[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12019-12024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2977]



[[Page 12019]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT-17-1-6536a; A-1-FRL-6225-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; VOC RACT Catch-Up

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revision consists of 
approving revisions to subsections 22a-174-20(s), 22a-174-20(v), and 
22a-174-20(ee) of Connecticut's regulations, which define reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) for specific categories of 
industrial sources which emit volatile organic compounds (VOC), as 
meeting the requirements of the CAA. This action also involves the 
conditional approval of a new section 22a-174-32 which defines RACT for 
sources of VOC which do not fall into any of the other industry-
specific categories of Connecticut's VOC control regulations. This 
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 10, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 9, 1999. 
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 
MA 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA and the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, at (617) 918-1048, or 
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 1994, the Connecticut DEP 
submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
revision consists of changes made pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec. 182(b)(2) of the Act to the following Connecticut Regulations for 
the Abatement of Air Pollution: Secs. 22a-174-20(s), Miscellaneous 
Metal Parts and Products, Secs. 22a-174-20(v), Graphic Arts 
Rotogravures and Flexography, Secs. 22a-174-20(ee), Reasonably 
Available Control Technology for Large Sources, and the addition of 
Sec. 22a-174-32, Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile 
Organic Compounds. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level 
ozone and smog. These rules were adopted as part of an effort to 
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
    On November 9, 1994, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) in the Federal Register (59 FR 55824) which proposed full 
approval of the revisions to sections 22a-174-20(s), 22a-174-20(v), and 
22a-174-20(ee) and limited approval/limited disapproval of the new 
section 22a-174-32. Given additional documentation submitted by 
Connecticut, however, EPA now believes that section 22a-174-32 is now 
conditionally approvable. Therefore, this direct final rulemaking 
action supersedes the November 1994 NPR. The conditional approval of 
section 22a-174-32 is discussed below. The reader may also want to 
refer to the November 1994 NPR for additional information regarding 
EPA's earlier evaluation of Connecticut's submittal.

I. Background

    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act (i.e., the Clean Air Act before 
the enactment of the amendments of November 15, 1990), ozone 
nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT rules for sources of 
VOC emissions. EPA issued three sets of control technique guideline 
(CTG) documents, establishing a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for 
various categories of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs were: (1) 
Group I--issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II--issued in 
1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III--issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). 
Those sources not covered by a CTG were called non-CTG sources. EPA 
determined that the area's SIP-approved attainment date established 
which RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. Under Section 
172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment areas were generally required to attain 
the ozone standard by December 31, 1982. Those areas that submitted an 
attainment demonstration projecting attainment by that date were 
required to adopt RACT for sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs. 
Those areas that sought an extension of the attainment date under 
Section 172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987 were required to 
adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., 100 ton per 
year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG sources.
    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act, Connecticut was designated as 
nonattainment for ozone and sought an extension of the attainment date 
under Section 172(a)(2) to December 31, 1987. Therefore, the State was 
required to adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., 100 
ton per year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG sources. However, the 
State of Connecticut did not attain the ozone standard by the approved 
attainment date. On May 25, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of 
Connecticut that portions of the SIP were inadequate to attain and 
maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the 
existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call).
    On November 15, 1990, amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted. 
Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401-
7671q. In Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the amended Act, Congress adopted the 
requirement that pre-enactment ozone nonattainment areas that retained 
their designation of nonattainment and were classified as marginal or 
above fix their deficient RACT rules for ozone by May 15, 1991. All of 
Connecticut, with the exception of the portion of Connecticut located 
in the New York-New Jersey-Long Island Consolidated Statistical 
Metropolitan Area (NY-NJ-CT CMSA), was classified as serious 
nonattainment for ozone. The remaining portion of the State, i.e., the 
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT CMSA, was classified as severe 
nonattainment for ozone. 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). The State 
submitted revisions to meet the RACT fix-up requirement and EPA 
approved those revisions to the Connecticut SIP on October 18, 1991 (56 
FR 52205).
    Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT 
rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified 
as moderate or above. There are three parts to the Section 182(b)(2) 
RACT requirement: (A) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG--
i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the 
Act; (B) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (C) all 
major sources not covered by a CTG, i.e., non-CTG sources. This RACT 
requirement applies to nonattainment areas that were previously exempt 
from certain RACT requirements to ``catch up'' to those nonattainment 
areas that became subject to such requirements during an earlier 
period. In addition, it

[[Page 12020]]

requires newly designated ozone nonattainment areas to adopt RACT rules 
consistent with those for previously designated nonattainment areas.
    Because Connecticut was previously required to adopt RACT 
regulations for all the CTG and major non-CTG sources to meet the RACT 
``catch-up'' requirement, the State did not need to adopt any 
additional RACT rules. However, under Section 182 of the Act, the major 
source definition for serious and severe nonattainment areas was 
lowered to include sources that have a potential to emit greater than 
50 or greater than 25 tons per year of VOC, respectively. Therefore, 
the State needed to lower the applicability cutoff of its CTG-based 
and/or relevant non-CTG regulations to include newly classified major 
sources in these categories.
    The following is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the changes to 
Connecticut's Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution, 
subsection 22a-174-20(s), subsection 22a-174-20(v), subsection 22a-174-
20(ee), and the addition of section 22a-174-32. Additional information 
concerning EPA's evaluation of all the submitted regulations is 
detailed in a memorandum, dated June 17, 1998 entitled ``Technical 
Support Document--Connecticut--VOC RACT Catch-ups--Final.'' Copies of 
that document are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office 
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. EPA Evaluation

    In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate 
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40 CFR 
Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). EPA's interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in various EPA policy 
guidance documents. The specific guidance relied on for this action is 
referenced within the technical support document and this document.
    For the purpose of assisting State and local agencies in developing 
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of CTG documents. The CTGs are based 
on the underlying requirements of the Act and specify presumptive norms 
for RACT for specific source categories. EPA has not yet developed CTGs 
to cover all sources of VOC emissions. Further interpretations of EPA 
policy are found in, but not limited to, the following: (1) the 
proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy, 52 FR 45044 
(November 24, 1987); (2) the document entitled, ``Issues Relating to 
VOC Regulation Cut points, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification 
to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,'' otherwise 
known as the ``Blue Book'' (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988 and in the existing CTGs); and (3) the 
``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available 
Technology,'' (Model VOC RACT Rules) issued as a staff working draft in 
June of 1992. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth 
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or 
maintain the SIP.
    The VOC regulations that were included in Connecticut's January 5, 
1994 submittal are briefly summarized below.

Subsection 22a-174-20(s)

    This regulation was amended to include an exemption for 
noncompliant coatings used in amounts less than 55 gallons in the 
aggregate for any consecutive 12 month period at a miscellaneous metal 
parts facility. The change is consistent with EPA's August 10, 1990 
policy memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief of the Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 
Programs Branch of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
entitled, ``Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.'' Section 193 of the Clean 
Air Act (i.e., the General Savings Clause), requires that any 
regulation in effect before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area may only be modified 
if the modification insures equivalent or greater reductions of the 
same pollutant. Although the proposed change to 22a-174-20(s) 
represents a small relaxation of an existing control requirement, the 
requirements of Section 193 are met by the reductions resulting from 
other changes being proposed in this notice.

Subsection 22a-174-20(v)

    This regulation was amended to define RACT for graphic arts sources 
with potential emissions from all printing operations of 50 tons or 
more per year in the serious ozone nonattainment area or, 25 tons or 
more per year in the severe ozone nonattainment area, which were not 
previously subject to the rule. The adopted regulation maintains the 
applicability of any printing line with actual emissions of 40 pounds 
or more per day. This change is consistent with the requirements of 
Section 182 of the Act.

Subsection 22a-174-20(ee)

    Most of this subsection has been deleted and replaced with a 
reference to the new Section 32, entitled, ``Reasonably Available 
Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds.'' The amended 
regulation removes the previous major source limits on applicability 
and refers all sources of VOC to Section 32. Sources previously subject 
to 22a-174-20(ee) that have enforceable consent orders or permits which 
currently define RACT at those facilities will continue to be regulated 
by those orders until Connecticut decides otherwise.

Section 22a-174-32

    For major non-CTG sources of VOCs, the addition of this section 
sets forth both presumptive RACT norms and processes by which RACT can 
be established for sources that cannot meet the presumptive norms. The 
first two options of Section 22a-174-32 define presumptive norms for 
RACT, and are consistent with EPA's Model VOC RACT Rules for ``Other 
Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.'' The other options 
describe a process by which RACT can be defined on a case-by-case basis 
but do not specify RACT emission limitations or technology standards.

Issues

    As discussed in the November 1994 NPR, EPA has two major issues 
with section 22a-174-32 as submitted in January 1994. One issue is the 
open-ended nature of two of the compliance options of section 22a-174-
32, the non-CTG RACT rule. Essentially, the non-CTG RACT rule contains 
four compliance options. Two of the options explicitly define 
presumptive norms for RACT. The third and fourth options, however, 
describe processes by which RACT can be defined on a case-by-case basis 
(i.e., as a credit trade or as a relaxation from the presumptive RACT 
standards) rather than explicit RACT emission limits or technology 
standards.
    Ordinarily, the two process options by themselves would not be 
approvable as defining explicit RACT requirements. However, as 
discussed in the November 1994 NPR, the rule could be fully approved by 
EPA if Connecticut defined explicitly, and had approved by EPA, case-
specific RACT determinations for all of those sources which do not 
conform to the two presumptive RACT options outlined in the regulation. 
Alternatively, the NPR went on to say that if EPA determined that none 
of the

[[Page 12021]]

affected sources relied on the open-ended compliance options to 
implement RACT, section 22a-174-32 could be fully approved upon 
Connecticut making such a demonstration.
    On October 27, 1997, Connecticut sent EPA a list of the sources 
subject to the rule and the compliance option used by each of the 
sources. The list demonstrates that there are no sources in the State 
complying by using either of the process options. Given this 
documentation, EPA believes that the rule is now approvable as defining 
RACT for all sources subject to the regulation.
    The second issue discussed in the November 1994 NPR relates to the 
applicability of section 22a-174-32. As described in the background 
section of this notice, Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires 
Connecticut to develop regulations or case-specific RACT determinations 
for major stationary sources of VOCs which fall into one of the 13 
categories articulated in Appendix E of the Title I General Preamble 
(57 FR 18077). According to Appendix E, States are required to adopt 
RACT rules for major sources in these categories, even if EPA does not 
publish a CTG for each category.
    On November 15, 1993, EPA published CTGs for two of the categories 
listed in Appendix E, namely synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 
industry (SOCMI) distillation and reactor vessels (58 FR 60197). On 
January 20, 1994, however, EPA announced that the finalization of the 
remaining eleven CTGs would be delayed. Connecticut had anticipated 
EPA's issuance of the other 11 CTGs prior to the adoption of section 
22a-174-32. For that reason, the applicability of the regulations, 
specifically subsection 22a-174-32(b)(3)(C), was written to exclude 
VOC-emitting equipment which fall into one of the remaining CTG 
categories.
    Therefore, although section 22a-174-32 is now fully approvable as 
defining RACT for those sources subject to the regulation, Connecticut 
does not have regulations which define RACT for VOC emitting processes 
which fall into one of the eleven delayed CTG categories. In order for 
the regulation to fulfill the non-CTG requirements of section 
182(b)(2), section 22a-174-32 would need to be revised to remove the 
exclusion of such sources from the applicability of the rule. In the 
November 1994 NPR, EPA stated that if the exclusion was removed, 
section 22a-174-32 could be used to determine RACT for VOC sources 
which fall into one of the categories for which the CTG has been 
delayed.
    Since the publication of the November 1994 NPR, there have been 
numerous discussions, letters, and correspondences between the EPA and 
the Connecticut DEP regarding the issues articulated in the NPR. These 
correspondences have included letters dated November 25, 1994, and 
December 8, 1997, from EPA to Connecticut as well as electronic mail 
messages from Connecticut to EPA in October 27, 1997, February 27, 
1998, and May 11, 1998. Copies of these communications can be found in 
the docket located at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section 
above.
    On December 16, 1997, Connecticut sent a letter to EPA committing 
to make revisions to the applicability of section 22a-74-32 in order to 
establish RACT for sources not yet covered by Connecticut's RACT 
requirements. The letter expresses Connecticut's intent to revise the 
regulations within 9 months of starting the drafting process. EPA 
received a draft revision to section 22a-174-32 by electronic mail on 
November 16, 1998 indicating the start of the drafting process. Given 
the formal commitment to make the changes within nine months of the 
start of the drafting process (i.e., by the end of August 1999), EPA is 
hereby conditionally approving section 22a-174-32.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective May 
10, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant 
adverse comments by April 9, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. All parties 
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments 
are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on 
May 10, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking two actions. First, EPA is fully approving the 
changes to sections 22a-174-20(s), 22a-174-20(v), and 22a-174-20(ee) of 
Connecticut's regulations as submitted as a SIP revision on January 5, 
1994.
    EPA is also conditionally approving section 22a-174-32 as submitted 
by Connecticut as a SIP revision on January 5, 1994. In addition to the 
adopted regulation, the State has formally committed to submit to EPA, 
by September 1, 1999, a revised section 22a-174-32 which removes 
certain applicability exclusions of the current regulation.
    If the State meets its commitment, within the applicable time 
frame, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the 
SIP until EPA takes final rulemaking action approving or disapproving 
the new regulation. If EPA approves the revised section 22a-174-32, it 
will be fully approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally 
approved section 22a-174-32 in the SIP. If the State meets its 
commitment to submit a revised regulation within the applicable time 
frame but EPA disapproves the new submittal, or if the State fails to 
meet the commitment to submit revised regulations, this conditional 
approval will convert to a limited approval/limited disapproval. EPA 
will notify the State by letter that such an action has occurred. EPA 
subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register notifying 
the public that the conditional approval converted to a limited 
approval/limited disapproval.
    EPA believes that converting the conditional approval to a limited 
approval/limited disapproval would be appropriate because limited 
approval of the current section 22a-174-32 would strengthen the SIP 
even though the rule does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA. 
The approval would be limited because EPA's action also would include a 
limited disapproval, due to the fact that the current rule would not 
meet the requirement of Section 182(b)(2) because of the deficiencies 
noted above. In light of the deficiencies, EPA could not grant full 
approval of the current rule under section 110(k)(3) and Part D. 
However, EPA can grant a limited approval of the submitted rule under 
Section 110(k)(3) and EPA's authority pursuant to Section 301(a) to 
adopt regulations necessary to further air quality by strengthening the 
SIP.
    If the State fails to meet its commitment or submits a regulation 
that is not fully approvable, EPA would also issue a limited 
disapproval action because of deficiencies that have not been corrected 
as the Act requires. Under Section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator 
disapproves a submission

[[Page 12022]]

under Section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the 
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by 
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in 
Section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions 
available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-
month period referred to in Section 179(a) will begin at the effective 
date established in this limited disapproval. Moreover, the final 
disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement 
under section 110(c).
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
    This regulatory action has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks and 
is not economically significant under E.O. 12866.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because approvals of SIP 
submittals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements 
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
would not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, I certify that 
the potential disapproval action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would not 
remove existing requirements nor would it substitute a new federal 
requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must

[[Page 12023]]

prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final 
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 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 rule 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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 May 10, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Connecticut was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: January 18, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator Region I.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    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 52.369 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.369  Identification of plan--Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (c) Elements of the revision to the State Implementation Plan 
submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on 
January 5, 1994 which establish reasonably available control technology 
requirements for major stationary sources of volatile organic 
compounds. If Connecticut fails to meet these conditions by September 
1, 1999, the conditional approval of section 22a-174-32 will 
automatically convert to a limited approval/limited disapproval as 
explained under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act.
    3. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(75) and 
(c)(76) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (75) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on January 5, 1994.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection dated January 5, 1994 submitting a revision to the 
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Regulations sections 22a-174-20(s), ``Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
and Products,'' sections 22a-174-20(v), ``Graphic Arts Rotogravures and 
Flexography,'' sections 22a-174-20(ee), ``Reasonably Available Control 
Technology for Large Sources,'' adopted and effective on November 18, 
1993, which establish reasonably available control technology 
requirements for major stationary sources of volatile organic 
compounds.
    (76) Revision to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on January 5, 1994.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection dated January 5, 1994 submitting a revision to the 
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Regulation section 22a-174-32, ``Reasonably Available Control 
Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds,'' adopted and effective on 
November 18, 1993, which establishes reasonably available control 
technology requirements for major stationary sources of volatile 
organic compounds.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from Connecticut dated June 27, 1994 clarifying language 
in section 22a-174-32(A).
    4. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding a new entry 
under the state citation for Section 22a-174-20, ``Control of Organic 
Compound Emissions'' and by adding a new state citation for Section 
22a-174-32 to read as follows:


Sec. 52.385--EPA-approved  Connecticut Regulations

* * * * *

[[Page 12024]]



                                                    Table 52.385.--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Dates
                                                      --------------------------
 Connecticut State citation        Title/Subject           Date         Date        Federal Register              52.370           Comments/description
                                                        adopted by  approved by         citation
                                                          State         EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
22a-174-20..................  Control of organic          11/18/93      3/10/99  [Insert FR citation     (c)(75)                  Changes to subsection
                               compound emissions.                                from published date].                            22a-174-20(s), 20(v),
                                                                                                                                   and 20(ee).
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
22a-174-32..................  Reasonably Available        11/18/93      3/10/99  [Insert FR citation     (c)(76)                  Conditional approval
                               Control Technology for                             from published date].                            of the addition of
                               Volatile Organic                                                                                    non-CTG VOC RACT
                               Compounds.                                                                                          requirements.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-2977 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P