Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31459 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of significant 

environmental impact from the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 33 CFR 117.619, add paragraph 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 117.619 Taunton River. 

* * * * * 

(f) The draw of the Veterans Memorial 

Bridge, mile 2.1, across the Taunton 

River between Fall River and Somerset, 

shall operate as follows: 

(1) From 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. the 

draw shall open on signal. 

(2) From 3 p.m. through 7 a.m. the 

draw shall open on signal provided a 

two hour advance notice is given by 

calling the number posted at the bridge. 

Dated: May 10, 2013. 

V.B. Gifford, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12397 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0460; A–1–FRL– 

9817–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Update To 

Address Control Techniques 

Guidelines Issued in 2006, 2007, and 

2008 

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 establishes 

and requires Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for several 

categories of volatile organic compound 

(VOC) sources. The intended effect of 

this action is to propose approval of 

these requirements into the Connecticut 

SIP. This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0460 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–2010–0460’’, 

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–2010– 

0460. EPA’s policy is that all comments 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31460 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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, the state’s submittals are 

available for public inspection during 

normal business hours, by appointment 

at the state environmental agency: The 

Bureau of Air Management, Department 

of Energy and Environmental 

Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm 

Street, Hartford, CT 06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone 617–918–1584, 

facsimile 617–918–0584, email 

mackintosh.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. What is included in the submittals? 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submittals? 

A. Metal Furniture Coating 

B. Paper Coating 

C. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings 

D. Flexible Package Printing 

E. Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing 

F. Large Appliance Coatings 

G. Industrial Solvent Cleaning and Spray 

Application Equipment Cleaning 

H. Consumer Products 

I. Adhesives and Sealants 

J. Withdrawn Provisions 

K. Minor Changes and Negative 

Declarations 

L. Conclusion 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s revisions to Section 22a– 

174–20, ‘‘Control of organic compound 

emissions,’’ and Connecticut’s newly 

adopted Sections 22a–174–40, 

‘‘Consumer Products,’’ and 22a–17444, 

‘‘Adhesives and Sealants,’’ which 

address RACT for the VOC source 

categories covered by Control 

Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued by 

EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

Connecticut’s rules were submitted to 

EPA on February 1, 2008, November 18, 

2008, April 29, 2010, and November 21, 

2012. EPA is also proposing to approve 

the negative declarations for the CTGs 

for which Connecticut determined no 

applicable sources exist in the State of 

Connecticut. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(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 April 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA), 

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA designated 

portions of the country as being in 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (69 FR 23858). Two areas in 

Connecticut, together encompassing the 

entire state, were designated 

nonattainment for ozone and classified 

as moderate: Greater Connecticut, CT; 

and New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT. Connecticut is also 

part of the Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR) under Section 184(a) of the CAA. 

Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA 

compel states with moderate and above 

ozone nonattainment areas, as well as 

areas in the OTR respectively, to submit 

a SIP revision requiring the 

implementation of RACT for sources 

covered by a CTG and for all major 

sources. A CTG is a document issued by 

EPA which establishes a ‘‘presumptive 

norm’’ for RACT for a specific VOC 

source category. 

Furthermore, on May 27, 2008, EPA 

made further revisions to the ozone 

NAAQS setting the 8-hour standard to 

0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). Today’s 

proposed action does not address the 

requirements of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

On October 5, 2006, EPA issued four 

new CTGs which states were required to 

address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 

58745). Then, on October 9, 2007, EPA 

issued three more CTGs which states 

were required to address by October 9, 

2008 (72 FR 57215). Lastly, on October 

7, 2008, EPA issued an additional four 

CTGs which states were required to 

address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 

58481). 

On February 1, 2008, Connecticut 

submitted its consumer products 

regulation to EPA as part of its 8-hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP 

revision. Then, on November 18, 2008, 

Connecticut submitted its adhesives and 

sealants regulation as part of its Annual 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Attainment Demonstration SIP revision. 

On April 29, 2010, Connecticut 

submitted a SIP revision that addressed 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31461 

1Complete citations for each CTG document are 

given in Section IV. 

2See page 335 of the EPA document ‘‘Model 

Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology,’’ June 1992. 

nine CTGs. Then on November 21, 2012, 

Connecticut submitted a SIP revision 

that addressed the remaining CTG for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings. Lastly, in letters dated March 

13, 2013 and April 3, 2013, Connecticut 

withdrew a number of provisions from 

the April 29, 2010 and February 1, 2008 

submittals respectively. 

III. What is included in the submittals? 

Connecticut’s SIP revisions consist of 

updates to VOC RACT requirements to 

address the eleven CTGs issued by EPA 

from 2006 through 2008. Connecticut 

submitted negative declarations for 

three CTGs: automobile and light-duty 

truck assembly coating; fiberglass boat 

manufacturing; and flat wood paneling 

coating.1 Connecticut adopted 

regulations for eight CTGs: flexible 

package printing; industrial cleaning 

solvents; large appliance coatings; metal 

furniture coatings; miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives; miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings; offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing; and paper, film and foil 

coatings. Additionally, Connecticut 

adopted a consumer products regulation 

based on the 2006 Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) recommendations 

for this category. 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submittals? 

A. Metal Furniture Coating 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–20(p) 

‘‘Metal Furniture Coating’’ was 

previously approved by EPA on October 

19, 2000 (65 FR 62620) and contained 

just one general coating limit of 0.36 

kilograms of VOC per liter (kg VOC/l). 

The revised rule includes eight coating 

categories with limits specific to the 

drying process (baked or air dried) 

ranging from 0.275 kg to 0.420 kg 

VOC/l, consistent with the limits 

recommended in EPA’s CTG for Metal 

Furniture Coatings (EPA 453/R–07–005, 

September 2007). While two specialty 

coating categories, pretreatment coatings 

and metallic coatings, have a higher 

limit (0.420 kg VOC/l baked or air dried) 

than the previous general limit, the new 

general use coating limit has been 

reduced from 0.36 kg to 0.275 kg 

VOC/l baked or air dried. As noted by 

Connecticut, general use coatings are 

applied more frequently than 

pretreatment and metallic coatings, 

thus, fewer VOCs will be emitted as a 

result of this regulation revision. This 

determination is also consistent with 

the EPA guidance memorandum, 

entitled Approving SIP Revisions 

Addressing VOC RACT Requirements 

for Certain Coating Categories, from 

Scott Mathias to Regional Air Division 

Directors, dated March 17, 2011. The 

revised rule also requires facilities to 

use work practices that limit VOC 

emissions and minimize spills during 

material application, storage, 

containment, conveyance, and mixing. 

In addition, the revised rule also 

clarifies record keeping requirements. 

Therefore, the revised rule satisfies the 

anti-back sliding requirements in 

Section 110(l) of the CAA. 

B. Paper Coating 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–20(q) 

‘‘Paper Coating’’ was previously 

approved by EPA on October 19, 2000 

(65 FR 62620) and contained a general 

emissions limit of 0.35 kg VOC/l of 

coating. The revised regulation has been 

renamed ‘‘Paper, film and foil coating’’ 

and, while it contains the same general 

emissions limit, it now applies to a 

broader scope of activities, consistent 

with EPA’s CTG for Paper, Film, and 

Foil Coatings (EPA 453/R–07–003, 

September 2007). Consistent with the 

CTG, the revised regulation also 

includes the following additional VOC 

emission requirements for facilities with 

a potential to emit 25 tons or more 

VOCs per year: An emission limit of 

0.35 kilograms of VOC per kilogram of 

coating solids applied (except pressure 

sensitive tape and label); an emission 

limit of 0.20 kilograms of VOC per 

kilogram of coating solids applied 

(pressure sensitive tape and label only); 

the operation of a capture and control 

device with 90% efficiency; or the use 

of an alternative method approved by 

the state and EPA in accordance with 

the requirements of Connecticut’s 

Section 22a–174–20(cc). Where this 

regulation refers to the ‘‘daily weighted 

average of the VOC content of all 

coatings used,’’ EPA interprets this to be 

the sum of the volume of each coating 

applied each day, multiplied by the 

VOC content of each coating applied 

each day; divided by the total volume of 

all coatings applied each day.2 There are 

also updated work practices and general 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

applicable facilities. Connecticut’s 

revised rule satisfies the anti-back 

sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of 

the CAA, since it applies to a broader 

scope of activities than the previously 

SIP-approved version of the rule. 

C. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–20(s), 

‘‘Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings,’’ was previously approved by 

EPA on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62624). 

The revised rule expands the scope of 

the rule to include plastic parts, with 

new limits for pleasure craft metal and 

plastic parts coatings in new Section 

22a–174–20(kk). The revised Section 

22a–174–20(s) contains updated work 

practices, coating application methods, 

and recordkeeping requirements for all 

applicable facilities. The regulation 

requires coatings to be applied by one 

of several specified methods, but also 

allows the use of other coating 

application methods capable of 

achieving a transfer efficiency 

equivalent to, or better than, that 

provided by high-volume low-pressure 

(HVLP) spray application. The EPA CTG 

for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings (EPA–453/R–08–003, 

September 2008) defines transfer 

efficiency as ‘‘the percent of coating 

applied to the metal furniture 

component or product,’’ and EPA 

interprets references to ‘‘transfer 

efficiency’’ in Connecticut’s regulation 

as bearing the same meaning as in the 

CTG. Additional control options permit 

equivalent emissions limits expressed in 

terms of mass of VOC per volume of 

solids as applied or the use of add-on 

controls capable of achieving an overall 

VOC efficiency of 90 percent. 

The new coating limits generally 

follow the recommendations in EPA’s 

CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and 

Plastic Parts Coating, with the exception 

of three coating categories. Connecticut 

adopted higher coating limits than the 

CTG for extreme high gloss topcoat, 

other substrate antifoulant coating, and 

antifouling sealer/tire. For these three 

categories, Connecticut reviewed 

industry data and determined that for 

purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC 

emissions, the alternative limits adopted 

for these three coating categories 

constitute RACT. Connecticut’s 

approach is consistent with the EPA 

guidance memorandum, entitled 

Control Technique Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part 

Coatings—Industry Request for 

Reconsideration, from Stephen Page to 

Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I–X, dated 

June 1, 2010. The applicability 

threshold for plastic parts coatings was 

revised from 10 tons total potential 

emissions to 3 tons actual VOC 

emissions per 12-month period, before 

controls. Connecticut’s new VOC 

coating limits are also lower than most 

of the previously SIP-approved limits. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31462 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3See page 335 of the EPA document ‘‘Model 

Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology,’’ June 1992. 

Although some specialty coatings limits 

are higher than previous limits, the 

general use coating limit is lower and 

these coatings are more frequently used. 

In addition, the revised rule’s 

applicability is much broader. Thus, the 

revised rule satisfies the anti-back 

sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of 

the CAA. This analysis is also consistent 

with the EPA guidance memorandum 

entitled Approving SIP Revisions 

Addressing VOC RACT Requirements 

for Certain Coating Categories. 

D. Flexible Package Printing 

Connecticut’s newly adopted Section 

22a–174–20(ff), ‘‘Flexible Package 

Printing,’’ is consistent with the 

recommendations for RACT found in 

EPA’s CTG for Flexible Package Printing 

(EPA–453/R–06–003, September 2006). 

The regulation applies to flexible 

package printing press owners or 

operators that purchase for their 

printing operation 855, or more, gallons 

of coatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents 

and solvent based inks, in the aggregate, 

per any rolling 12-month period. These 

sources are required to follow work 

practices for material storage, spill 

cleanup, and containment as well as 

maintain records of all inks, coatings, 

adhesives, and cleaning solvents used. 

Additionally, flexible package printing 

presses with a potential to emit, prior to 

controls, 25 tons or more VOCs per year 

are required to control their press VOC 

emissions by using low VOC inks, 

coatings, and adhesives or a capture and 

control device. Where this regulation 

refers to the ‘‘daily weighted average of 

the VOC content of the inks, coatings 

and adhesives used,’’ EPA interprets 

this to be the sum of the volume of each 

ink, coating, and adhesive applied each 

day, multiplied by the VOC content of 

each ink, coating, and adhesive applied 

each day; divided by the total volume of 

all materials applied each day.3

E. Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing 

Connecticut’s newly adopted Section 

22a–174–20(gg), ‘‘Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress Printing,’’ is 

consistent with the recommendations 

for RACT found in EPA’s CTG for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing (EPA–453/R–06–002, 

September 2006). The regulation applies 

to the owner or operator of any offset 

lithographic or letterpress printing press 

who purchases for the printing 

operation at least 855 gallons of 

cleaning solvents, fountain solution 

additives and solvent-based inks in 

aggregate per any rolling 12-month 

period. Applicable sources are required 

to limit the VOC content of inks, 

coatings, adhesives, and cleaning 

solvents or use VOC pollution control 

devices. These sources are also required 

to follow work practices for material 

application, storage, spill cleanup, and 

containment as well as maintain records 

of the regulated materials used. 

F. Large Appliance Coatings 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174– 

20(hh), ‘‘Large Appliance Coatings,’’ is 

consistent with the recommendations 

for RACT found in EPA’s CTG for Large 

Appliance Coatings (EPA 453/R–07– 

004, September 2007). The new 

regulation applies to an owner or 

operator of any large appliance coating 

unit who purchases for a coating 

operation at least 855 gallons of coatings 

and cleaning solvents in the aggregate 

per any rolling 12-month period. The 

rule does not apply to the following: 

Stencil coatings; safety-indicating 

coatings; solid-film lubricants; electricinsulating and thermal-conductive 

coatings; touch-up coatings; repair 

coatings; and coatings applied with a 

hand-held aerosol can. Applicable 

sources must control VOC emissions 

using one of three methods: Low VOC 

coatings; operation of a capture and 

control device; or an alternative method 

approved by the state and EPA. The 

regulation also specifies methods for 

general work practices, coating 

application methods and record keeping 

requirements. The regulation requires 

coating to be applied by one of several 

specified methods, but also allows the 

use of any other coating application 

methods capable of achieving a transfer 

efficiency equivalent to, or better than, 

that provided by HVLP spray 

application. The EPA CTG for Large 

Appliance Coatings defines transfer 

efficiency as ‘‘the percent of coating 

applied to the metal furniture 

component or product,’’ and EPA 

interprets the Connecticut regulation as 

giving the term the same meaning as the 

CTG. 

G. Industrial Solvent Cleaning and 

Spray Application Equipment Cleaning 

Connecticut’s newly adopted Section 

22a–174–20(ii), ‘‘Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning,’’ and Section 22a–174–20(jj), 

‘‘Spray Application Equipment 

Cleaning,’’ are consistent with the 

recommendations for RACT found in 

EPA’s CTG for Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents (EPA–453/R–06–001, 

September 2006). 

Subsection (ii) applies to an owner or 

operator of any premises who purchases 

for use at the premises at least 855 

gallons of cleaning solvents in the 

aggregate per rolling 12-month period. 

There are multiple specialty cleaning 

exemptions specified in the rule. 

Applicable solvent cleaning VOC 

emissions must be controlled by one of 

three methods: Using solvents with a 

VOC content less than 50 g/l as applied; 

using solvents with a vapor pressure no 

greater than 8 mm mercury (Hg) at 20 

degrees Celsius; or using a pollution 

control device with an overall efficiency 

of at least 85%. The applicable 

industrial solvent cleaning sources are 

also required to follow work practices 

for material storage, spill cleanup, and 

containment as well as maintain records 

of all cleaning solvents used. 

Subsection (jj) addresses the cleaning 

of spray application equipment. A nonexempt owner or operator of any spray 

application equipment is required to 

control VOC emissions by one of the 

following methods: Use of an enclosed 

gun cleaner; use of cleaning solvents 

that do not exceed 50 g/l VOCs with 

specified application methods; or 

operation of an air pollution control 

device with at least 85% efficiency. 

Certain spray application equipment 

exceptions are specified in the rule. For 

all applicable equipment, facilities are 

required to maintain records and use 

work practices to reduce VOC emissions 

and minimize spills during material use, 

storage, containment, and conveyance. 

H. Consumer Products 

Connecticut’s newly adopted Section 

22a–174–40, ‘‘Consumer Products,’’ is 

based on the 2006 Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) Model Rule for 

Consumer Products. Section 22a–174– 

40 contains limits for more categories of 

consumer products than EPA’s National 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Standards for Consumer Products rule at 

40 CFR Part 59 Subpart C (63 FR 48831; 

September 11, 1998). The regulation 

limits are also equal to, or more 

stringent than, those found in EPA’s 

consumer products rule. 

The consumer products listed in 

Section 22a–174–40 include items sold 

to retail consumers for household or 

automotive use, as well as products 

used in commercial and institutional 

settings, such as beauty shops, schools 

and hospitals. The regulation has VOC 

content limits for 102 categories. In 

addition to the VOC emissions limits, 

the regulation includes: Limits on toxic 

contaminants in antiperspirants and 

deodorants and other consumer 

products; requirements for charcoal 

lighter materials, aerosol adhesives and 

floor wax strippers; requirements for 

products containing ozone-depleting 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31463 

compounds; product labeling 

requirements; and record keeping, 

reporting and testing requirements. 

I. Adhesives and Sealants 

Connecticut’s newly adopted Section 

22a–174–44, ‘‘Adhesives and Sealants,’’ 

is based on the OTC Model Rule for 

Adhesives and Sealants. Section 22a– 

174–44 includes all of the approaches to 

controlling VOC emissions found in 

EPA’s CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives (EPA 453/R–08–005, 

September 2008): VOC content limits for 

adhesives and cleaning solvents; work 

practices; record keeping; air pollution 

control equipment requirements; surface 

preparation requirements; and spray 

gun cleaning requirements. 

Connecticut’s rule is also more 

comprehensive than the CTG, since it 

establishes VOC content limits for 

sealants and sealant primers (in 

addition to adhesives as covered by the 

CTG), regulates sellers and 

manufacturers, not just appliers, of 

regulated adhesives, adhesive primers 

and sealants, and contains a VOC 

composite vapor pressure limit for 

cleaning materials. The exemptions of 

Section 22a–174–44 are similar to those 

recommended in the CTG. While there 

are minor differences in the named 

adhesive categories (and emission 

limits) included in the CTG and Section 

22a–174–44, those differences are 

inconsequential compared to the 

broader applicability of Section 22a– 

174–44 noted above. 

J. Withdrawn Provisions 

By letter dated March 13, 2013, 

Connecticut withdrew a number of 

similar provisions from the April 29, 

2010 submittal. First, with respect to the 

definition of ‘‘as-applied VOC content’’ 

in Sections 22a–174–20(ff)(1)(K), 22a– 

174–20(gg)(1)(O), 22a–174– 

20(hh)(1)(CC), 22a–174–20(ii)(1)(I), and 

22a–174–20(jj)(1)(H), Connecticut 

withdrew the phrase ‘‘or other method 

approved by the commissioner’’ from 

each of the cited provisions. Second, 

with respect to the requirements to 

document control device efficiency and 

capture efficiency in Sections 22a–174– 

20(ff)(5)(B)(vi), 22a–174–20(gg)(7)(B)(vi), 

22a–174–20(hh)(7)(B)(vi), 22a–174– 

20(ii)(6)(B)(vi), and 22a–174– 

20(jj)(6)(B)(vii), Connecticut withdrew 

the phrase ‘‘or alternate method 

approved by the commissioner’’ from 

each of the cited provisions. Third, 

Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174– 

20(jj)(3)(D), which allows the use of a 

cleaning solvent that does not meet the 

VOC content limitations of the rule 

upon approval by the commissioner. 

Additionally, by letter dated April 3, 

2013, Connecticut withdrew a number 

of provisions from the February 8, 2008 

submittal. With respect to consumer 

product exemptions, Connecticut 

withdrew Sections 22a–174–40(c)(4) 

through (7), which allow for variances, 

exemptions, and alternative control 

plans (ACPs). With respect to consumer 

product testing, Connecticut also 

withdrew Section 22a–174–40(f)(2)(C) 

through (D), which allows for 

alternative test methods. 

EPA is not acting on the withdrawn 

phrases (which provide alternative 

methods for compliance and/or for 

determining or demonstrating 

compliance), and the federally approved 

SIP will not contain these phrases. 

However, Connecticut’s withdrawal of 

these provisions from its SIP submission 

does not affect their validity under state 

law; it means only that they are not 

applicable under federal law. For 

alternative methods, limits, or 

exemptions approved under these 

provisions to be federally applicable, 

the alternative method, limit, or 

exception must be approved by EPA as 

a SIP revision. See CAA Section 110(i). 

Until Connecticut submits an alternative 

method or limit to EPA as a SIP revision 

and EPA approves that SIP revision, the 

alternative method or limit is not 

effective as a matter of federal law. See 

61 FR 38665. Regulated entities that 

receive approval from Connecticut to 

use alternative methods or limits under 

these provisions should take note of this 

distinction between federal and state 

law. 

K. Minor Changes and Negative 

Declarations 

Connecticut’s April 29, 2010, SIP 

revision also includes minor changes to 

the following subsections of Section 

22a–174–20: (f) ‘‘Organic solvents;’’ (l) 

‘‘Metal cleaning;’’ and (ee) ‘‘Reasonably 

available control technology for large 

sources.’’ These sections were revised to 

expand the list of referenced regulations 

to include the newly adopted sections 

discussed above. Also, on May 30, 2012, 

Connecticut requested the withdrawal 

of Section 22a–174–20(g) from the SIP 

given that architectural coatings are now 

addressed in a more comprehensive 

manner in section 22a–174–41, 

‘‘Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coating,’’ which has been 

approved by EPA (77 FR 50595, August 

22, 2012). 

In addition, Connecticut’s April 29, 

2010 SIP revision also includes negative 

declarations for three source categories: 

Flat wood paneling coating; fiberglass 

boat manufacturing; and automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly coating. To 

make this determination, Connecticut 

reviewed the inventory of sources for 

facilities with North American 

Industrial Classification System codes 

that correspond to the sources covered 

in the following CTGs: Flat Wood 

Paneling Coatings (EPA–453/R–06–004, 

September 2006); Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials (EPA 453/R– 

08–004, September 2008); and 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings (EPA 453/R–08–006, 

September 2008). Connecticut also 

interviewed its field staff, and searched 

telephone directories and Internet Web 

pages (including other state government 

databases) to identify and evaluate 

sources that might meet the 

applicability requirements. Connecticut 

ultimately determined that there are no 

sources covered by these CTGs in the 

State of Connecticut. 

L. Conclusion 

In summary, as noted above, EPA has 

reviewed Connecticut’s new and revised 

VOC regulations and found that they are 

consistent with the relevant CTGs and 

OTC recommendations. In addition, 

Connecticut’s process for determining 

the categories for which the state should 

make negative declarations was 

reasonable. Therefore, if this proposal is 

finalized, Connecticut will have met the 

CAA requirement to adopt RACT for all 

the 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following changes to Connecticut’s 

Section 22a–174–20 as meeting RACT 

for the relevant CTG categories: Revised 

subsection (p), Metal furniture coatings; 

revised subsection (q), Paper, film, and 

foil coatings; revised subsection (s), 

Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings; new subsection (ff), Flexible 

package printing; new subsection (gg), 

Offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing; new subsection 

(hh), Large appliance coatings; new 

subsection (ii), Industrial solvent 

cleaning; new subsection (jj), Spray 

application equipment cleaning; and 

new subsection (kk), Pleasure craft 

coatings. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve Connecticut’s new 

Section 22a–174–40, Consumer 

Products, and Section 22a–174–44, 

Adhesives and Sealants, as meeting 

RACT. 

EPA is not proposing any action on 

the portions of sections 22a–174– 

20(ff)(1)(K), (ff)(5)(B)(vi), (gg)(1)(O), 

(gg)(7)(B)(Vi), (hh)(1)(CC), (hh)(7)(B)(vi), 

(ii)(1)(I), (ii)(6)(B)(vi), (jj)(1)(H), (jj)(3)(D), 

and (jj)(6)(B)(vii), which Connecticut 

withdrew from its April 29, 2010 SIP 

submittal. Likewise, EPA is not 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proposing any action on the portions of 

Sections 22a–174–40(c)(4) through (7) 

and 22a–174–40(f)(2)(C) through (D), 

which Connecticut withdrew from its 

February 1, 2008 SIP submittal. 

EPA is proposing to approve minor 

revisions to the following subsections of 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–20: 

(f)(9); (l)(1) and (2); (aa)(1); (cc)(2) and 

(3); and subsection (ee), Reasonably 

available control technology for large 

sources. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Connecticut’s request to 

withdraw subsection (g) of Section 22a– 

174–20, Architectural coatings, from the 

SIP. Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s negative declarations for 

three source categories: Flat wood 

paneling coating; fiberglass and boat 

manufacturing; and automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly coating. 

Therefore, if this proposal is finalized, 

Connecticut will have satisfied the CAA 

requirement to adopt RACT for all of the 

2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes 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, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12498 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2013–0196, 0197, 0198, 0200, 0201, 

0202, 0203, 0204 and 0207; FRL–9814–9] 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 58 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule proposes to add 

nine sites to the General Superfund 

section of the NPL and proposes to 

change the name of an NPL site. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before July 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

Docket Number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Locust Avenue (a.k.a. B.F. Goodrich) ...................................................... Rialto, CA .......................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574. 

Beck’s Lake .............................................................................................. South Bend, IN ................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0196. 

Garden City Ground Water Plume ........................................................... Garden City, IN ................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0197. 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination .................................... Indianapolis, IN ................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0198. 

Smurfit-Stone Mill ..................................................................................... Missoula, MT .................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0200. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS