[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52233-52238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25044]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT-053-7212a; A-1-FRL-6443-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(CT, or DEP). This action consists of approving regulations in CT which
are part of a regional nitrogen oxide (NOX) reduction
program designed to reduce stationary source NOX emissions
during the ozone season in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) of the
northeastern United States. Section 184(a) of the Clean Air Act defines
an ozone transport region in the northeastern United States composed of
the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that
includes the District of Columbia. Additionally, this action involves
the approval of four source specific NOX trading orders
which allow specific units at major stationary sources to meet
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements
[[Page 52234]]
through the use of emission reduction credits. These SIP revisions were
submitted pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 29, 1999 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 28,
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,
CT 02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment at the Office 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, (617) 918-1048 or at
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following questions will be covered in
this section:
I. Background
A. The OTC MOU Program
(1) What are the Clean Air Act requirements Connecticut is trying
to meet in adopting this regulation?
(2) What was the basis for CT's regulation?
(3) What are the phases of the OTC's interstate Memorandum of
Understanding on stationary source NOX reductions?
B. NOX RACT Trading Orders
(1) What are the Clean Air Act requirements Connecticut is trying
to meet by issuing the NOX RACT trading orders?
(2) What policy guidance was used to review the NOX RACT
trading orders?
II. Summary of SIP Revisions
A. Section 22a-174-22a, The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget
Program
(1) How much does section 22a-174-22a reduce NOX?
(2) How does the program regulate NOX emissions?
(3) How are emissions monitored in this program?
(4) When does the program begin?
(5) Where can you find more information regarding EPA's evaluation?
B. NOX RACT Trading Orders
(1) What requirements do the NOX RACT trading orders
fulfill?
(2) When were CT's NOX RACT regulations approved by EPA?
(3) What facilities are affected by the trading orders being acted
on today?
(4) Where can you get more information regarding EPA's evaluation
of the orders?
III. Issues
A. NOX RACT Trading Orders
What issues are related to the approval of CT's NOX RACT
trading orders?
B. Section 22a-174-22a, The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget
Program
What issues are related to the approval of section 22a-174-22a?
C. EPA's Rulemaking Action
What does ``direct final rulemaking'' mean?
I. Background
A. The OTC MOU Program
(1) What are the Clean Air Act requirements Connecticut is trying
to meet in adopting this regulation?
Sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA require States
with areas classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' and ``severe''
ozone nonattainment to submit revisions to their applicable SIPs to
provide for specific annual reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as necessary
to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone.
Additionally, section 110 of the Act requires that such plans be
subject to public notice, comment, and hearing procedures and that the
States adopt and submit the plans to EPA.
(2) What was the basis for CT's regulation?
As part of CT's efforts to meet the CAA requirements, on July 27,
1998, CT submitted a request to revise its SIP by adding section 22a-
174-22a, ``The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program.'' The
regulation imposes a statewide and source-specific caps on
NOX emissions from certain industrial equipment (e.g.,
electric utility boilers, industrial boilers, combustion turbines,
etc.). CT's section 22a-174-22a is based closely on a model rule which
was developed using the EPA's economic incentive program rules (40 CFR
51.490-51.494) as the regulatory framework.
The model rule used by CT was developed by the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Air Management Association (MARAMA) entitled, ``NESCAUM/MARAMA
NOX Budget Model Rule.'' The NESCAUM/MARAMA model rule was
issued on May 1, 1996. The basis for the model rule was a memorandum of
understanding entitled, ``Memorandum of Understanding Among the States
of the ozone Transport Commission on Development of a Regional Strategy
Concerning the Control of Stationary Source Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,''
dated September 27, 1994, otherwise known as the ``OTC MOU.''
(3) What are the phases of the OTC's interstate Memorandum of
Understanding on stationary source NOX reductions?
The OTC MOU committed the MOU signatory States to require certain
major stationary sources to reduce their NOX emissions
through several regulatory stages. The NOX RACT regulations
required by section 182 of the Clean Air Act have reduced emissions at
major stationary sources of NOX since 1995 Those reductions
are considered ``phase I'' of the OTC program. Under ``phase II'' of
the program, the MOU committed the signatory states to imposing a cap
on regional NOX emissions during the five month periods
between May 1 through September 30 of 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The
third stage of the OTC program, i.e., ``phase III,'' will tighten the
regional cap and is set to begin on May 1, 2003 and continue in each
ozone season thereafter.
B. NOX RACT Trading Orders
(1) What are the Clean Air Act requirements Connecticut is trying
to meet by issuing the NOX RACT trading orders?
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that States develop Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations for all major
stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in areas which
have been classified as ``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' and
``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas, and in all areas of the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762;
September 17, 1979). This requirement is established by sections
182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.
Major sources in moderate areas are subject to section 182(b)(2),
which
[[Page 52235]]
requires States to adopt RACT for all major sources of VOC. This
requirement also applies to all major sources in areas with higher
classifications. Additionally, section 182(f) of the CAA states that
``The plan provisions required under this subpart for major stationary
sources of volatile organic compounds shall also apply to major
stationary sources (as defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d),
and (e) of the section) of oxides of nitrogen.'' For serious
nonattainment areas, a major source is defined by section 182(c) as a
source that has the potential to emit 50 tons per year. For severe
nonattainment areas, a major source is defined by section 182(d) as a
source that has the potential to emit 25 tons per year. The entire
State of Connecticut is designated as nonattainment for ozone, with the
Connecticut portion of the New York-New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area classified as severe, and with the rest of the State
classified as serious.
(2) What policy guidance was used to review the NOX RACT
trading orders?
These CAA NOX requirements are further described by EPA
in a notice entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' published November 25, 1992
(57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 notice, also known as the
``NOX Supplement,'' should be referred to for more detailed
information on NOX requirements. Additional EPA guidance
memoranda, such as those included in the ``NOX Policy
Document for the Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March
1996), should also be referred to for more information on
NOX requirements. Similarly, the preamble to the ``Economic
Incentive Program Rules,'' or EIP, (59 FR 16690, April 7, 1994) should
be referred to for information on EPA's policy concerning the use of
emissions trading by sources subject to NOX RACT.
II. Summary of SIP Revisions
A. Section 22a-174-22a, The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget
Program
(1) How much does section 22a-174-22a reduce NOX?
The CT NOX Budget regulations are part of a regional
NOX reduction program designed to reduce large stationary
source NOX emissions during the ozone season in the OTR.
CT's NOX budget regulations set statewide, five month (May 1
through September 30) NOX ``budgets,'' or mass emission
limits in tons. The regulation will reduce the aggregate emissions from
large fossil fuel fired combustion equipment by approximately 23% from
a 1990 baseline.
(2) How does the program regulate NOX emissions?
In order to achieve the aggregate NOX reductions, the
regulations proportion NOX ``allowances'' (in tons) to the
facilities with emission units subject to the program. The regulations
require each owner or operator of each unit to hold, by December 31 of
each year, at least as many NOX allowances in their
compliance account as total tons of NOX emitted during the
previous five month ozone season. Under these regulations,
NOX allowances may be bought or sold and unused allowances
may be banked from one year to another in a central registry
administered by EPA.
(3) How are emissions monitored in this program?
The program requires NOX emissions to be monitored by
either a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) or equivalent,
although the use of alternatives is allowed where approved by the State
and EPA.
(4) When does the program begin?
The program will begin on May 1, 1999. Starting in 2002 and
occurring every three years after, an audit of the program will be
conducted to ensure that the program is providing the expected
reductions.
(5) Where can you find more information regarding EPA's evaluation?
Additional information concerning EPA's evaluation of CT's
NOX budget program regulations is detailed in the
memorandum: Technical Support Document for Connecticut's Regulation
22a-174-22a ``The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget Program,''
dated June 7, 1999. Copies of the documents are available, upon
request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this document.
B. NOX RACT Trading Orders
(1) What requirements do the NOX RACT trading orders
fulfill?
Subection (j) of section 22a-174-22 allows sources to comply with
the emission limitations in section 22a-174-22 through emissions
trading. However, compliance through emission reduction credit trading
is allowed only through a case-specific revision to the SIP. Therefore,
each use of emissions trading for compliance with subsection (e) limits
will be reviewed and processed as a separate regulatory action.
(2) When were CT's NOX RACT regulations approved by EPA?
On October 6, 1997, EPA approved CT's NOX RACT
regulations, section 22a-174-22, and 22 NOX RACT trading
orders. See 62 FR 52016, 40 CFR 52.370(c)(72).
(3) What facilities are affected by the trading orders being acted
on today?
In 1997, CT submitted additional NOX RACT trading orders
for NOX emitting units at four facilities: (1) Cytec
Industries, Inc., in Wallingford; (2) AlliedSignal, Inc., and the U.S.
Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Stratford; (3) Ogden
Martin Systems, Inc., in Bristol; and (4) Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation in Rocky Hill. These orders involve the creation and use of
NOX credits as allowed under subsection 22a-174-22(j).
Each trading order allows the stationary source to control
NOX emissions from some units more than otherwise required
so that other units may emit more than allowed without the trade. This
is known as emissions averaging or ``bubbling.'' Because more emissions
would be reduced by the extra control at the credit generating units
than would be added at the credit using units, the net result will be
less emissions from the source than would occur without the trade, even
with an allowance for uncertainty.
(4) Where can you get more information regarding EPA's evaluation
of CT's orders?
For a more detailed discussion of Connecticut's submittals and
EPA's action, the reader should refer to the Technical Support Document
(TSD) entitled, ``Technical Support Document for Connecticut's
NOX RACT Trading Orders for Cytec Industries, Inc., in
Wallingford; AlliedSignal, Inc., and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and
Armaments Command in Stratford; Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., in Bristol;
and Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation in Rocky Hill'' and the
attachments which were developed as part of this action. Copies of the
TSD and attachments are found at the previously mentioned addresses.
III. Issues
A. NOX RACT Trading Orders
What issues are related to the approval of CT's NOX RACT
trading orders?
There are no issues associated with the NOX RACT trading
orders.
B. Section 22a-174-22a, The Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget
Program
What issues are related to the approval of section 22a-174-22a?
One issue associated with the approval of the CT regulation is that
the NOX budget regulation currently contains a
NOX emissions budget and
[[Page 52236]]
allocation scheme only for 1999 through the ozone season of 2002, i.e.,
``phase II'' of the OTC NOX Budget program. However, the OTC
MOU obliges CT to require its allowance program sources to make
specific additional NOX reductions by May 1, 2003 and
continuing thereafter, i.e., ``phase III.'' Additionally, in September
1998, CT submitted attainment demonstrations for the two CT
nonattainment areas which rely on the NOX reductions
associated with the OTC program in 2003 and beyond to achieve
attainment with the one hour ozone standard.
In its current form, section 22a-174-22a is approvable for 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002. However, in order to meet the interstate MOU and
for CT to have a credible attainment demonstration, CT will need to
amend its regulation to establish the NOX caps during 2003
and beyond.
C. EPA's Rulemaking Action
What does ``direct final rulemaking'' mean?
Essentially, direct final rulemaking means that the EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal. EPA is doing so 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 November 29,
1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by October 28, 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. 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 November 29, 1999 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving CT's regulation section 22a-174-22a,'The Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX) Budget Program'' and the case-specific trading
orders for Cytec Industries, Inc., in Wallingford; AlliedSignal, Inc.,
and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Stratford;
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., in Bristol; and Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation in Rocky Hill.
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.
V. 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.''
B. Executive Orders on Federalism
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 the 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.
On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order
on federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)),
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current
Executive Order 12612, (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)), on federalism
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
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 12612.
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
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.''
[[Page 52237]]
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
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 SIP approvals 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
create 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).
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 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 November 29, 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).) EPA encourages
interested parties to 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping 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: September 15, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
Part 52 of 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 52.370 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(80) and
(c)(82) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan
* * * * * *
(c) * * *
(80) Revision to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on March 26, 1999.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated March 26, 1999, submitting a revision to the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(B) Regulation section 22a-174-22a, ``The Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Budget Program'' adopted on December 15, 1998, and
effective on March 3, 1999.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Nonregulatory portions of the submittals.
* * * * *
(82) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on July 11, 1997,
September 12, 1997, and December 8, 1997.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated July 11, 1997, September 12, 1997, and December 8,
1997, submitting revisions to the Connecticut State Implementation
Plan.
(B) Trading Agreement and Order Number 8137 issued to AlliedSignal,
Inc., and U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Stratford,
effective on November 19, 1996.
(C) Trading Agreement and Order Number 8138 issued to Connecticut
Natural Gas Corporation in Rocky Hill, effective on November 19, 1996.
(D) Trading Agreement and Order Number 8114 issued to Cytec
Industries, Inc., in Wallingford, effective on December 20, 1996.
(E) Modification to Trading Agreement and Order Number 8138
[[Page 52238]]
issued to Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation effective June 25, 1997.
(F) Modification to Trading Agreement and Order Number 8137 issued
to AlliedSignal, Inc., and U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments
Command in Stratford, effective July 8, 1997.
(G) Trading Agreement and Order Number 8094 issued to Ogden Martin
Systems of Bristol, Inc., in Bristol, effective on July 23, 1997.
(ii) Additional Materials.
(A) Nonregulatory portions of the submittals.
(B) Policy materials concerning the use of emission credits from
New Jersey at Connecticut sources.
3. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by revising existing
entries in state citations for section 22a-174-22, ``Control of
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions'' and by adding a new entry to existing state
citations for section 22a-174-22a, ``The Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Budget Program'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut Regulations
* * * * *
Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
-------------------------------- Federal Register
Connecticut state citation Title/subject Date adopted Date approved citation 52.370 Comments/description
by State by EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
22a-174-22a......................... Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 12/15/98 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(80) Approval of NOX cap
Budget Program. from published date]. and allowance trading
regulations.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 11/19/96 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Case-specific trading
Oxides Emissions. from published date]. order for
AlliedSignal, Inc.,
and U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive and
Armaments Command in
Stratford.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 11/19/96 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Case-specific trading
Oxides Emissions. FRom published date]. order for Connecticut
Natural Gas
Corporation in Rocky
Hill.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 12/20/96 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Case-specific trading
Oxides Emissions. FRom published date]. order for Cytec
Industries, Inc., in
Wallingford.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 6/25/97 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Amendments to case-
Oxides Emissions. FRom published date]. specific trading
order for Connecticut
Natural Gas
Corporation.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 7/8/97 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Amendments to case-
Oxides Emissions. FRom published date]. specific trading
order for
AlliedSignal, Inc.,
and U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive and
Armaments Command in
Stratford.
22a-174-22.......................... Control of Nitrogen 7/23/97 9/28/99 [Insert FR citation (c)(82) Case-specific trading
Oxides Emissions. FRom published date]. order for Ogden
Martin Systems of
Bristol, Inc., in
Bristol.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-25044 Filed 9-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
