Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0460-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: State Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology Update to Address Guidelines Issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008
Posted Date: 2013-05-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31459-31464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12498]

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

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

[[Page 31460]]

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

[[Page 31461]]

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

    \1\ Complete citations for each CTG document are given in 
Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ See page 335 of the EPA document ``Model Volatile Organic 
Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' June 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 31462]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See page 335 of the EPA document ``Model Volatile Organic 
Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' June 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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; electric-
insulating 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 non-exempt 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 31464]]

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