SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever ( printed page 35415) “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose

II. Response to Comments

III. Final Action

IV. Incorporation by Reference

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

On November 20, 2025 (90 FR 52288), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut proposing approval of SIP revisions. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Connecticut on April 30, 2025, and consisted of revisions to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-24 and 22a-174-44. The revisions include adding the 0.070 parts per million ozone standard in RCSA 22a-174-24 and clarifying the volatile organic compound calculation methods available for adhesive and sealant products in RCSA 22a-174-44. The evaluation and rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

The EPA received one comment during the comment period, which is available in the docket of this rulemaking action. The commenter claimed that the EPA did not adhere to the following statutory requirements based on the five arguments below:

Comment 1: The final [sic] action incorporates by reference Connecticut regulations. Those State rules in turn typically reference test methods and technical standards used to determine VOC content and compliance for adhesives and sealants . . . and may reference model rule provisions. When an EPA rule incorporates material by reference (IBR), EPA must comply with 1 CFR 51.5: identify the specific material being incorporated, ensure it is reasonably available to interested persons, and place copies in the docket and at EPA/NARA for inspection . . . Absent this, the public did not have a fair opportunity to review the full content of the rule as approved, which is a procedural deficiency under the APA and IBR regulations.

Response: The proposed action identified the Connecticut regulations in the text of the proposed rulemaking and attached the application regulations in the docket. EPA also included copies of the referenced OTC model rule and related CARB RACT determination in the docket of the proposed rule.

Comment 2: The adhesives and sealants regulation applies broadly to numerous small entities in Connecticut which adds Federal enforceability and citizen-suit exposure, alters compliance assurance and can shift product markets toward compliant formulations with higher unit costs or different performance characteristics. Although the Regulatory Flexibility Act focuses on direct effects, EPA should at minimum provide a tailored certification with data or analysis addressing the incremental impacts and enforcement consequences of Federal approval, not just a boilerplate statement.

Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is inapplicable to this rulebecause the EPA has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory analysis provisions of the RFA are only triggered by a threshold determination by the Agency that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Agency has certified this rule will not have a significant economic impact, section 603 and 604 of the RFA do not apply to this action. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Comment 3: EPA should clarify its basis for concluding that the action could not plausibly lead to expenditures State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year when federally approving a rule that applies across numerous sectors statewide, and becomes enforceable by EPA and citizens.

Response: With regard to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the EPA has complied by making its own determination that this rule will not result in expenditures of $100M+, and therefore the Agency does not need to complete a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532.

Comment 4: EPA does not provide an assessment of whether State and Federal recordkeeping and reporting obligations constitute a collection of information; EPA should obtain OMB approval to clarify why the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not apply.

Response: The EPA has complied with the PRA by certifying in the rule that the PRA does not apply because the action does not involve an information collection burden as defined by the PRA.

Comment 5: EPA states the proposed rulemaking is classified as not significant, though the adhesives and sealants program intersects with model rules and evolving compliance methods which may raise policy issues.

Response: The Agency has complied with E.O. 12866 by determining that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Connecticut's revisions to RCSA 22a-174-24 and 22a-174-44 into the Connecticut SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Connecticut RCSA 22a-174-24 to update the definition of the ozone standard, and 22a-174-44 to clarify certain volatile organic compound calculation methods, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.^[1]

V. 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 Clean Air 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 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 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);
• Is not subject to anExecutive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is ( printed page 35416) 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 inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.

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).

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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).)

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

For the reasons stated in the preamble the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

91 FR 35414