Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program

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