Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 38587 

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. 

2See 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0449; A–1–FRL– 

9797–2 ] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Connecticut. 

These SIP revisions consist of a 

demonstration that Connecticut meets 

the requirements of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) for oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) set forth by the 

Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we 

are approving three single source orders. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 29, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0449. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action 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. 

Organization of this document: The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Connecticut’s Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Certification 

III. VOC RACT Orders 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On January 23, 2013 (78 FR 4800), 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Connecticut. That action proposed 

approval of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision request submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on December 

8, 2006, consisting of information 

documenting how Connecticut 

complied with the reasonably available 

control technology requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard.1

Additionally, our January 23, 2013 NPR 

proposed approval of three single source 

orders establishing reasonably available 

control technology for controlling 

volatile organic compound emissions 

that Connecticut submitted to EPA on 

July 20, 2007. 

II. Connecticut’s Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Certification 

On December 8, 2006, the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, which was subsequently 

reorganized and is currently known as 

the Connecticut Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection (CT 

DEEP), submitted a demonstration that 

its regulatory framework for stationary 

sources meets the criteria for RACT as 

defined in EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation rule.2 The state held a 

public hearing on the RACT program on 

October 18, 2006. 

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 

control technique guideline (CTG) 

categories, and describes updates made 

to two existing rules to strengthen them 

so that they will continue to represent 

VOC RACT. Connecticut notes that 

sections 22a–174–20 and 22a–174–32 of 

the Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RSA) are the principal 

regulations that apply to stationary 

sources of VOC emissions. 

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; and 

6. Control of VOC leaks from 

petroleum refineries. 

Connecticut’s submittal addresses 

NOX emissions as well as VOC 

emissions. In particular, Connecticut 

identified Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174– 

22, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions,’’ as its primary NOX RACT 

regulation. In addition, RCSA 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. 

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 Connecticut 

regulations cited above constitute RACT 

for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Additionally, EPA has determined 

that Connecticut’s two ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard by their 

attainment date, based on quality 

assured air monitoring data. These 

determinations were 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. 

Other specific requirements of 

Connecticut’s RACT certification and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
38588 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control 

Technology State Implementation Plan Analysis for 

the State of Connecticut (Final) (Nov. 3, 2006), 

Document #EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0449–0005, at 7. 

4 ‘‘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,’’ as well as several single-source 

orders and updates to existing asphalt paving and 

solvent metal cleaning regulations. 78 FR 4802. 

the rationale for our action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. 

EPA received one comment, from the 

Sierra Club, on our proposal to approve 

Connecticut’s RACT certification. The 

Sierra Club argues that it is 

‘‘impermissible for EPA to allow [CT 

DEEP] to rely in any part on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (‘CAIR’) to meet 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (‘RACT’) requirements for 

nitrogen oxides (‘NOX’).’’ 

In response to the Sierra Club’s 

comment, we are clarifying the basis for 

our determination that Connecticut has 

adopted regulations that satisfactorily 

address the NOX RACT requirement for 

a moderate nonattainment area under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. As set 

forth in detail below, EPA did not 

propose to do, and is not now taking 

final action to do, what the Sierra Club 

argues would be impermissible. EPA is 

not allowing CT DEEP to ‘‘rely in any 

part on CAIR’’ to meet NOX RACT 

requirements. However, we are 

supplying this clarification for two 

reasons. First, the basis for our 

determination (which has not changed 

from the proposal to this final action) 

differs slightly from the explanation that 

CT DEEP itself set forth in the narrative 

portion of its SIP submission. Second, 

we now recognize that the explanation 

of the basis for that determination that 

we provided in the proposal was 

potentially subject to a misreading, 

which we now dispel. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

RACT is a mandatory requirement. EPA 

also acknowledges that in NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the court 

held that ‘‘the RACT requirement calls 

for reductions in emissions from sources 

in the area’’ and that, therefore, 

‘‘participation in the NOX SIP Call could 

constitute RACT only if participation 

entailed at least RACT-level reductions 

in emissions from sources within the 

nonattainment area.’’ Id. at 1256. In 

other words, compliance with an 

unrestricted interstate emissions trading 

program, such as the NOX SIP Call, 

could not be said to satisfy a RACT 

requirement absent an analysis 

demonstrating that any such program 

achieves ‘‘greater emissions reduction in 

a nonattainment area than would be 

achieved if RACT-level controls were 

installed in that area.’’ Id. at 1258. 

In this action, EPA is finalizing our 

approval of Connecticut’s RACT SIP. 

This action is based on EPA’s 

determination that CT DEEP has 

adopted regulations that satisfactorily 

address the applicable NOX RACT 

requirement. Specifically, EPA’s 

determination that the SIP satisfies the 

applicable RACT requirement for 

electric generating units (EGUs) and 

other major sources of NOX emissions, 

is based on our determination that the 

two sections of the Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies—sections 

22a–174–22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides 

Emissions), and 22a–174–38 (Municipal 

Waste Combustors)—require all major 

sources of NOX in the state, including 

EGUs, to have RACT level controls. 

These regulations are independent of 

Connecticut’s current and past 

regulations that allow interstate trading, 

namely Connecticut’s CAIR regulation 

(section 22a–174–22c), and two nowrepealed interstate trading programs, 

sections 22a–174–22b (Post-2002 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program) 

and 22a–174–22a (NOX Budget 

Program). 

EPA approved sections 22a–174–22 

and 22a–174–38 into Connecticut’s SIP 

in 1997 and 2001 respectively. See 62 

FR 52016; 66 FR 63311. Moreover, 

EPA’s ‘‘Phase 2’’ implementation rule 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

specifically provided that states could 

meet the RACT requirement ‘‘through a 

certification that previously required 

RACT controls represent RACT for 8- 

hour implementation purposes.’’ 70 FR 

71617. Connecticut’s December 8, 2006 

submittal did just this, and certified that 

previously required RACT controls 

represent RACT for 8-hour 

implementation purposes: 

Connecticut and other states previously 

designated non-attainment under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, already have rules in place to 

reduce emissions of VOC and NOX for 

attainment purposes. Recognizing that 

additional controls may only achieve small 

incremental emission reductions that are not 

cost effective, the Implementation Rule 

allows states to review and certify that RACT 

controls implemented under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS continue to represent RACT 

under the 8-hour NAAQS. Such a review and 

certification follows.3

Connecticut’s analysis then proceeds 

to enumerate, over the course of five 

pages, the specific requirements 

applicable to various categories of 

sources. In particular, Connecticut’s 

analysis explains that its six municipal 

waste combustors are regulated by 

Section 22a–174–38, and that ‘‘[a]ny 

facility in Connecticut that has the 

potential to emit at least fifty tons per 

year of NOX’’ is regulated by Section 

22a–174–22. Id. at 11. 

It is important to clarify that EPA is 

not approving any reliance by CT DEEP 

on the CAIR emission trading programs. 

In addition, EPA’s own determination 

that CT DEEP has adopted regulations 

that satisfactorily address the applicable 

NOX RACT requirement is not based on 

the CAIR emission trading programs, the 

Connecticut state regulation (section 

22a–174–22c) that requires participation 

by certain Connecticut sources in those 

programs, or compliance by sources in 

Connecticut with those programs. In 

short, the CAIR programs are irrelevant 

to EPA’s approval of these CT SIP 

submissions. EPA acknowledges that 

the SIP submission from Connecticut 

could be read to suggest that its 

participation in CAIR satisfies NOX

RACT for EGUs. However, we do not 

interpret Connecticut’s submission to 

rely on this theory, given both 

Connecticut’s introductory statement 

that its RACT analysis is based on 

review and submission of previouslyadopted RACT controls, and its 

discussions of those controls (e.g., 

section 22a–174–22). Moreover, EPA’s 

proposal explained that ‘‘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.’’ 78 FR 4802. Our 

proposal then enumerated the specific 

Connecticut control requirements upon 

which EPA relied for our proposal to 

find that Connecticut has satisfied the 

RACT requirement.4 Neither the CAIR 

trading programs, nor the Connecticut 

regulation requiring participation by 

certain Connecticut sources in those 

programs was identified in this list. Our 

proposal did mention Connecticut’s 

own references to its CAIR regulation, 

but only as explanatory notes regarding 

additional state NOX regulations. See id. 

In general, EPA approval of a state SIP 

submission does not imply endorsement 

of every single statement contained in 

the narrative portion of that submission. 

However, in the interest of clarity, we 

specifically note here that EPA is not 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 38589 

5The references to section 22a–174–22 in this 

discussion are to the version which is part of the 

federal SIP. That version was approved by EPA in 

1997 and is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html http:// 

www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/ct/ 

CT_22a_174_22.pdf. Connecticut has since revised 

this regulation, and thus references to various 

paragraphs and subsections here may differ slightly 

from the current state regulation. 

approving the portions of Connecticut’s 

SIP submission that cite the 

presumption or determination in the 

Phase 2 ozone implementation rule that 

compliance with CAIR could, in certain 

circumstances, satisfy NOX RACT for 

EGUs. 

Rather, we are approving 

Connecticut’s RACT analysis because 

we agree with Connecticut’s 

determination that sections 22a–174–22 

and 22a–174–38, which were developed 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to 

control NOX emissions from major 

sources, continue to represent RACT for 

major NOX sources in Connecticut for 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. In particular, section 22a– 

174–22 is Connecticut’s primary NOX

RACT regulation, and it contains 

requirements applicable to EGUs and 

other major sources of NOX. A brief 

summary of this rule is provided below, 

and additional information can be found 

within our October 6, 1997 final rule 

approving the rule into the Connecticut 

SIP. See 62 FR 52016. 

RCSA 22a–174–22, Control of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions 

Connecticut’s NOX RACT regulation 5

contains a combination of NOX emission 

limitations, performance standards, and 

compliance options, including 

provisions for sources to meet emission 

limitations through intra-state emissions 

trading (i.e., trading limited exclusively 

to trading among sources within 

Connecticut), known in Connecticut as 

‘‘emissions reduction trading’’ and 

generally implemented through sourcespecific orders. 

Subsection (d) of the rule lists 

compliance options available to sources. 

These options are compliance with 

emission limitations, fuel switching, a 

40% emission reduction, source 

reconstruction, schedule modification, 

or intra-state emission reduction 

trading. Requirements for each method 

of compliance are detailed in 

subsections (f) through (j). 

Subsection (e) establishes emission 

limits with specific limits for: Turbines; 

cyclone furnaces; fast-response doublefurnace Naval boilers; fluidized-bed 

combustors; reciprocating engines; 

waste combustors; fuel burning 

equipment firing fuels other than gas, 

oil, or coal; glass melting furnaces; and 

other sources providing direct heat. 

Subsection (e) also contains an emission 

limit for ‘‘all other sources’’ not having 

a specifically defined emission 

limitation. The specific RACT limits for 

all major NOX sources, including EGUs, 

is shown in Table 1 below. 

Connecticut’s EGUs are required to 

comply with, at a minimum, the 

emission limit that corresponds to their 

particular fuel and unit type shown in 

Table 1, although for most EGUs 

Connecticut has mandated via permit 

condition stricter limits than those 

found within section 22a–174–22. Table 

2 below summarizes the NOX control 

equipment in place at Connecticut’s 

largest EGUs, along with the emission 

rates for these units. 

Subsection (j) (‘‘Emissions reduction 

trading’’) establishes the requirements 

for sources complying with subsection 

(e) emission limitations through intrastate emissions trading. Under 

subsection (d)(4), CT DEEP must submit 

any permit or order implementing an 

intra-state emissions trade under 

subsection (j) to EPA for approval. See 

also CAA § 110(i). Therefore, any use of 

intra-state emissions trading under 

subsection (j) for compliance with 

subsection (e) limits would have to be 

presented to EPA as a new SIP revision, 

which would be reviewed and 

processed in a separate regulatory 

action. See, e.g., 77 FR 71140. 

Subsection (k) covers requirements for 

emission testing and monitoring. 

Subsection (l) covers recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements concerning 

operating hours, fuel usage, NOX

emissions, equipment maintenance, 

continuous emissions monitoring 

(CEMS) records, and emissions testing 

information. Sources must retain these 

records for five years. Subsection (m) 

contains provisions requiring the 

submittal of compliance plans for 

sources subject to the provisions of 

section 22a–174–22. 

Table 1 below summarizes the NOX

emission limits within section (e) of 

section 22a–174–22. The following 

abbreviations are used in the table: gm/ 

bk hp-hr = grams per brake horsepowerhour; lb/mmBTU = pounds per million 

British Thermal Units; NA = not 

applicable; and ppmvd = parts per 

million volume, dry. 

TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION LIMITS FROM SIP-APPROVED CT NOX RACT REGULATION

Equipment type Gas Residual oil Other oil Coal 

Turbine, 100 mmBTU/hr or greater 55 ppmvd ...................... NA ................................. 75 ppmvd ...................... NA. 

Turbine, less than 100 mmBTU/hr .. 0.90 lb/mmBTU ............. NA ................................. 0.90 lb/mmBTU ............. NA. 

Cyclone furnace ............................... 0.43 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.43 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.43 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.43 lb/mmBTU. 

Fast response Naval boilers ............ 0.20 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.30 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.30 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.30 lb/mmBTU. 

Fluidized bed combustor .................. NA ................................. NA ................................. NA ................................. 0.29 lb/mmBTU. 

Reciprocating engines ..................... 2.5 gm/bk hp-hr ............. NA ................................. 8 gm/bk hp-hr ................ NA. 

Other boilers .................................... 0.20 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.25 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.20 lb/mmBTU ............. 0.38 lb/mmBTU. 

Table 2 below provides the NOX

control equipment and related 

information for Connecticut’s 10 largest 

emitting EGUs in 2009. This data is 

from EPA’s Air Markets Program 

database. Within Table 2, the following 

abbreviations are used: LNB = Low NOX

burners; FGR = Flue gas recirculation; 

OFA = Over-fired air; SCR = Selective 

catalytic reduction; and SNCR = 

Selective non-catalytic reduction. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
38590 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—NOX CONTROL EQUIPMENT AT CONNECTICUT’S TEN LARGEST EGUS. 

Facility name Unit ID 

Avg. NOX

rate (lb/ 

mmBTU) 

NOX

Emissions 

(tons) 

Unit type Fuel 

(primary) 

NOX

Controls 

Bridgeport Harbor .......................... BHB3 ......... 0.15 838.2 Tangentially fired .... Coal ........................ LNB with OFA 

Algonquin Power ........................... GT1 ........... 0.14 259.1 Combined cycle ...... Gas ......................... Steam injection 

AES Thames ................................. Unit A ........ 0.06 226.3 Circulating fluidized 

bed boiler.

Coal ........................ Facility closed 

AES Thames ................................. Unit B ........ 0.06 214.9 Circulating fluidized 

bed boiler.

Coal ........................ Facility closed 

New Haven Harbor ........................ NHB1 ......... 0.13 115.4 Tangentially fired .... Residual oil ............. LNB, OFA, FGR 

Middletown .................................... 3 ................ 0.25 105.1 Cyclone boiler ........ Residual oil ............. Water injection, 

SNCR 

Bridgeport Energy ......................... BE2 ........... 0.02 74.6 Combined cycle ...... Gas ......................... SCR 

Bridgeport Energy ......................... BE1 ........... 0.02 71.6 Combined cycle ...... Gas ......................... SCR 

Middletown .................................... 2 ................ 0.13 66.7 Dry bottom wallfired boiler.Residual oil ............. OFA 

Milford Power ................................ CT02 ......... 0.01 48.6 Combined cycle ...... Gas ......................... Water injection, 

SCR 

EPA defined RACT as being the 

lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

See 44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979. 

The NOX controls noted within Table 2 

have all been demonstrated to be 

effective at reducing NOX emissions 

from EGUs, and this is demonstrated by 

the low NOX emission rates shown 

within the table. Based on EPA’s 

experience interpreting and applying 

the RACT standard, we find reasonable 

Connecticut’s determination that the 

requirements discussed above are 

consistent with RACT. Consequently, 

we agree with Connecticut’s 

determination that its already-approved 

regulations discussed herein impose a 

RACT level of control on EGUs, and as 

described elsewhere in this notice, all 

major sources of NOX. Since our 

approval of Connecticut’s RACT SIP 

does not rely in any way on CAIR, the 

remainder of the Sierra Club’s 

comments regarding CAIR are not 

relevant to this action and we are 

therefore not specifically addressing the 

remainder of those comments pertaining 

to the status of CAIR. 

III. VOC RACT Orders 

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. Our January 23, 2013 NPR 

contains a summary of the RACT 

requirements established for each 

facility, and our analysis of these 

requirements. In summary, we have 

reviewed these single source VOC RACT 

orders and agree that they represent a 

RACT level of control for each facility. 

Therefore, we are approving these 

orders into the Connecticut SIP. 

Other specific requirements of these 

three VOC RACT orders and the 

rationale for our action are explained in 

the NPR and will not be restated here. 

No public comments were received on 

this aspect of our NPR. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Connecticut’s 

December 8, 2006 RACT certification for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and 

VOC RACT orders for Cyro Industries, 

Sumitomo Bakelite North America, and 

the Curtis Packaging Corporation, as 

revisions to the Connecticut SIP. 

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 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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 38591 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 26, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 22, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(101) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.370 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(101) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection on July 20, 

2007, consisting of orders establishing 

reasonably available control technology 

for volatile organic compound 

emissions for Sumitomo Bakelite North 

America, Cyro Industries, and Curtis 

Packaging. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) State of Connecticut vs. Sumitomo 

Bakelite North America, Inc., Consent 

Order No. 8245, issued as a final order 

on October 11, 2006. 

(B) State of Connecticut and Cyro 

Industries, Consent Order No. 8268, 

issued as a final order on February 28, 

2007. 

(C) State of Connecticut vs. Curtis 

Packaging Corporation, Consent Order 

No. 8270, issued as a final order on May 

1, 2007. 

■ 3. Section 52.375 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.375 Certification of no sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) In its December 8, 2006 submittal 

to EPA pertaining to reasonably 

available control technology 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, the State of Connecticut 

certified to the satisfaction of EPA that 

no sources are located in the state that 

are covered by the following Control 

Technique Guidelines: 

(1) Automobile Coatings; 

(2) Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; 

(3) Large Appliance Coating; 

(4) Natural Gas and Gas Processing 

Plants; 

(5) Flat Wood Paneling Coatings; and 

(6) Control of VOC Leaks from 

Petroleum Refineries. 

■ 4. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(l) Approval—Revisions to the 

Connecticut State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted on December 8, 2006. 

The SIP revision satisfies the 

requirement to implement reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Specifically, the following 

sections of the Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies are 

approved for this purpose: For VOC 

RACT, 22a–174–20, Control of Organic 

Compound Emissions, 22a–174–30, 

Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and 

Stage II Vapor Recovery, and 22a–174– 

32, RACT for Organic Compounds; for 

NOX RACT, 22a–174–22, Control of 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, and 22a– 

174–38, Municipal Waste Combustors. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15299 Filed 6–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 122 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2003–0063; FRL–9829–2] 

RIN 2040–AF47 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Regulation 

Revision: Removal of the Pesticide 

Discharge Permitting Exemption in 

Response to Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending its 

regulations to remove language added 

by the EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides 

Rule which exempted the application of 

pesticides from National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit requirements in two 

circumstances: When the application of 

the pesticide is made directly to waters 

of the United States to control pests that 

are present in the water, and when the 

application of the pesticide is made to 

control pests that are over, including 

near, waters of the United States. This 

rulemaking is in response to the 2009 

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 

that vacated the EPA’s 2006 NPDES 

Pesticides Rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The record for this 

rulemaking is available for inspection 

and copying at the Water Docket, 

located at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), EPA West 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. The record 

is also available via the EPA Dockets at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

docket number EPA–HQ–OW–2003– 

0063. The rule and key supporting 

documents are also available 

electronically on the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information contact Prasad 

Chumble, Water Permits Division, 

Office of Wastewater Management 

(4203M), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone 

number: (202) 564–0021, email address: 

chumble.prasad@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

II. Background and Rationale for Action 

III. Implementation 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES