Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; VOC Regulations and One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Shortfall, 51761-51766 [06-7314]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R01–OAR–2005–CT–0001; A–1–FRL– 8209–6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality ImplementationPlans; Connecticut; VOC Regulations and One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Shortfall Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision establishes requirements to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from portable fuel containers, automotive refinishing operations, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The intended effect of this action is to approve these requirements into the Connecticut SIP. These control measures are needed to meet a portion of the shortfall in emission reduction identified in Connecticut’s one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. This action also approves these control measures, along with a previously approved control measure, as fulfilling the shortfall in emission reductions identified in Connecticut’s one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. EPA is taking this action in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 30, 2006, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 2, 2006. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– OAR–2005–CT–0001 by one of the following methods: 1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2005–CT– 0001,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. 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, excluding legal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2005– CT–0001. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// 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 e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51761 INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114– 2023. Phone: 617–918–1664, Fax: (617) 918–0664, E-mail: burkhart.richard@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? In addition to the publicly available docket materials available for inspection electronically in Regional Material in EDocket, and the hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the ADDRESSES section above, copies of the state submittal and EPA’s technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106. II. Rulemaking Information This section is organized as follows: A. What action is EPA taking? B. What are the requirements of Connecticut’s new regulations? C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut’s regulations? D. What is the process for EPA to approve these SIP revisions? III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–43, ‘‘Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control,’’ the subsections of Section 22a–174–3b, ‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations’ that apply to autobody refinishing operations and Section 22a–174–30, ‘‘Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery,’’ and incorporating these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. EPA is also approving these measures, along with Connecticut’s previously approved municipal waste combuster E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1 51762 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations rule, as meeting the shortfall emissions reduction identified by EPA in our previous approval of Connecticut’s 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES B. What are the requirements of Connecticut’s new regulations? Portable Fuel Containers The Section 22a–174–43 Portable Fuel Containers rule applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures for sale in Connecticut portable fuel containers or spouts or both for use in Connecticut. Connecticut’s portable fuel container rule includes performance standards for portable fuel containers and spouts in order to ensure spill-proof systems. For example, the rule requires that portable fuel containers have an automatic shutoff that stops the fuel flow before the target fuel tank overflows. Connecticut’s rule prohibits any person to sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in Connecticut, on or after May 1, 2004, any portable fuel container or spout that does not meet all of the specified performance standards. There is, however, a specified list of exemptions from the rule. For example, the rule does not apply to portable fuel containers with a nominal capacity less than or equal to one quart or to containers or spouts that have been granted an innovative products exemption by California Air Resources Board (CARB) or the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. The exemption for innovative products is considered reasonable, because in order to receive an innovative products exemption the CARB and New York rules require that the manufacturer demonstrate that the use of the product will result in emissions below the highest emitting container in its product category as determined from applicable testing. Connecticut’s rule also includes an exemption for products that have received a variance pursuant to the variance provisions in New York’s portable fuel container rule. This exemption is acceptable because few variances are expected to be granted. For example, the compliance date of New York’s portable fuel container rule was January 1, 2003, and as of March 1, 2006 no variances have been granted by New York. In addition, Connecticut’s rule includes the appropriate testing and recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with the specified performance standards. Specifically, the rule requires the use of several test methods and procedures adopted by VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 CARB. The portable fuel container rule is expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at least 2.3 tons per summer day by 2007. The method used to calculate this reduction is shown in the Connecticut submittal and EPA agrees with the method. More recently, EPA proposed new standards that would limit hydrocarbon emissions that evaporate from or permeate through gasoline cans (71 FR 15803, March 29, 2006). EPA’s proposal starts with gasoline cans manufactured in 2009. The proposed standard would limit evaporation and permeation emissions from these cans to 0.3 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon per day. The Connecticut rule limits the permeation emissions from portable fuel containers to less than or equal to 0.4 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon per day. If, as proposed, the final EPA standard for permeation emissions from portable fuel containers is more stringent than the current state standard, the federal standard will supersede the state standard as of 2009. Autobody Refinishing Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–3b, ‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations,’’ allows owners or operators of these types of operations to construct and operate such a source without obtaining a general permit pursuant to Section 22a–174 or a permit pursuant to Section 22a–174–3a, provided that they comply with the applicable provisions of the Section 22a–174–3b regulation. Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision only those subsections of Section 22a–174– 3b that apply to automotive refinishing operations. EPA has evaluated the portion of Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–3b that applies to automotive refinishing operations against applicable EPA guidance documents and the OTC model rule for this source category. An analysis of Connecticut’s regulations is presented below. EPA has issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) and, in some cases, national regulations for certain VOC source categories. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a ‘‘presumptive norm’’ for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for a specific VOC source category. EPA has issued a national rule for autobody PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 refinishing.1 EPA has also issued an ACT for automobile refinishing.2 Similar to a CTG, an ACT (alternative control techniques) document contains information on emissions, control options, and costs that states can use in developing RACT rules. Unlike a CTG, however, the ACT document presents options only, and does not contain a recommendation on RACT. In addition, the OTC (Ozone Transport Commission) has developed model rules for several VOC source categories, including mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR),3 and the OTC states, including Connecticut, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing to adopt these model rules. The coating limits in the OTC MERR model rule are the same as the limits included in EPA’s national autobody refinishing rule. The OTC rule, however, applies to the person applying the coatings, whereas the national rule applies to manufacturers or importers that sell or distribute automobile refinish coatings. In addition, the OTC rule includes application equipment requirements, good housekeeping, pollution prevention, and training measures. These additional requirements are similar to those discussed in EPA’s ACT document for automobile refinishing. The portion of Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–3b that applies to automotive refinishing operations establishes: (a) A limit on the total amount of VOC-containing coatings or solvents of 2,000 gallons in any twelve month rolling period; (b) Requirements that limit the type of application equipment utilized to highvolume low-pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, electrostatic application equipment, or other application methods with a guaranteed transfer efficiency of at least 65%; (c) Cleaning standards for any application equipment; and (d) Other work practice standards, such as record keeping, and the storing of coatings and solvents in closed containers. VOC limits for mobile equipment repair and refinishing coatings are not included in Connecticut’s revised SIP, but are in effect nationally under the Federal requirements at 40 CFR Part 59, 1 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings,’’ 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B. 2 ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document: Automobile Refinishing,’’ (EPA–453/R–94–031), April 1994. 3 ‘‘Model Rule for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing,’’ Ozone Transport Commission, March 6, 2001. E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Subpart B, National VOC Emissions Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, which were adopted by EPA in 1998. Connecticut’s autobody regulations have similar requirements to those specified in the OTC model rule, which are also similar to those discussed in EPA’s ACT document for autobody refinishing. The new requirements for autobody refinishing in Connecticut are expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at least 3.0 tons per summer day by May 2007. The method used to calculate this emission reduction is contained in the December 1, 2004 state submittal. EPA considers these emission reduction estimates, which are consistent with a report on VOC control measures,4 to be reasonable estimates. erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES Stage I/II Vapor Recovery Connecticut revised the Section 22a– 174–30, Stage I/II Vapor Recovery rule to include new requirements for PV (pressure/vacuum) vent valves and to require more frequent testing of the Stage II systems (3 years vs. 5 years). Compliance with the PV vent valve requirements is due by May 10, 2005, and the three year re-testing requirement begins November 15, 2004. The revised Section 22a–174–30 Stage I/II Vapor Recovery Rule includes a testing requirement for the PV vent valve, but does not specify a particular test method. Instead, the regulation specifies a performance standard with a pressure range that any test method must be able to measure. See 22a–174– 30(e)(1)(E). In addition, DEP submitted a fact sheet that clarifies what test method DEP expects to use to test PV vent valves. Specifically, the fact sheet includes the test procedures from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services ‘‘304—PV Vent Cap Test Procedure.’’ The fact sheet states that this test method is accepted in Connecticut, and also provides that CARB test procedures or other procedures approved by the Connecticut DEP are also acceptable. These provisions leave DEP some discretion to approve alternative test methods without further EPA approval. Nevertheless, EPA believes the combination of testing provisions DEP has in place provide for an acceptable framework for determining an adequate test method for PV vent valves. First, any test method DEP might approve must be able to measure the performance standard required in the 4 ‘‘Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules,’’ E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 Stage I/II regulation. Any test method that cannot detect pressures accurately enough to measure within the ranges provided for in section 22a–174– 30(e)(1)(E) would obviously not qualify under the regulation. Therefore, DEP’s discretion in approving alternative test methods is circumscribed by this regulatory standard. Second, DEP has submitted a fact sheet explaining which test methods it finds acceptable. This fact sheet provides good evidence that DEP has selected reliable methods. EPA is approving this SIP with the understanding that the State will only use test methods of the quality identified in that fact sheet. Third, test methods for PV vent valves are not complicated procedures, and they do not present the multiple opportunities for technical judgment calls inherent in more involved test methods. Thus, EPA does not anticipate that DEP and EPA would find it difficult to agree on whether a test method is sufficiently accurate to measure the performance standard provided for in DEP’s regulation. Finally, in the unlikely event that a facility uses a test method EPA deems unreliable, nothing in the SIPapproved regulation prevents EPA from requiring testing using an acceptable test method. The Stage I/II regulation neither specifies a test method nor specifically authorizes DEP to designate a test method that would be binding on EPA or any other party as the sole method for determining compliance with the PV vent valve requirement. The fact sheet DEP has submitted with the SIP is a statement of the test methods that DEP is prepared to accept, but it is not legally binding as a matter of state law, nor is it formally incorporated by reference into the SIP as a matter of federal law. Although EPA does not anticipate any disagreement over appropriate test methodology, the Agency can ultimately require the performance of the test method it deems appropriate to enforce this provision, because the SIP does not restrict EPA’s choice of test methods. The fact sheet also states that the PV vent testing must be conducted prior to dispensing gasoline for new stations and as part of the next regularly scheduled Stage II system test for existing facilities. In addition, the SIP submittal states that direct mailings were sent to testing companies and gasoline station owners informing them of the new requirements and the PV vent testing procedure. The previous version of Section 22a– 174–30 was approved into the Connecticut SIP. Therefore, the revised rule must meet the Section 110(l) antibacksliding provisions of the Clean Air Act. The previous version of 22a–174– PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 51763 30 was approved as meeting the Section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirements of the Clean Air Act. The new rule includes the previous requirements approved into the SIP, along with the new PV vent valve and more frequent testing requirements discussed above. These new requirements are expected to achieve additional emissions reductions beyond those achieved by the previously approved rule. Therefore, the new Section 22a–174–30 meets the Clean Air Act anti-backsliding requirement. The new requirements for PV vent valves are expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at least 1.4 tons per summer day by 2007. The method used to calculate this reduction is shown in the Connecticut submittal and EPA agrees with the method. C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut’s regulations? EPA has evaluated Connecticut’s regulations and has found that they are consistent with EPA guidance, and/or the Ozone Transport Commission model rules. These control measures are needed to meet a portion of the shortfall emissions reduction identified in Connecticut’s 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP (66 FR 63921, December 11, 2001). The specific requirements of Connecticut’s regulations, the amount of VOC reductions expected, and EPA’s evaluation of these requirements are detailed in a memo dated June 8, 2006, entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document—Connecticut—VOC Regulations and Shortfall Commitment’’ (TSD) and in the SIP submittal from the Connecticut DEP. The TSD and Connecticut’s regulations are available in the docket supporting this action. The total emission reduction from these three VOC regulations will be at least 6.7 tons of VOC per summer day by 2007. These emission reductions, coupled with emission reductions from Connecticut’s previously approved regulation on municipal waste combusters (66 FR 63311, December 6, 2001) which will result in an emission reduction of at least 1.3 tons of nitrogen oxides by 2007, fills the emission reduction shortfall identified in the 1hour attainment plan for the 1-hour severe portion of Connecticut.5 This level of emission reduction, therefore, fulfills the commitment Connecticut made in its 1-hour attainment demonstration to achieve additional emission reductions within the state, to 5 The Connecticut portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment area. E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1 51764 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations help bring about attainment for the now revoked 1-hour ozone standard. The commitment was for 0.5 tons per summer day of NOX and 5.4 tons per summer day of VOC. These emission reductions will also help Connecticut to ultimately achieve the more stringent 8hour ozone standard as well. erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES D. What is the process for EPA to approve these SIP revisions? The 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 adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective October 30, 2006 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by October 2, 2006. 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. 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 October 30, 2006 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. III. Final Action EPA is approving Section 22a–174– 43, ‘‘Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control,’’ the autobody refinishing requirements of Section 22a–174–3b, ‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations,’’ and Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–30, ‘‘Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery,’’ and incorporating these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. These three rules will achieve an emissions reduction of at least 6.7 tons of VOC per summer day by 2007. EPA is also approving these measures, along with Connecticut’s previously approved VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 municipal waste combuster rule, as fulfilling the commitment Connecticut made in its 1-hour attainment demonstration to adopt additional measures to address the emission reduction shortfall. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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. 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 October 30, 2006. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1 51765 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 31, 2006. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, , EPA New England. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: I PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart H—Connecticut 2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(95) to read as follows: I § 52.370 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (95) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on December 1, 2004 and April 4, 2006. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Section 22a–174–30 of the Connecticut Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ‘‘Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery,’’ effective in the State of Connecticut on May 10, 2004, with the exception of subsection (c)(5), which Connecticut did not submit as part of the SIP revision. (B) Section 22a–174–3b of the Connecticut Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ‘‘Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations,’’ effective in the State of Connecticut on April 4, 2006, except for the following subsections which Connecticut did not submit as part of the SIP revision: (a)(1), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (12), (15), (17); (b)(1) for an external combustion unit, nonmetallic mineral processing equipment, an emergency engine or a surface coating operation; (b)(2) for an external combustion unit, nonmetallic mineral processing equipment, an emergency engine or a surface coating operation; (c) External combustion unit; (e) Emergency engine; (f) Nonmetallic mineral processing equipment; (g) Surface coating operation; and (h) Fuel sulfur content. (C) Section 22a–174–43 of the Connecticut Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ‘‘Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control,’’ effective in the State of Connecticut on May 10, 2004. (ii) Additional materials. (A) Pressure Vacuum Vent Cap Test Procedures (B) Table 1 showing the emission reductions resulting from the measures Connecticut adopted to meet the shortfall identified in the Connecticut one-hour ozone attainment demonstration. (C) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal. I 3. Section 52.377 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. * * * * * (e) Commitment Fulfillment— Connecticut has fulfilled the commitment in section 52.377(d), to adopt additional NOX and VOC control measures to meet the emission reduction shortfall in its 1-hour severe ozone nonattainment area. I 4. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding three new entries: a new state citation 22a–174–3b; a new entry to existing state citation 22a–174– 30; and a new state citation 22a–174–43 to read as follows: § 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations. * * * * * TABLE 52.385.—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS Dates Connecticut State citation Title/subject Date adopted by State Date approved by EPA * Permits for construction and operation of stationary sources. * 4/4/06 8/31/06 * 22a–174–30 * Gaso-line Vapor Recovery. * 5/10/04 8/31/06 * 22a–174–43 erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES * 22a–174–3b * Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control. * 5/10/04 8/31/06 * VerDate Aug<31>2005 * 16:18 Aug 30, 2006 * Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Federal Register citation * * [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]. * * [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]. * * [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins]. * Frm 00053 Section 52.370 Fmt 4700 Comments/description (c)(95) (c)(95) * * Only the automotive refinishing requirements of 22a–174–3b are being approved. Connecticut did not submit the other subsections of the rule as part of its SIP revision. * * Added new requirements for PV vents and increased frequency of Stage II testing. All of 22a–174– 30 is approved with the exception of subsection (c)(5), which the state did not submit as part of the SIP revision. * * * Sfmt 4700 * * (c)(95) E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1 51766 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations [FR Doc. 06–7314 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0464; FRL–8210–2] Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 2006, and include the air pollution sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). We are approving these statutes in order to regulate emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0464 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at https:// regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126, rose.julie@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. I. Proposed Action On June 9, 2006, (71 FR 33413), EPA proposed to approve into the Nevada SIP those statutes that are listed in the table below. These statutes were submitted on January 12, 2006 and March 24, 2006. STATUTES SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Nevada revised statutes (NRS) 445B.105 ..................... 445B.110 ..................... 445B.115 ..................... 445B.120 ..................... 445B.125 ..................... 445B.130 ..................... 445B.135 ..................... 445B.140 ..................... 445B.145 ..................... 445B.150 ..................... 0.039 ........................... 445B.155 ..................... 445B.210 ..................... 445B.220 ..................... 445B.225 ..................... 445B.235 ..................... 445B.245 ..................... 445B.275 ..................... 445B.280 ..................... 445B.300 ..................... 445B.320 ..................... 445B.500 ..................... erjones on PROD1PC72 with RULES 445B.510 445B.520 445B.530 445B.540 445B.560 445B.595 ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Title Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. Air contaminant .......................................................................................................................................... Air pollution ................................................................................................................................................ Commission ............................................................................................................................................... Department ................................................................................................................................................ Director ...................................................................................................................................................... Federal Act ................................................................................................................................................ Hazardous air pollutant .............................................................................................................................. Operating permit ........................................................................................................................................ Person ........................................................................................................................................................ Person ........................................................................................................................................................ Source and indirect source ........................................................................................................................ Powers of Commission .............................................................................................................................. Additional powers of Commission ............................................................................................................. Power of Commission to require testing of sources ................................................................................. Additional powers of Department .............................................................................................................. Power of Department to perform or require test of emissions from stacks .............................................. Creation; members; terms ......................................................................................................................... Attendance of witnesses at hearing; contempt; compensation ................................................................. Operating permit for source of air contaminant; notice and approval of proposed construction; administrative fees; failure of Commission or Department to act. Approval of plans and specifications required before construction or alteration of structure ................... Establishment and administration of program; contents of program; designation of air pollution control agency of county for purposes of federal act; powers and duties of local air pollution control board; notice of public hearings; delegation of authority to determine violations and levy administrative penalties; cities and smaller counties; regulation of certain electric plants prohibited. Commission may require program for designated area ............................................................................ Commission may establish or supersede county program ....................................................................... Commission may assume jurisdiction over specific classes of air contaminants ..................................... Restoration of superseded local program; continuation of existing local program ................................... Plan or procedure for emergency .............................................................................................................. Governmental sources of air contaminants to comply with state and local provisions regarding air pollution; permit to set fire for training purposes; planning and zoning agencies to consider effects on quality of air. We proposed to approve these statutes because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the statutes and our evaluation. VerDate Aug<31>2005 Submittal date 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 II. Public Comments and EPA Responses Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 III. EPA Action EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. We did not receive any comments on the proposed action. PO 00000 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 03/24/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 01/12/06 No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted statutes comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the E:\FR\FM\31AUR1.SGM 31AUR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 169 (Thursday, August 31, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51761-51766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7314]

[[Page 51761]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2005-CT-0001; A-1-FRL-8209-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality ImplementationPlans;
Connecticut; VOC Regulations and One-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Shortfall

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision
establishes requirements to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from portable fuel containers, automotive refinishing
operations, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The intended effect of
this action is to approve these requirements into the Connecticut SIP.
These control measures are needed to meet a portion of the shortfall in
emission reduction identified in Connecticut's one-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP. This action also approves these control
measures, along with a previously approved control measure, as
fulfilling the shortfall in emission reductions identified in
Connecticut's one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. EPA is
taking this action in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 30, 2006,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 2, 2006. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2005-CT-0001 by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R01-OAR-2005-CT-0001,'' Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 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, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2005-CT-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://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 e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' systems, 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, 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, excluding legal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th
floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Phone: 617-918-1664, Fax: (617)
918-0664, E-mail: burkhart.richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

In addition to the publicly available docket materials available
for inspection electronically in Regional Material in EDocket, and the
hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the
ADDRESSES section above, copies of the state submittal and EPA's
technical support document are also available for public inspection
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air
Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State Office
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106.

II. Rulemaking Information

This section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking?
B. What are the requirements of Connecticut's new regulations?
C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut's regulations?
D. What is the process for EPA to approve these SIP revisions?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving Connecticut's Section 22a-174-43, ``Portable Fuel
Container Spillage Control,'' the subsections of Section 22a-174-3b,
``Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation of External
Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines,
Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface Coating
Operations' that apply to autobody refinishing operations and Section
22a-174-30, ``Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor
Recovery,'' and incorporating these regulations into the Connecticut
SIP. EPA is also approving these measures, along with Connecticut's
previously approved municipal waste combuster

[[Page 51762]]

rule, as meeting the shortfall emissions reduction identified by EPA in
our previous approval of Connecticut's 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP.

B. What are the requirements of Connecticut's new regulations?

Portable Fuel Containers
The Section 22a-174-43 Portable Fuel Containers rule applies to any
person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures for sale
in Connecticut portable fuel containers or spouts or both for use in
Connecticut. Connecticut's portable fuel container rule includes
performance standards for portable fuel containers and spouts in order
to ensure spill-proof systems. For example, the rule requires that
portable fuel containers have an automatic shut-off that stops the fuel
flow before the target fuel tank overflows. Connecticut's rule
prohibits any person to sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture
for sale in Connecticut, on or after May 1, 2004, any portable fuel
container or spout that does not meet all of the specified performance
standards. There is, however, a specified list of exemptions from the
rule. For example, the rule does not apply to portable fuel containers
with a nominal capacity less than or equal to one quart or to
containers or spouts that have been granted an innovative products
exemption by California Air Resources Board (CARB) or the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation. The exemption for innovative
products is considered reasonable, because in order to receive an
innovative products exemption the CARB and New York rules require that
the manufacturer demonstrate that the use of the product will result in
emissions below the highest emitting container in its product category
as determined from applicable testing. Connecticut's rule also includes
an exemption for products that have received a variance pursuant to the
variance provisions in New York's portable fuel container rule. This
exemption is acceptable because few variances are expected to be
granted. For example, the compliance date of New York's portable fuel
container rule was January 1, 2003, and as of March 1, 2006 no
variances have been granted by New York.
In addition, Connecticut's rule includes the appropriate testing
and recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with the specified
performance standards. Specifically, the rule requires the use of
several test methods and procedures adopted by CARB. The portable fuel
container rule is expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at
least 2.3 tons per summer day by 2007. The method used to calculate
this reduction is shown in the Connecticut submittal and EPA agrees
with the method.
More recently, EPA proposed new standards that would limit
hydrocarbon emissions that evaporate from or permeate through gasoline
cans (71 FR 15803, March 29, 2006). EPA's proposal starts with gasoline
cans manufactured in 2009. The proposed standard would limit
evaporation and permeation emissions from these cans to 0.3 grams of
hydrocarbons per gallon per day. The Connecticut rule limits the
permeation emissions from portable fuel containers to less than or
equal to 0.4 grams of hydrocarbons per gallon per day. If, as proposed,
the final EPA standard for permeation emissions from portable fuel
containers is more stringent than the current state standard, the
federal standard will supersede the state standard as of 2009.
Autobody Refinishing
Connecticut's Section 22a-174-3b, ``Exemptions from Permitting for
Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive
Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral
Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations,'' allows owners or
operators of these types of operations to construct and operate such a
source without obtaining a general permit pursuant to Section 22a-174
or a permit pursuant to Section 22a-174-3a, provided that they comply
with the applicable provisions of the Section 22a-174-3b regulation.
Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision only those subsections
of Section 22a-174-3b that apply to automotive refinishing operations.
EPA has evaluated the portion of Connecticut's Section 22a-174-3b
that applies to automotive refinishing operations against applicable
EPA guidance documents and the OTC model rule for this source category.
An analysis of Connecticut's regulations is presented below.
EPA has issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) and, in some
cases, national regulations for certain VOC source categories. A CTG is
a document issued by EPA which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for a specific VOC
source category. EPA has issued a national rule for autobody
refinishing.\1\ EPA has also issued an ACT for automobile
refinishing.\2\ Similar to a CTG, an ACT (alternative control
techniques) document contains information on emissions, control
options, and costs that states can use in developing RACT rules. Unlike
a CTG, however, the ACT document presents options only, and does not
contain a recommendation on RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings,'' 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B.
\2\ ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Automobile
Refinishing,'' (EPA-453/R-94-031), April 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the OTC (Ozone Transport Commission) has developed
model rules for several VOC source categories, including mobile
equipment repair and refinishing (MERR),\3\ and the OTC states,
including Connecticut, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
committing to adopt these model rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Model Rule for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing,''
Ozone Transport Commission, March 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The coating limits in the OTC MERR model rule are the same as the
limits included in EPA's national autobody refinishing rule. The OTC
rule, however, applies to the person applying the coatings, whereas the
national rule applies to manufacturers or importers that sell or
distribute automobile refinish coatings. In addition, the OTC rule
includes application equipment requirements, good housekeeping,
pollution prevention, and training measures. These additional
requirements are similar to those discussed in EPA's ACT document for
automobile refinishing.
The portion of Connecticut's Section 22a-174-3b that applies to
automotive refinishing operations establishes:
(a) A limit on the total amount of VOC-containing coatings or
solvents of 2,000 gallons in any twelve month rolling period;
(b) Requirements that limit the type of application equipment
utilized to high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray equipment,
electrostatic application equipment, or other application methods with
a guaranteed transfer efficiency of at least 65%;
(c) Cleaning standards for any application equipment; and
(d) Other work practice standards, such as record keeping, and the
storing of coatings and solvents in closed containers.
VOC limits for mobile equipment repair and refinishing coatings are
not included in Connecticut's revised SIP, but are in effect nationally
under the Federal requirements at 40 CFR Part 59,

[[Page 51763]]

Subpart B, National VOC Emissions Standards for Automobile Refinish
Coatings, which were adopted by EPA in 1998. Connecticut's autobody
regulations have similar requirements to those specified in the OTC
model rule, which are also similar to those discussed in EPA's ACT
document for autobody refinishing.
The new requirements for autobody refinishing in Connecticut are
expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at least 3.0 tons per
summer day by May 2007. The method used to calculate this emission
reduction is contained in the December 1, 2004 state submittal. EPA
considers these emission reduction estimates, which are consistent with
a report on VOC control measures,\4\ to be reasonable estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ``Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone
Transport Commission Model Rules,'' E.H. Pechan and Associates,
Inc., March 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stage I/II Vapor Recovery
Connecticut revised the Section 22a-174-30, Stage I/II Vapor
Recovery rule to include new requirements for PV (pressure/vacuum) vent
valves and to require more frequent testing of the Stage II systems (3
years vs. 5 years). Compliance with the PV vent valve requirements is
due by May 10, 2005, and the three year re-testing requirement begins
November 15, 2004.
The revised Section 22a-174-30 Stage I/II Vapor Recovery Rule
includes a testing requirement for the PV vent valve, but does not
specify a particular test method. Instead, the regulation specifies a
performance standard with a pressure range that any test method must be
able to measure. See 22a-174-30(e)(1)(E). In addition, DEP submitted a
fact sheet that clarifies what test method DEP expects to use to test
PV vent valves. Specifically, the fact sheet includes the test
procedures from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
``304--PV Vent Cap Test Procedure.'' The fact sheet states that this
test method is accepted in Connecticut, and also provides that CARB
test procedures or other procedures approved by the Connecticut DEP are
also acceptable.
These provisions leave DEP some discretion to approve alternative
test methods without further EPA approval. Nevertheless, EPA believes
the combination of testing provisions DEP has in place provide for an
acceptable framework for determining an adequate test method for PV
vent valves. First, any test method DEP might approve must be able to
measure the performance standard required in the Stage I/II regulation.
Any test method that cannot detect pressures accurately enough to
measure within the ranges provided for in section 22a-174-30(e)(1)(E)
would obviously not qualify under the regulation. Therefore, DEP's
discretion in approving alternative test methods is circumscribed by
this regulatory standard. Second, DEP has submitted a fact sheet
explaining which test methods it finds acceptable. This fact sheet
provides good evidence that DEP has selected reliable methods. EPA is
approving this SIP with the understanding that the State will only use
test methods of the quality identified in that fact sheet. Third, test
methods for PV vent valves are not complicated procedures, and they do
not present the multiple opportunities for technical judgment calls
inherent in more involved test methods. Thus, EPA does not anticipate
that DEP and EPA would find it difficult to agree on whether a test
method is sufficiently accurate to measure the performance standard
provided for in DEP's regulation. Finally, in the unlikely event that a
facility uses a test method EPA deems unreliable, nothing in the SIP-
approved regulation prevents EPA from requiring testing using an
acceptable test method. The Stage I/II regulation neither specifies a
test method nor specifically authorizes DEP to designate a test method
that would be binding on EPA or any other party as the sole method for
determining compliance with the PV vent valve requirement. The fact
sheet DEP has submitted with the SIP is a statement of the test methods
that DEP is prepared to accept, but it is not legally binding as a
matter of state law, nor is it formally incorporated by reference into
the SIP as a matter of federal law. Although EPA does not anticipate
any disagreement over appropriate test methodology, the Agency can
ultimately require the performance of the test method it deems
appropriate to enforce this provision, because the SIP does not
restrict EPA's choice of test methods.
The fact sheet also states that the PV vent testing must be
conducted prior to dispensing gasoline for new stations and as part of
the next regularly scheduled Stage II system test for existing
facilities. In addition, the SIP submittal states that direct mailings
were sent to testing companies and gasoline station owners informing
them of the new requirements and the PV vent testing procedure.
The previous version of Section 22a-174-30 was approved into the
Connecticut SIP. Therefore, the revised rule must meet the Section
110(l) anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act. The previous
version of 22a-174-30 was approved as meeting the Section 182(b)(3)
Stage II vapor recovery requirements of the Clean Air Act. The new rule
includes the previous requirements approved into the SIP, along with
the new PV vent valve and more frequent testing requirements discussed
above. These new requirements are expected to achieve additional
emissions reductions beyond those achieved by the previously approved
rule. Therefore, the new Section 22a-174-30 meets the Clean Air Act
anti-backsliding requirement. The new requirements for PV vent valves
are expected to achieve a creditable VOC reduction of at least 1.4 tons
per summer day by 2007. The method used to calculate this reduction is
shown in the Connecticut submittal and EPA agrees with the method.

C. Why is EPA approving Connecticut's regulations?

EPA has evaluated Connecticut's regulations and has found that they
are consistent with EPA guidance, and/or the Ozone Transport Commission
model rules. These control measures are needed to meet a portion of the
shortfall emissions reduction identified in Connecticut's 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP (66 FR 63921, December 11, 2001). The
specific requirements of Connecticut's regulations, the amount of VOC
reductions expected, and EPA's evaluation of these requirements are
detailed in a memo dated June 8, 2006, entitled ``Technical Support
Document--Connecticut--VOC Regulations and Shortfall Commitment'' (TSD)
and in the SIP submittal from the Connecticut DEP. The TSD and
Connecticut's regulations are available in the docket supporting this
action. The total emission reduction from these three VOC regulations
will be at least 6.7 tons of VOC per summer day by 2007. These emission
reductions, coupled with emission reductions from Connecticut's
previously approved regulation on municipal waste combusters (66 FR
63311, December 6, 2001) which will result in an emission reduction of
at least 1.3 tons of nitrogen oxides by 2007, fills the emission
reduction shortfall identified in the 1-hour attainment plan for the 1-
hour severe portion of Connecticut.\5\ This level of emission
reduction, therefore, fulfills the commitment Connecticut made in its
1-hour attainment demonstration to achieve additional emission
reductions within the state, to

[[Page 51764]]

help bring about attainment for the now revoked 1-hour ozone standard.
The commitment was for 0.5 tons per summer day of NOX and
5.4 tons per summer day of VOC. These emission reductions will also
help Connecticut to ultimately achieve the more stringent 8-hour ozone
standard as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island severe ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. What is the process for EPA to approve these SIP revisions?

The 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
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective October 30,
2006 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by
October 2, 2006.
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. 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 October 30, 2006 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Section 22a-174-43, ``Portable Fuel Container
Spillage Control,'' the autobody refinishing requirements of Section
22a-174-3b, ``Exemptions from Permitting for Construction and Operation
of External Combustion Units, Automotive Refinishing Operations,
Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral Processing Equipment and Surface
Coating Operations,'' and Connecticut's Section 22a-174-30,
``Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery,'' and
incorporating these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. These three
rules will achieve an emissions reduction of at least 6.7 tons of VOC
per summer day by 2007. EPA is also approving these measures, along
with Connecticut's previously approved municipal waste combuster rule,
as fulfilling the commitment Connecticut made in its 1-hour attainment
demonstration to adopt additional measures to address the emission
reduction shortfall.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. 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 October 30, 2006. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and

[[Page 51765]]

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 31, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, , EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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)(95) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(95) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on December 1, 2004
and April 4, 2006.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Section 22a-174-30 of the Connecticut Regulations for the
Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ``Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I
and Stage II Vapor Recovery,'' effective in the State of Connecticut on
May 10, 2004, with the exception of subsection (c)(5), which
Connecticut did not submit as part of the SIP revision.
(B) Section 22a-174-3b of the Connecticut Regulations for the
Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ``Exemptions from Permitting for
Construction and Operation of External Combustion Units, Automotive
Refinishing Operations, Emergency Engines, Nonmettalic Mineral
Processing Equipment and Surface Coating Operations,'' effective in the
State of Connecticut on April 4, 2006, except for the following
subsections which Connecticut did not submit as part of the SIP
revision: (a)(1), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (12), (15), (17); (b)(1)
for an external combustion unit, nonmetallic mineral processing
equipment, an emergency engine or a surface coating operation; (b)(2)
for an external combustion unit, nonmetallic mineral processing
equipment, an emergency engine or a surface coating operation; (c)
External combustion unit; (e) Emergency engine; (f) Nonmetallic mineral
processing equipment; (g) Surface coating operation; and (h) Fuel
sulfur content.
(C) Section 22a-174-43 of the Connecticut Regulations for the
Abatement of Air Pollution, entitled ``Portable Fuel Container Spillage
Control,'' effective in the State of Connecticut on May 10, 2004.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Pressure Vacuum Vent Cap Test Procedures
(B) Table 1 showing the emission reductions resulting from the
measures Connecticut adopted to meet the shortfall identified in the
Connecticut one-hour ozone attainment demonstration.
(C) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.

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

Sec. 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
(e) Commitment Fulfillment--Connecticut has fulfilled the
commitment in section 52.377(d), to adopt additional NOX and
VOC control measures to meet the emission reduction shortfall in its 1-
hour severe ozone nonattainment area.

0
4. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding three new
entries: a new state citation 22a-174-3b; a new entry to existing state
citation 22a-174-30; and a new state citation 22a-174-43 to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.

* * * * *

Table 52.385.--EPA-Approved Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
--------------------------
Connecticut State Title/subject Date Date Federal Register Section Comments/
citation adopted by approved citation 52.370 description
State by EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
22a-174-3b........ Permits for 4/4/06 8/31/06 [Insert Federal (c)(95) Only the
construction and Register page automotive
operation of number where refinishing
stationary the document requirements of
sources. begins]. 22a-174-3b are
being approved.
Connecticut did
not submit the
other
subsections of
the rule as
part of its SIP
revision.

* * * * * * *
22a-174-30........ Gaso-line Vapor 5/10/04 8/31/06 [Insert Federal (c)(95) Added new
Recovery. Register page requirements
number where for PV vents
the document and increased
begins]. frequency of
Stage II
testing. All of
22a-174-30 is
approved with
the exception
of subsection
(c)(5), which
the state did
not submit as
part of the SIP
revision.

* * * * * * *
22a-174-43........ Portable Fuel 5/10/04 8/31/06 [Insert Federal (c)(95)
Container Register page
Spillage Control. number where
the document
begins].

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51766]]

[FR Doc. 06-7314 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.