```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38587-38591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15299]

[[Page 38587]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 38588]]

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 now-repealed 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

    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 previously-
adopted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 38589]]

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 source-specific orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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.htmlhttp://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 double-furnace 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 intra-state 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 Sec.  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 horsepower-hour; 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.

[[Page 38590]]

                                            Table 2--NOX Control Equipment at Connecticut's Ten Largest EGUs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Avg. NOX       NOX
           Facility name                     Unit ID          rate (lb/   Emissions        Unit type            Fuel (primary)          NOX Controls
                                                               mmBTU)      (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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  Coal.................  Facility closed
                                                                                      bed boiler.
AES Thames.........................  Unit B................        0.06       214.9  Circulating fluidized  Coal.................  Facility closed
                                                                                      bed boiler.
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 wall-fired  Residual oil.........  OFA
                                                                                      boiler.
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

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(101) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.

0
3. Section 52.375 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.

0
4. Section 52.377 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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
```