[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50363-50367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20778]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0348; FRL-10000-09-Region 1]


Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Regional Haze Five Year Progress 
Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the Connecticut regional haze progress report submitted as a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision on June 30, 2015. This 
revision addresses the provisions of the Clean Air Act and its 
implementing regulations that require states to submit periodic reports 
describing progress on reasonable progress goals established for 
regional haze and a determination of adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze SIP. Connecticut's progress report notes that Connecticut 
has made substantial progress toward meeting the emissions reduction 
expected for the first regional planning period. The report also notes 
that visibility in the federal Class I areas that may be affected by 
emissions from Connecticut is improving. In addition, the nearby 
federal Class I areas have already met the applicable reasonable 
progress goals for 2018. The EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's 
determination that the state's existing regional haze SIP requires no 
further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve the goals 
for visibility improvement and emission reductions.

[[Page 50364]]


DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0348 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact 
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Region 1 Regional Office, Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality 
Branch, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that 
if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality 
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, 
tel. (617) 918-1697, email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision
    A. Regional Haze Progress Report
    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the reasonable progress 
goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area) 
within the state and each Class I area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state [40 CFR 51.308(g)]. In 
addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, 
at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a 
determination of adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. 
The progress report SIP for the first planning period is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On November 19, 2009, 
Connecticut submitted the state's first regional haze SIP in accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\ On June 30, 2015, Connecticut submitted, as a 
revision to its SIP, a progress report which details the progress made 
in the first planning period toward the implementation of the Long Term 
Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2009 regional haze submittal, the 
visibility improvement measured at Class I areas that may be affected 
by emissions from Connecticut, and a determination of the adequacy of 
the state's existing regional haze SIP. The EPA is proposing to approve 
Connecticut's June 30, 2015 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ On April 26, 2013, EPA approved the Connecticut regional 
haze SIP submittal. See 79 FR 39322, July 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    Connecticut submitted a SIP revision that contained a report on 
progress made in the first implementation period toward reasonable 
progress goals for all Class I areas that may be affected by emissions 
from sources in the state (also known as a regional haze five-year 
progress report). This progress report SIP submittal also included a 
determination that the state's existing regional haze SIP requires no 
further substantive revisions at this time in order to achieve the 
established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions 
for 2018. Connecticut is a member of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU).\3\ The MANE-VU area contains seven Class I 
areas in four states: Moosehorn Wilderness Area, Acadia National Park, 
and Roosevelt Campobello International Park in Maine; Presidential 
Range/Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New 
Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; and Lye Brook 
Wilderness Area in Vermont. There are no Class I areas in Connecticut. 
Through source apportionment modeling, MANE-VU assisted states in 
determining their contribution to the visibility impairment of each 
Class I area in the MANE-VU region and nearby Class I areas outside of 
MANE-VU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of the state governments, 
Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
Northeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis 
Mohawk Tribe and Vermont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as a member of MAVE-VU, Connecticut agreed to reduce 
emissions by at least the amount obtained by the measures in the 
coordinated course of action established by MANE-VU. These strategies, 
designed to assure reasonable progress toward preventing any future, 
and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility in the mandatory 
Class I areas within the MANE-VU region, are commonly referred to as 
the MANE-VU ``ask.'' This request (or ``ask'') includes: a timely 
implementation of the best available retrofit technology (BART) 
requirements, 90 percent or more reduction in sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) at 167 electrical generating units (EGUs or ``units'') 
identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures),\4\ lower 
sulfur fuels requirement (with limits specified for each state) and 
continued evaluation of other control measures.\5\ In brief, 
Connecticut is on track to fulfill the MANE-VU ``ask'' by implementing 
the lower sulfur fuels strategy and adopting and implementing an 
alternative to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Connecticut was not found to have any of the MANE-VU 
identified 167 EGU stacks.
    \5\ The MANE-VU ``ask'' was structured around the finding that 
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing 
pollutant at Northeastern Class I areas and electrical generating 
units comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See 
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), 
``Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 
States'' (January 31, 2001), available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/regional-haze-and-visibility-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic-states/#.

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

[[Page 50365]]

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes the EPA's analysis of Connecticut's progress 
report SIP submittal and an explanation of the basis of the proposed 
approval.
    The 2009 Connecticut regional haze SIP included these key measures: 
(1) The adoption of low sulfur fuels requirements for residual and 
distillate oil for heating and off-road diesel, and (2) an EGU 
alternative to BART. EPA's analysis of the Connecticut regional haze 
SIP for the first planning period can be found at 78 FR 5158 (January 
24, 2013). Connecticut's low sulfur fuels requirements may be found in 
the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-
19, 22a-174-19a and 22a-174-19b and Connecticut General Statute (CGS) 
section 16a-21a.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 81 FR 33134 (May 25, 2016), 79 FR 39322 (July 10, 2014), 
and 81 FR 35626 (July 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than implementing BART, Connecticut chose to implement an 
alternative to BART that was determined to achieve greater progress 
toward natural visibility conditions than BART. The Connecticut 
alternative to BART applies not only to the original seven BART units, 
but also to an additional 66 units in the state. See 77 FR 17373 (March 
26, 2012). Since the 2009 SIP submittal, 15 units have been added to 
the alternative to BART program and six units have retired. However, 
the 73 alternative to BART units only emitted a total of 1,491 tons of 
SO2 in 2014, which is 11.5% of the 13,005 tons of 
SO2 from the original 53 units identified as subject to BART 
in 2002.\7\ Similarly, for nitrogen oxides (NOX), the 
alternative to BART program has achieved a 3,947 ton, or 66%, reduction 
in NOX emissions between 2002 and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The SO2 alternative to BART strategy reduces the 
sulfur in fuel oil requirements for subject sources from 0.5% sulfur 
residual oil to 0.3% sulfur residual oil. See 77 FR 17373 (March 26, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Connecticut alternative to BART for NOX relies in 
large part on non-ozone season NOx limits and Reasonable Available 
Control Technology (RACT) determinations. At the time of EPA's 
rulemaking on the Connecticut regional haze SIP, the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR) was still in effect, and the state's 
NOX BART alternative relied, in part, on the ozone season 
CAIR. CAIR represented a small part of Connecticut's BART alternative, 
and Connecticut's actual ozone season NOX emissions from the 
BART alternative sources are currently below the levels contemplated by 
CAIR. Additional discussion can be found in the preamble to the EPA's 
final approval of the Connecticut's regional haze plan. See 79 FR 39322 
(July 10, 2014).
    In August 2011, the federal CAIR program was replaced by the 
federal Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 
2011). CSAPR did not include Connecticut in its ozone season program 
because EPA analyses showed that the state does not emit ozone-season 
NOX at a level that contributes significantly to non-
attainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the 1997 ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state. EPA made the 
same finding when it promulgated the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    While EPA is no longer implementing the ozone-season CAIR, 
Connecticut's 2014 total annual NOX emissions from the 
alternative to BART sources were 1,954 tons, substantially less than 
the previous CAIR ozone-season cap of 2,691 tons NOX. It 
should be noted that Connecticut's alternative to BART sources are 
still subject to non-ozone season NOX limits and RACT 
determinations.
    EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's determination that the 
existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision 
at this time in order to achieve the goals for visibility improvement 
and emissions reductions. While Connecticut does not contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area, Connecticut is making 
progress toward attaining the state's estimated LTS emission 
reductions.
    During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first 
planning period, MANE-VU and Connecticut determined that SO2 
was the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at 
nearby Class I areas. Therefore, the bulk of the visibility improvement 
achieved in the first planning period was expected to be from the 
reductions of SO2 emissions. Table 4.1 of the 2015 progress 
report presents data from statewide Connecticut emission inventories 
developed for the years 2002, 2008, 2011 and projected inventories for 
2018 for SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs),\8\ and fine particulates with a diameter less than 2.5 
micrometers (PM2.5). From 2002 to 2011, the state achieved 
an overall 60% reduction in SO2 emissions from 38,534 tons 
per year to 15,333 tons per year. Area sources \9\ comprise the largest 
portion of the Connecticut SO2 inventory (18,454 tons 
SO2 in 2002). While SO2 emission reductions 
achieved by 2011 do not meet the projection for 2018, once lower sulfur 
home heating oil is fully implemented, we expect additional 
SO2 reductions from the area source sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ VOCs were not found to contribute substantially to 
visibility impairment in the East.
    \9\ An area source means any small residential, governmental, 
institutional, commercial, or industrial fuel combustion operations; 
onsite solid waste disposal facility; motor vehicles, aircraft 
vessels, or other transportation facilities or other miscellaneous 
sources identified through inventory techniques similar to those 
described in the ``AEROS Manual series, Vol. II AEROS User's 
Manual,'' EPA-450/2-76-029 December 1976. See 40 CFR 51.100(l)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For NOX, total emissions were reduced from 115,213 tons 
NOX per year to 72,828 tons NOX per year \10\ 
from 2002 to 2011. For the point source \11\ sector, from 2002 to 2011, 
NOX emissions were reduced from 12,868 tons per year to 
6,403 tons per year, meeting the 2018 projection of 10,919 tons per 
year. While overall NOX reductions achieved by 2011 do not 
meet the estimate for 2018, additional reduction is expected to result 
from motor vehicle fleet turnover between 2011 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The on-road sector is the dominate source of NOX 
emissions. In 2011, the on-road sector accounted for 36,659 tons 
NOX emissions.
    \11\ A point source is any stationary source in which the actual 
emissions are in excess of 100 tons per year of a pollutant in a 
region containing an area whose 1980 urban place population was 
greater than one million or any stationary source with actual 
emissions in excess of 25 tons per year in an area with a 1980 urban 
place population less than one million. See 40 CFR 51.100(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, from 2002 to 2011, point source PM2.5 emissions 
were reduced from 17,363 tons per year to 16,545 tons per year. While 
PM2.5 emissions from area sources increased slightly during 
this period, additional reductions are expected with the implementation 
of lower sulfur in fuel oil.
    EPA finds that Connecticut has adequately addressed the applicable 
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). Connecticut compared the most 
recently updated emission inventory data available at the time of the 
development of the progress report with baseline emissions inventory 
data from its regional haze SIP. The progress report adequately details 
the 2011 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 
reductions achieved by sector thus far in the regional haze planning 
period.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require states with 
Class I areas within their borders to provide information on current 
visibility conditions and on the difference between current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of 
five-year averages of these annual values. Connecticut has

[[Page 50366]]

no Class I areas, but the Class I areas that may be affected by 
emissions from Connecticut have visibility conditions better than 
baseline conditions and conditions predicted for 2018. The Interagency 
Visual Environmental monitoring program (IMPROVE) \12\ provides data on 
the air pollutants that constitute regional haze. Tables 1 and 2 below 
show the progress from the five-year average visibility of the 2000 to 
2004 baseline period through the most recent 2009 to 2013 five-year 
period for the 20% haziest days and 20% clearest days. Connecticut 
concludes that all the included Class I areas are on track to meet the 
2018 reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes the substantial improvement in visibility at the MANE-VU 
Class I areas. These Class I areas have already met the reasonable 
progress goals for the first regional haze planning period.
    In its progress report SIP, Connecticut concludes the elements and 
strategies relied on in its original regional haze SIP are adequate to 
enable neighboring states to meet all established RPGs.

    Table 1--20% Haziest Days Baseline, Reasonable Progress Goals, and Observed Visibility in deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      5-Year
                                                  Baseline (2000-   Reasonable        average      Met the 2018
          Class I area  IMPROVE * site                 2004)       progress goal     observed     progress goal?
                                                                      (2018)        (2009-2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park (ME).......................            22.9            19.4           17.93            Yes.
Brigantine Wilderness (NJ)......................           29.01            25.1           23.75            Yes.
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH)......................            22.8            19.1           16.66            Yes.
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH).
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT).......................            24.4            20.9           18.78            Yes.
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME).......................            21.7            19.0           16.83            Yes.
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2--20% Cleanest Days Baseline, Reasonable Progress Goals, and Observed Visibility in deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      5-Year
                                                  Baseline (2000-   Reasonable        average      Met the 2018
          Class I area  IMPROVE * site                 2004)       progress goal     observed     progress goal?
                                                                      (2018)        (2009-2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park (ME).......................            8.78             8.3            7.02            Yes.
Brigantine Wilderness (NJ)......................           14.33            14.3           12.25            Yes.
Great Gulf Wilderness (NH)......................             7.7             7.2            5.86            Yes.
Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness (NH).
Lye Brook Wilderness (VT).......................             6.4             5.5             4.9            Yes.
Moosehorn Wilderness (ME).......................             9.2             8.6             6.7            Yes.
Roosevelt Campobello International Park (ME).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data from NESCAUM, Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-2011 (April 30, 2013, rev. May 24, 2014), available at
  http://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/.

    EPA proposes to conclude that Connecticut has adequately addressed 
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). The progress report compared the 
most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of 
the development of the progress report with the baseline emissions used 
in the modeling for the regional haze SIP. In its progress report, 
Connecticut described improving visibility trends using data from the 
IMPROVE network and the downward emission trend of key pollutants in 
the state.
    Connecticut does not have any Class I areas and is not required to 
monitor for visibility-impairing pollutants. The Connecticut visibility 
monitoring strategy relies upon Class I area participation in the 
IMPROVE network. EPA proposes to find that Connecticut has adequately 
addressed the requirements for a monitoring strategy for regional haze 
purposes to determine no further modifications to the monitoring 
program are necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its progress report, Connecticut submitted a negative 
declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or 
emission reductions in Connecticut beyond those already in place and 
those to be implemented by 2018 as detailed in the state's regional 
haze plan.
    In the 2015 progress report submittal, Connecticut determined that 
the existing regional haze SIP needs no further substantive revision at 
this time to achieve the emission reductions expected for the first 
planning period. Emission reduction trends are on track to meet 
Connecticut's estimated 2018 emissions. Connecticut is implementing 
non-ozone season NOX limits, revised RACT, and low sulfur 
fuel requirements. The state continues to evaluate additional 
NOX control strategies; however, the 2011 total alternative 
to BART annual NOX emission of 1,602 tons was well below the 
now defunct CAIR ozone season cap of 2,691 tons NOX.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Connecticut has adequately addressed 
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility trends at 
nearby Class I areas and Connecticut emission trends are on track to 
meet the goals for the first regional haze planning period. Therefore, 
no substantive revisions to the SIP are needed at this time to ensure 
that Connecticut meets its share of visibility improvement included in 
the downwind states' reasonable progress goals.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's June 30, 2015 
determination that the existing

[[Page 50367]]

implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this 
time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement 
and emissions reductions. EPA is soliciting public comments on the 
issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These 
comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested 
parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by 
submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the 
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional Haze, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-20778 Filed 9-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


