut Department of Public 

Works.

Newtown. 

8132 Modification .................................................................................... Bridgeport Hospital ........................ Bridgeport. 

8141 Modification .................................................................................... Town of Wallingford, Department 

of Public Utilities.

Wallingford. 

IV. Do these trading orders allow new 

facilities to use emission credits to 

comply with RACT? 

Most of the trading orders being 

approved today allow the same facilities 

in Connecticut to continue to create or 

use emission credits that were approved 

into the SIP on September 28, 1999 (64 

FR 52233) and March 23, 2001 (66 FR 

16135). Facilities that are having their 

trading orders approved for the first 

time are: Hamilton Sundstrand in 

Windsor Locks, Borough of Naugatuck 

in Naugatuck, Bristol Meyers Squibb in 

Wallingford, Capital District Energy 

Center in Hartford, Combustion 

Engineering in Windsor, Stone 

Container in Uncasville, and Sprague 

Paperboard in Versailles. 

V. How did EPA review and evaluate 

these trading orders? 

EPA issued a guidance document 

‘‘Improving Air Quality With Economic 

Incentive Programs’’ (EIP Guidance). 

(See EPA–452/R–01–001, January 2001). 

This guidance applies to discretionary 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71143 

emission trading programs (EIPs) that 

are submitted to EPA for approval as a 

revision of the State Implementation 

Plan to attain national ambient air 

quality standards for criteria pollutants. 

This guidance does not require review 

of previously approved programs and is 

not EPA’s final action on these 

discretionary emission trading 

programs. EPA’s final action on these 

discretionary emission trading programs 

occurs when EPA acts on a State’s 

request to revise the SIP. The EIP 

Guidance is non-binding. 

Fundamental principles that apply to 

all EIPs are integrity (meaning that 

credits are based on emission reductions 

that are surplus, enforceable, 

quantifiable, and permanent), equity, 

and environmental benefit. These 

fundamental principles can apply to an 

EIP in its entirety (the programmatic 

level) or to individual sources (the 

source-specific level). In addition, EIPs 

that allow sources to purchase credits to 

demonstrate compliance with 

reasonable available control technology 

(RACT) need to meet additional 

requirements specified in section 16.13 

of the EIP Guidance. EPA evaluated the 

Connecticut trading orders against these 

three fundamental principles, additional 

requirements for sources subject to 

RACT, and applicable Clean Air Act 

requirements. Connecticut’s trading 

orders are fully consistent with these 

fundamental principles and the 

requirements for sources subject to 

RACT, and EPA is approving these 

trading orders as part of Connecticut’s 

SIP. 

A. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of integrity? 

The fundamental principle of 

integrity consists of the qualities of 

being surplus, enforceable, quantifiable, 

and permanent. 

1. Integrity Element One—Surplus 

Emission reductions are surplus if the 

reductions are not presently relied upon 

in any other air quality-related programs 

such as the SIP, SIP-related 

requirements such as transportation 

conformity, other adopted state 

measures not in the SIP, Federal rules 

that focus on reducing precursors of 

criteria pollutants such as new source 

performance standards, or a consent 

decree. Emission reductions measured 

by sources on a retrospective basis are 

surplus if the source’s actual emissions 

are below its baseline allowable or 

historical actual emissions, whichever is 

lower, and the retrospective inventories 

reflect actual emission information as 

appropriate. 

Each source-specific trading order 

Connecticut submitted creates emission 

reduction credits (ERCs), establishes a 

baseline of 1990, and sets emission 

limits based on the most stringent 

applicable emission rate. Credits are 

only generated when a permitted 

facility’s emissions are below the 

emission rate and the baseline. 

Therefore the credits produced are in 

addition to reductions from other 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

2. Integrity Element Two—Enforceable 

Emission reductions use, generation, 

and other required actions in the EIP are 

enforceable on a programmatic basis if 

they are independently verifiable, 

define program violations, and identify 

those liable for violations. For 

enforceability, both the State and EPA 

should have the ability to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate 

corrective actions where applicable. 

Citizens should also have access to all 

the emissions-related information 

obtained from the source so that citizens 

can file suits against sources for 

violations. Required actions must be 

practicably enforceable in accordance 

with other EPA guidance on practicable 

enforceability. At the source- specific 

level, the source must be liable for 

violations, the liable party must be 

identifiable, and the State, the public, 

and EPA must be able to independently 

verify a source’s compliance. The EIP 

Guidance outlines enforcement 

elements common to all trading EIPs in 

Chapter 6.0. 

Each facility participating in trading 

NOX credits has been issued a sourcespecific trading order containing 

enforceable conditions for quantifying, 

recording, and reporting ERCs. Each 

trading order establishes the 

monitoring/testing protocol, quantifying 

emissions based on either a periodic 

stack test for developing an emission 

rate or continuous emission monitors 

that directly measure NOX emissions. 

Each trading order establishes reporting 

requirements which includes emissions 

based upon the approved monitoring/ 

testing protocol, the number of credits 

the source generated, if any, and credits 

the source previously banked or 

purchased to cover its emissions. The 

State also reviews all of the sources 

subject to trading orders to determine 

which sources did not meet the specific 

conditions of their trading orders. 

Connecticut has authority to enforce the 

trading orders and the underlying RACT 

requirements of Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 

section 22a–174–22 pursuant to RCSA 

section 22a–174–12. By approving these 

source-specific trading orders, they will 

become part of the SIP and be 

enforceable by both EPA and citizens. 

3. Integrity Element Three— 

Quantifiable 

The generation or use of emission 

reductions by a source is quantifiable on 

a source-specific basis if the source can 

reliably calculate the amount of 

emissions and/or emission reductions 

occurring during the implementation of 

the program, and replicate the 

calculations. The EIP Guidance further 

states that when quantifying results, 

sources must use the same methodology 

used to measure baseline emissions, 

unless there are good technical reasons 

that this approach is not appropriate. 

Common elements for quantifying 

results of an EIP are included in Chapter 

5.0 of the EIP Guidance. All EIPs should 

incorporate provisions for predicting 

results, addressing uncertainty, 

approving quantification protocols, and 

emission quantification methods. For a 

reduction to be certified as an ERC, the 

reduction must be real, quantifiable, and 

surplus at the time the ERC is generated. 

Each source-specific trading order 

contains a protocol for quantifying 

emissions. Continuous Emission 

Monitors (CEMs) are used to quantify 

emissions at electric generating units 

that are creating ERCs. CEMs at these 

facilities are also used to determine if 

the source needs to use ERCs to comply 

with NOX RACT. For sources without 

CEMs, the protocol requires the source 

to determine a NOX emission rate 

through stack testing. The source is also 

required to maintain fuel use records. 

Each trading order contains an equation 

that calculates NOX emissions on a mass 

basis using the results from the most 

recent stack test, CEMs data and/or fuel 

records. The generation and use of 

credits is therefore quantifiable. 

4. Integrity Element Four—Permanent 

To satisfy the EIP Guidance 

expectations for permanence, 

Connecticut’s trading program must 

ensure that no emission increases 

(compared to emissions if there was no 

EIP) occur over the time defined in the 

SIP. On a source-specific basis, the 

permanence expectations are met if the 

sources participating in the EIP commit 

to actions or achieve reductions for a 

future period of time as defined in the 

EIP. 

Each source-specific trading order 

expires five years from the issuance 

date. This allows Connecticut to 

determine every five years if emission 

trading is still the best mechanism for 

reducing NOX emissions at an 

individual source. Issuing new trading 

orders every five years also allows the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71144 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

State to take into account any new CAA 

requirements that become effective after 

the initial trading order was issued. 

On an annual basis, sources must 

report to Connecticut all ERCs generated 

and used. The State reviews each credit 

generated and assigns an identification 

number to each credit. The annual 

reports allow the State to determine 

both the generator and user of each 

credit. Because each credit generated 

receives an individual identification 

number, the State can reliably track 

their use. 

B. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of equity? 

The equity principle is composed of 

two elements—general equity and 

environmental justice. 

1. Equity Element One—General Equity 

General equity means that an EIP 

ensures all segments of the population 

are protected from public health 

problems and no segment of the 

population receives a disproportionate 

share of a program’s disbenefits. EIPs 

should specifically protect communities 

from disproportionate impacts from 

emission shifts and foregone emission 

reductions. 

Connecticut has determined the 

majority of emission credits are 

generated at a few electric generating 

units and some other large industrial 

boilers that have continuous emission 

monitors. These sources are large 

emitters that can economically decrease 

emissions on a large scale. However, 

sources using emission credits are much 

smaller emitters of NOX and are spread 

throughout the State. Therefore, while 

the benefit of emissions reductions may 

be higher in certain geographic areas, 

the impact from sources using credits 

will not severely impact one geographic 

area over another. 

2. Equity Element Two—Environmental 

Justice 

The environmental justice (EJ) 

element applies if the EIP covers VOCs 

and could disproportionately impact 

communities populated by racial 

minorities, people with low incomes, 

and/or Tribes. The Connecticut trading 

program does not allow emission 

trading of VOC credits. Therefore, 

today’s actions allowing the trading of 

NOX emission credits does not create an 

EJ issue. 

C. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

fundamental principle of environmental 

benefit? 

All EIPs must be environmentally 

beneficial and can demonstrate this 

principle through more rapid emission 

reductions or faster attainment than 

would have occurred without the EIP. 

The discrete emission reduction 

credit (DERC) EIP meets the 

expectations for the environmental 

benefit principle. The ability to generate 

DERCs provides an incentive for early 

compliance and more rapid emission 

reductions. Connecticut sources that 

create emission credits through their 

respective trading orders must discount 

the actual credits generated by 10%. In 

addition, Connecticut discounts the 

credits generated or used at some 

sources depending on certain 

conditions, such as an additional 10% 

discount rate for sources using stack 

tests in lieu of continuous emission 

monitors. These various discount rates 

result in greater emission reductions 

then would otherwise be achieved 

without trading, resulting in an 

environmental benefit. 

D. What is EPA’s analysis regarding the 

RACT sources? 

Sources must use the presumptive 

RACT limit in the baseline calculation. 

Sources are not allowed to use an 

alternative RACT limit in determining 

the baseline emission rate. 

Connecticut’s trading orders use the 

lower of actual emissions in 1990 or the 

RACT emission limit established for the 

specific source category, whichever is 

less. The source-specific trading orders 

do not use an alternative RACT 

emission rate. 

The EIP Guidance also contains 

guidance for RACT emission limits with 

long averaging times and prohibits 

emission credits generated outside of 

the ozone season from being used 

during the ozone season. 

Connecticut’s trading orders limit 

sources requiring credits for excess 

emissions during ozone season to only 

use credits generated during ozone 

season. 

E. Conclusion 

EPA reviewed the source-specific 

trading orders with respect to the 

expectations of the EIP Guidance and 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA has concluded after review and 

analysis of the source-specific trading 

orders that they are approvable. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Connecticut SIP revision for the NOX

trading orders, which were submitted 

on August 18, 2000, December 12, 2002, 

July 1, 2004, and January 13, 2006. 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 

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. 

The Agency has reviewed this request 

for revision of the Federally-approved 

State implementation plan for 

conformance with the provisions of the 

1990 amendments enacted on November 

15, 1990. The Agency has made the 

determination that the SIP revision is 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations. 

VII. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71145 

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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 14, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28908 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–NM–0006; FRL– 

9756–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

New Source Review (NSR) 

Preconstruction Permitting Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the applicable New Source 

Review (NSR) State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for New Mexico. Among the 

changes, EPA is proposing to approve 

are the following: The establishment of 

a new minor NSR (MNSR) general 

construction permitting program; 

changes to the MNSR Public 

Participation requirements; the 

establishment of three different types of 

MNSR Permit Revisions; and the 

addition of exemptions for de minimis 

emission sources and activities from 

obtaining a MNSR permit. EPA proposes 

to find that these revisions to the New 

Mexico SIP comply with the Federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA 

regulations and are consistent with EPA 

policies. EPA is proposing this action 

under section 110 of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2005–NM–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(2) Email: Ms. Ashley Mohr at 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. 

(3) Fax: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), at fax number 214– 

665–6762. 

(4) Mail: Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

(5) Hand or Courier Delivery: Ms. 

Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. Such deliveries are 

accepted only between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for 

legal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2005– 

NM–0006. 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that 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 along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent 

per page fee will be charged for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area on the seventh 

floor at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal related to this SIP 

revision, and which is part of the EPA 

docket, is also available for public 

inspection at the State Air Agency listed 

below during official business hours by 

appointment: 

New Mexico Environment 

Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 

Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning today’s 

direct final action, please contact Ms. 

Ashley Mohr (6PD–R), Air Permits 

Section, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue 

(6PD–R), Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733, telephone (214) 665–7289; 

fax number (214) 665–6762; email 

address mohr.ashley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document the 

following terms have the meanings 

described below: 

• ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

• ‘‘Act’’ and ‘‘CAA’’ mean the Clean 

Air Act. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1