96-31057. Clean Air Act Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; Delegation of Sections 111 and 112 Standards; State of Connecticut  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 236 (Friday, December 6, 1996)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 64651-64658]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-31057]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    40 CFR Part 70
    
    [AD-FRL-5657-3]
    
    
    Clean Air Act Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; 
    Delegation of Sections 111 and 112 Standards; State of Connecticut
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the Operating Permits 
    Program submitted by Connecticut for the purpose of complying with 
    Federal requirements for an approvable State program to issue operating 
    permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources. 
    EPA is also approving Connecticut's authority to implement hazardous 
    air pollutant requirements.
    
    DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
    January 6, 1997.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Donald Dahl, Air Permits, 
    CAP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal 
    Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211. Copies of the State's submittal and 
    other supporting information used in developing the proposed interim 
    approval are available for inspection during normal business hours at 
    the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 
    One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA 02203-2211.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, CAP, U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency, Region 1, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-
    2211, (617) 565-4298.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background and Purpose
    
    A. Introduction
    
        As required under title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 
    (sections 501-507 of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), EPA has 
    promulgated rules which define the minimum elements of an approvable 
    State operating permits program and the corresponding standards and 
    procedures by which the EPA will approve, oversee, and withdraw 
    approval of State operating permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 
    1992)). These rules are codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
    (CFR) Part 70. Title V requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, 
    programs for issuing these operating permits to all major stationary 
    sources and to certain other sources.
        The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to 
    EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove 
    each program within 1 year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's 
    program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the Part 
    70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval or 
    disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the 
    requirements of Part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for 
    a period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by 
    the end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a 
    Federal program.
    
    B. Federal Oversight
    
        When EPA promulgates this interim approval, it will extend for two 
    years following the effective date. During the interim approval period, 
    the State of Connecticut is protected from sanctions, and EPA is not 
    obligated to promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits 
    program for the State of Connecticut. Permits issued under a program 
    with interim approval have full standing with respect to Part 70, and 
    the State will permit sources based on the transition schedule 
    submitted with the approval request.
    
    II. Proposed Action and Implications
    
    A. Analysis of State Submission
    
    1. Support Materials
        The Governor of the State of Connecticut submitted an 
    administratively complete title V Operating Permits Program (PROGRAM) 
    on September 28, 1995. EPA deemed the PROGRAM administratively complete 
    in a letter to the Governor dated November 22, 1995. The PROGRAM 
    submittal includes a legal opinion from the Attorney General of 
    Connecticut stating that the laws of the State provide adequate 
    authority to carry out the PROGRAM, and a description of how the State 
    intends to implement the PROGRAM.
    2. Regulations and Program Implementation
        The State of Connecticut has submitted Section 22a-174-33 of the 
    Department of Environmental Protection Regulations, implementing the 
    State Part 70 program as required by 40 CFR Sec. 70.4(b)(2). Sufficient 
    evidence of procedurally correct adoption is included in the PROGRAM.
        The following requirements, set out in EPA's Part 70 operating 
    permits program review are addressed in Section IV of the State's 
    submittal.
        The Connecticut PROGRAM, including the operating permit 
    regulations, substantially meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70, 
    including Secs. 70.2 and 70.3 with respect to applicability; 
    Secs. 70.4, 70.5 and 70.6 with respect to permit content and 
    operational flexibility; Sec. 70.5 with respect to permit applications 
    and criteria which define insignificant activities; Secs. 70.7 and 70.8 
    with respect to public participation and permit review by affected 
    States; and Sec. 70.11 with respect to requirements for enforcement 
    authority. Although the regulations substantially meet Part 70 
    requirements, there are program deficiencies that are outlined in 
    section II.B. below as Interim Approval issues. Those Interim Approval 
    issues are more fully discussed in the Technical Support Document 
    (``TSD''). The ``Issues'' section of the TSD also contains a detailed 
    discussion of elements of Part 70 that are not identical to, or 
    explicitly contained in, Connecticut's regulation, but which are 
    satisfied by other elements of Connecticut's program submittal and/or 
    other Connecticut State law.
        Connecticut has made several important commitments that effect how 
    the program will be implemented during the interim approval period. The 
    EPA is relying on these commitments to insure that Connecticut operates 
    an acceptable operating permits program during the period. These 
    commitments include an effort by the state to expedite certain rule 
    changes that address critical components of its implementing 
    regulation, including:
    
    
    [[Page 64652]]
    
    
        1. Removing the permit shield for administrative amendments: 
    Connecticut's program now gives DEP the discretion to grant a permit 
    shield to permit changes that have not undergone review consistent 
    with the requirements for a significant permit modification, the 
    only type of permit modification that qualifies for a shield under 
    Part 70. Compare 40 CFR 70.6(f)(1), 70.7(d)(4), (e)(2)(vi), and 
    (e)(4). DEP has committed to not grant a permit shield to any 
    administrative amendment that has not undergone review consistent 
    with the requirements for a significant permit modification prior to 
    the change in its program regulation.
        2. Removal of cutoff date for applicable requirements:
        Connecticut's program incorporates a definition of the Code of 
    Federal Regulations that has the effect of limiting DEP's authority 
    to impose applicable Clean Air Act requirements to only those 
    promulgated as of September 16, 1994. Therefore, DEP does not have 
    the authority to include all applicable requirements in operating 
    permits, as required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1). DEP has committed to 
    time the initial issuance of permits such that only those facilities 
    not affected by standards promulgated after September 16, 1994 will 
    be permitted prior to the change in the program regulation.
        3. EPA opportunity for review: Connecticut's program gives EPA a 
    45 day opportunity to review a proposed permit, but does not require 
    DEP to resubmit the permit to EPA if DEP makes a change following 
    EPA's initial review period. DEP has committed to submit any such 
    permit to EPA during the interim program and prior to the change in 
    the program regulation.
    
        A copy of these commitments is available for review in the docket 
    supporting this proposal. For a further discussion of these program 
    elements, see the interim approval conditions 14, 15, and 16 listed in 
    the proposed action section of this document.
        The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 
    defines research and development (R&D) in a manner which allows DEP to 
    exclude research and development operations from a source when 
    determining if the source is major. See Section 22a-174-33(c)(4). EPA 
    has recently announced an interpretation of its Part 70 regulation 
    which would allow most R&D facilities to be considered separately from 
    the source, and has proposed rule changes to Part 70 to clarify the 
    Agency's intent. See 60 FR 45556-58 (Aug. 31, 1995). This 
    interpretation of EPA's rule is generally consistent with Connecticut's 
    separation of R&D activities from the source under Section 22a-174-
    33(c)(4) of Connecticut's regulations.
        The complete program submittal and the TSD dated November 15, 1996 
    entitled ``Technical Support Document--Connecticut Operating Permits 
    Program'' are available in the docket for review. The TSD includes a 
    detailed analysis, including a program checklist, of how the State's 
    program and regulations compare with EPA's requirements and 
    regulations.
    3. Permit Fee Demonstration
        Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting 
    authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and 
    indirect costs required to develop and administer its title V operating 
    permit program. Each title V program submittal must contain either a 
    detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that the fees 
    collected exceed $25 per ton of actual emissions per year, adjusted 
    from the August, 1989 consumer price index. The $25 per ton was 
    presumed by Congress to cover all reasonable direct and indirect costs 
    to an operating permit program. This minimum amount is referred to as 
    the ``presumptive minimum.''
        Connecticut has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee 
    demonstration. Connecticut has demonstrated that actual emissions from 
    their title V sources was 74,000 tons for 1994. Connecticut assessed 
    3.6 million dollars in fees from their title V sources for 1996. These 
    fees equate to $48.64/ton of emissions which is more than the 
    presumptive minimum of 31.78/ton of emissions. Therefore, Connecticut 
    has demonstrated that the State will collect sufficient permit fees to 
    meet EPA's presumptive minimum criteria. For more information, see 
    Attachment E of Connecticut's title V program documentation.
    4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
        a. Authority and/or commitments for section 112 implementation. 
    Connecticut demonstrated in its title V program submittal adequate 
    legal authority to implement and enforce section 112 requirements 
    through the title V permit up to September 16, 1994. This legal 
    authority is contained in Connecticut's enabling legislation, 
    regulatory provisions defining ``applicable requirements,'' and the 
    requirement that a title V permit must incorporate all applicable 
    requirements. After Connecticut addresses the interim approval issue 
    regarding the Code of Federal Regulations, EPA will evaluate 
    Connecticut's legal authority to issue permits that assure compliance 
    with all section 112 requirements and to carry out all section 112 
    activities promulgated before and after September 16, 1994. In 
    addition, Connecticut committed in its title V program submittal to 
    issue permits that assure compliance with all section 112 requirements, 
    and to carry out all section 112 activities. For further discussion of 
    this subject, please refer to the Technical Support Document, 
    referenced above, and the April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum titled 
    ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities,'' 
    signed by John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning 
    and Standards.
        b. Implementation of 112(g) upon program approval. On February 14, 
    1995, EPA published an interpretive notice (see 60 FR 8333) that 
    postpones the effective date of section 112(g) until after EPA has 
    promulgated a rule addressing the requirements of that provision. The 
    section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is considering 
    whether to allow States time to adopt rules implementing the Federal 
    rule. Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement 
    of the effective date of section 112(g), section 112(g) must be 
    implemented during the period between promulgation of the Federal 
    section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State regulations for 
    section 112(g) requirements. Since EPA has identified section 112(g) as 
    an interim approval issue, if the final 112(g) rule does not provide 
    for a transition period, then EPA will implement section 112(g) through 
    a Part 71 permits during the transition period.
        Since the EPA implementation of 112(g) would be for the single 
    purpose of providing a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the 
    transition period, EPA would not implement section 112(g) if the Agency 
    decides in the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not subject 
    to the requirements of the rule until State regulations are adopted. 
    Also, since EPA's implementation would be for the limited purpose of 
    allowing the State sufficient time to adopt regulations, EPA proposes 
    to limit the duration of the Agency's implementation to 18 months 
    following promulgation by EPA of its section 112(g) rule.
        c. Program for straight delegation of sections 111 and 112 
    standards. The Part 70 requirements for approval of a State operating 
    permit program, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section 
    112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation of the 
    hazardous air pollutant program General Provisions, Subpart A, of 40 
    C.F.R. Parts 61 and 63, promulgated under section 112 of the Act, and 
    MACT standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70 sources. 
    Section 112(l)(5) requires that a State's program
    
    [[Page 64653]]
    
    contain adequate legal authorities, adequate resources for 
    implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also 
    requirements under Part 70. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to grant 
    approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 C.F.R. 63.91 of Connecticut's 
    mechanism for receiving delegation of section 112 standards for Part 70 
    sources, that are unchanged from the Federal standards as promulgated 
    (straight delegation) promulgated prior to September 16, 1994. EPA is 
    also proposing the same delegation mechanism for receiving straight 
    delegation of section 112 standards and infrastructure programs 
    including those authorized under sections 112(j) and 112(r) for Part 70 
    sources promulgated after September 16, 1994, on the condition that 
    Connecticut addresses the interim approval condition regarding the 
    definition for ``Code of Federal Regulations'' to allow DEP to 
    implement section 112 standards promulgated after September 16, 1994. 
    EPA will only take final action on delegating section 112 standards 
    promulgated after September 16, 1994 once Connecticut makes the change 
    as described in interim approval condition 16 in the proposed actions. 
    In addition, EPA is reconfirming the delegation of 40 CFR part 60 and 
    61 standards currently delegated to Connecticut as indicated in Table 
    I.1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\  Please note that federal rulemaking is not required for 
    delegation of section 111 standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA is proposing to delegate all applicable future 40 CFR part 61 
    and 63 standards pursuant to the following mechanism unless otherwise 
    requested by Connecticut provided Connecticut corrects its authority to 
    accept standards after September 16, 1994.2 Connecticut will 
    accept any future delegation of section 111 and 112 standards by 
    letter. A list of newly applicable regulations will be sent by the EPA 
    Regional Office to Connecticut. If Connecticut accepts delegation, a 
    letter will be sent to EPA Region I. The details of this delegation 
    mechanism are set forth in Attachment A of Connecticut's Title V 
    submittal entitled ``Program Description with Transition Plan for the 
    State of Connecticut Title V Operating Permit Program'' and is further 
    clarified in a Memorandum of Understanding dated October 7, 1996. This 
    mechanism will apply to both existing and future standards but is 
    limited to Part 70 sources. In addition, Connecticut has indicated that 
    for some section 112 standards it may choose to submit a more stringent 
    State rule or program through section 112(l). EPA will need to take 
    public notice and comment for any section 112 delegation other than 
    straight delegation. The original delegation agreement between EPA and 
    Connecticut was set forth in a letter to Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner, 
    on September 30, 1982. All the documents referenced to in this 
    paragraph are available for review in the docket supporting this 
    proposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\  The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
    Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore, 
    also an applicable requirement under the State operating permits 
    program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a Federal definition 
    of ``major source'' for radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a 
    major source definition for radionuclide is promulgated, no source 
    would be a major section 112 source solely due to its radionuclide 
    emissions. However, a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a 
    major source under Part 70 for another reason, thus requiring a Part 
    70 permit. The EPA will work with the State in the development of 
    its radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a 
    timely manner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        d. Commitment to implement title IV of the Act. Connecticut has 
    committed to take action, following promulgation by EPA of regulations 
    implementing section 407 and 410 of the Act, or revisions to either 
    Parts 72, 74, or 76 or the regulations implementing section 407 or 410, 
    to either incorporate by reference or submit, for EPA approval, 
    regulations implementing these provisions.
    
    B. Proposed Actions
    
        The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval of the operating 
    permits program submitted to EPA by the State of Connecticut. This 
    interim approval extends for a period of up to 2 years. During the 
    interim approval period, the State is protected from sanctions for 
    failure to have a program, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate a 
    Federal permits program in the State. Permits issued under a program 
    with interim approval have full standing with respect to Part 70, and 
    the State will permit sources based on the transition schedule 
    submitted with the PROGRAM.
        The scope of the State of Connecticut's Part 70 program that EPA is 
    approving in this notice would apply to all Part 70 sources (as defined 
    in the approved program) within the State of Connecticut, except any 
    sources of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. 
    See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term ``Indian 
    Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, nation, 
    or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native 
    village, which is Federally recognized as eligible for the special 
    programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
    of their status as Indians.'' See section 302(r) of the CAA; see also 
    59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).
        Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass 
    section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation 
    of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to Part 70 
    sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program contain 
    adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an 
    expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under Part 
    70. With the exceptions that Connecticut does not have the authority to 
    implement section 112(g) requirements or section 112 requirements that 
    were implemented through a standard which was promulgated after 
    September 16, 1994, Connecticut's program does contain such adequate 
    legal authorities and resources. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to 
    grant partial approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of 
    Connecticut's mechanism for receiving delegation of section 112 
    standards for Part 70 sources, that are unchanged from the Federal 
    standards as promulgated (straight delegation) and section 112 
    infrastructure programs such as those programs authorized under 
    sections 112(i)(5), 112(j), and 112(r), for those standards promulgated 
    as of September 16, 1994. EPA is also proposing to approve delegation 
    of all section 111 and 112 standards to Connecticut promulgated after 
    September 16, 1994, provided Connecticut revises its definition of Code 
    of Federal Regulations consistent with interim approval condition 16 
    listed below. In addition, EPA is reconfirming the delegation of 40 CFR 
    Part 60 and 61 standards currently delegated to Connecticut as 
    indicated in Table I.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ Please note that federal rulemaking is not required for 
    delegation of section 111 standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating 
    permits program submitted by Connecticut on September 28, 1995. The 
    State must make the following changes to its rules to receive full 
    approval:
        1. Forty CFR 70.5(c)(6) requires a source to include in its 
    application an explanation of any proposed exemptions of otherwise 
    applicable requirements. Connecticut must amend its regulation to 
    require the applicant to explain any exemptions the source believes 
    applies to its facility.
        2. Forty CFR 70.5(c)(8)(ii)(B) requires a statement in the 
    application that the source will comply with all future requirements 
    that become effective during the permit term. Subsection (i)(4)
    
    [[Page 64654]]
    
    of Connecticut's rule limits such a statement to applicable 
    requirements [with future effective dates] with which the subject 
    source is not in compliance at the time of application. Connecticut 
    must amend its rules to require an applicant to affirmatively state 
    that it will remain in compliance with a rule that it is in compliance 
    with, once the rule becomes effective.
        3. Part 70 requires that a compliance schedule ``resemble and be at 
    least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree or 
    administrative order to which the source is subject.'' Subsection 
    (i)(1) of Connecticut's rule limits the relevant administrative and 
    judicial orders to those involving violations that occurred not more 
    than 5 years prior to the application. Connecticut's rule also limits 
    relevant administrative orders to those involving a penalty of greater 
    than $5,000. Connecticut must amend its rule by removing the 
    limitations on the relevant administrative and judicial orders.
        4. 40 CFR 70.8(d) addresses the right of the public to petition EPA 
    to object to a proposed permit if EPA has not already objected under 40 
    CFR 70.8(c). Connecticut's rule provides that the State will respond to 
    an EPA objection based on a petition only if EPA files an objection 
    with the State within 45 days of EPA's receipt of the citizen's 
    petition. There is no such time limitation in Part 70 or in the Clean 
    Air Act. Since Connecticut's rule attempts to limit EPA's authority, 
    Connecticut must amend its rule by removing the 45-day deadline. 
    Connecticut's regulations cannot as a legal matter preempt federal law, 
    and EPA retains authority to respond to a public petition during this 
    interim program. Nevertheless, EPA is requiring the State to make the 
    change in its rule due to the confusion the State rule may cause the 
    public and regulated community.
        5. 40 CFR 70.6(a)(7) requires a permit condition that permit fees 
    shall be paid during the term of the permit. Connecticut's regulation 
    must be amended to require that permits contain a provision requiring 
    payment of fees during the term of the permit.
        6. 40 CFR 70.5(b) requires a source to submit additional or 
    corrected information upon becoming aware that an application was 
    incomplete or contained incorrect information. Subsection (h)(2) of 
    Connecticut's rule limits the obligation to submit such information to 
    the period of pendency of the application, which is inconsistent with 
    Part 70. Connecticut must change this provision in its rule to meet the 
    requirements of 40 CFR 70.5(b).
        7. 40 CFR 70.7(a)(5) requires that a State send to EPA, and make 
    available to any person who requests it, a statement of the legal and 
    factual basis for each draft permit (i.e., the version that goes to the 
    public for comment). Connecticut must amend its rule to include this 
    requirement. In addition, Part 70 requires the State to identify in the 
    permit the origin and authority of each permit term and condition. 
    Connecticut's rule only includes a requirement that the authority for 
    each permit term be included in the permit. Therefore, Connecticut must 
    amend its rule to require that the origin of permit terms and 
    conditions also be placed into a title V permit.
        8. Subsection (j)(1)(O) of Connecticut's rule requires reporting of 
    permit deviations within 90 days. This time frame is inconsistent with 
    EPA's interpretation of Part 70's use of the term ``prompt.'' 
    Connecticut must amend its rule to require prompt reporting of permit 
    deviations within a shorter time period. EPA suggests that Connecticut 
    require a reporting time frame of 2 to 10 days. Alternatively, 
    Connecticut may simply delete the reference to 90 days and issue 
    permits with provisions requiring prompt reporting within a shorter 
    time frame. Again, EPA suggests that Connecticut require a reporting 
    time frame of 2 to 10 days.
        In addition, Connecticut must correct the conflict between the 
    reporting time frames set forth in subsections (j) and (p)(1) of its 
    rule. The current State rule has several different reporting time 
    frames for the same violation. Connecticut should clarify the reporting 
    requirements by stating that subsection (p)(1) is intended to establish 
    a reporting time frame only for application of Connecticut's emergency 
    affirmative defense contained in subsection (p)(3).
        Connecticut must also remove the following language contained in 
    subsection (p)(1): ``after the permittee learns, or in the exercise of 
    reasonable care should have learned.'' The Clean Air Act and Part 70 
    contain a strict liability legal standard, which does not depend on 
    knowledge or a standard of reasonable care. Under Part 70, a permittee 
    may only meet the reporting requirements associated with the 
    affirmative defense provision if reporting is made ``within 2 working 
    days of the time when emission limitations were exceeded due to the 
    emergency.'' 40 CFR 70.6(g)(3)(iv).
        9. Connecticut's emergency affirmative defense provision, 
    subsection (p)(3), applies to violations of ``a technology-based 
    emission limitation.'' The phrase used by Connecticut is consistent 
    with Part 70's language; however, Connecticut defines the phrase more 
    broadly than Part 70 intends. Connecticut defines the phrase as 
    ``emission of pollutants beyond the level of emissions allowed by a 
    term or condition of the subject permit.'' Connecticut's affirmative 
    defense would thus apply to, among other things, health-based limits 
    such as Part 61 standards (as opposed to only technology-based 
    standards). Connecticut must therefore change its definition of 
    ``technology-based emission limitation.''
        In addition, Part 70 requires that the event at issue be 
    ``sudden,'' ``reasonably unforeseeable,'' and ``beyond the control'' of 
    the source. Connecticut's rule must be amended to require that the 
    event be ``sudden.'' In addition, Connecticut must remove the word 
    ``reasonable'' from the phrase ``beyond the reasonable control of the 
    permittee'' in subsection (p)(3).
        Note that EPA has proposed to remove the emergency defense 
    provision from Part 70. If EPA does remove the provision, Part 70 would 
    still allow a facility to use any defense that is available to it 
    pursuant to an applicable requirement. If EPA should conclude during a 
    final rulemaking to remove the emergency defense provision, then 
    Connecticut would have to take appropriate action in the future to 
    address that change.
        10. Connecticut's rule does not address ``Section 502(b)(10) 
    changes'' adequately. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(i). In an August 29, 1994 
    (59 FR 44572) rulemaking proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate section 
    502(b)(10) changes as a mechanism for implementing operational 
    flexibility. However, the Agency solicited comment on the rationale for 
    this proposed elimination. If EPA should conclude, during a final 
    rulemaking, that section 502(b)(10) changes are no longer required as a 
    mechanism for operational flexibility, then Connecticut will not be 
    required to address 502(b)(10) changes in its rule. However, if Part 70 
    retains the concept of ``Section 502(b)(10) changes,'' Connecticut will 
    have to amend its rule to be consistent with the detailed discussion 
    set forth in the Technical Support Document for this action.
        11. Subsection (r)(13)(B) of Connecticut's rule states that EPA may 
    terminate, modify, or revoke a permit following ``an opportunity for a 
    hearing pursuant to subsection (m) of this section.'' The problem with 
    this provision is that it references a right to a hearing pursuant to 
    State law. EPA does not derive its hearing authority and
    
    [[Page 64655]]
    
    procedures from Connecticut State law. Since this State provision may 
    confuse the public about its rights, Connecticut must remove this 
    language from its regulations.
        12. Connecticut's definition of ``applicable requirement'' is 
    missing the following elements of Part 70's definition:
        a. Connecticut's definition does not include a reference to section 
    504(b) or 113(a)(3) of the CAA. Connecticut must amend its rule to 
    include section 504(b) and 113(a)(3) or the implementing regulations as 
    part of its definition of ``applicable requirement'' if EPA has 
    promulgated federal regulations implementing sections 504(b) and 
    113(a)(3) during the interim approval period.
        b. Connecticut's definition does not include a reference to section 
    183(e) concerning regulation of consumer commercial products. The EPA 
    has implemented this section of the Act through rulemaking. The 
    regulations can be found at 40 CFR Part 59. Connecticut must revise its 
    definition of ``applicable requirements'' to include these provisions.
        c. Connecticut's definition does not include a reference to the 
    stratospheric ozone requirements under Title VI of the Act. Connecticut 
    must include in its definition of ``applicable requirements'' the 
    requirements protecting stratospheric ozone, which are codified at 40 
    CFR Part 82.
        13. Subsection (c)(2) of Connecticut's rule identifies specific 
    stationary sources which are not subject to the State's title V 
    requirements, where the premise on which the stationary source is 
    located would not for any other reason be subject to the State's title 
    V requirements. Subsection (c)(3) of Connecticut's rule states that a 
    stationary source subject to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I and located at a 
    premise subject to the State's title V requirements (for reasons other 
    than being subject to Subpart I) shall be subject to the State's title 
    V requirements. While the provision in subsection (c)(3) is not 
    incorrect, it is incomplete. Connecticut must amend Subsection (c)(3) 
    to include the other stationary sources listed in subsection (c)(2), 
    because Part 70 requires title V permits to contain all applicable 
    requirements for all relevant emissions units at a major source, not 
    just those subject to Subpart I. Alternatively, Connecticut could 
    simply delete subsection (c)(3) because it is a redundant provision in 
    relation to subsections (c)(1) and (2).
        14. Subsection (k)(4) of Connecticut's rule, the permit shield, 
    states that the shield may apply to permit modifications under 
    Subsections (r)(1) and (r)(2). Subsection (r)(2) contains Connecticut's 
    procedures for administrative permit amendments. In order to be 
    consistent with Part 70, Connecticut's permit shield provisions must be 
    amended to exclude administrative amendments to the title V permit.
        15. Subsection (n) of Connecticut's rule specifies that the 
    commissioner will provide EPA with an opportunity to review and comment 
    upon a tentative determination issued by the State before issuance of a 
    final title V permit. Connecticut's rule provides that EPA will be 
    given a 45-day review period for the permit that Part 70 defines as the 
    ``draft permit,'' not the proposed final permit. The provision also 
    gives EPA a second 45-day review period if the State makes changes to 
    the tentative determination within the first 45-day period; however, 
    the provision does not account for changes to the tentative 
    determination that were made after the initial 45-day period has 
    expired. Connecticut must therefore amend this provision to ensure that 
    EPA is provided with a 45-day review period regardless of whether the 
    tentative determination was changed during or after the initial 45-day 
    review period and a final copy of the permit is sent to EPA.
        16. Subsection (a)(6) of Connecticut's rule defines the term ``Code 
    of Federal Regulations'' or ``CFR'' to mean those federal regulations 
    ``revised as of September 16, 1994, unless otherwise specified.'' The 
    State's current definition of ``Code of Federal Regulations'' would 
    preclude DEP from issuing title V permits containing provisions of the 
    federal regulations that were promulgated after September 16, 1994. The 
    State program therefore does not meet the Part 70 requirement that 
    permits contain all applicable requirements. Thus, Connecticut must 
    amend its rule by deleting the reference to a ``cut-off'' date 
    associated with the federal requirements.
        17. In the June 4, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 28197), EPA 
    revised the list of source categories and schedule for the 112 MACT 
    program. Several areas of Connecticut's title V rule refer to an 
    outdated Federal Register Notice listing source categories and 
    schedules. Connecticut must amend these cites to reflect the current 
    list in order to complete the list of regulated air pollutants. The 
    cites are in the following sections of Connecticut's rule: Sections 
    22a-174-33(a)(12), 22a-174-33(e)(1), and 22a-174-33(g)(2)(G).
        18. On February 14, 1995, EPA published an interpretive notice that 
    postpones the effective date of section 112(g) until after EPA has 
    promulgated a rule addressing the requirements of that provision. The 
    section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still 
    considering whether the effective date of 112(g) should be delayed 
    beyond the date the federal rule is promulgated in order to allow 
    States time to adopt rules that implement the federal rule. Connecticut 
    must be able to implement section 112(g) on the date that the section 
    112(g) regulations become effective or on the date the State's title V 
    program becomes effective, whichever is later. Connecticut must 
    therefore amend its title V rule during the interim approval period if 
    EPA promulgates federal regulations implementing section 112(g) and 
    such regulations become effective during that time.
        19. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(10) states that a permit shall either not expire 
    or the terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in effect if a 
    source submits a renewal application that is timely and complete and 
    the State has not issued or denied the renewal permit prior to 
    expiration of the original permit. Subsection (j)(1)(B) of 
    Connecticut's rule states that ``upon expiration of the permit the 
    permittee shall not continue to operate the subject source unless he 
    has filed a timely and sufficient renewal application.'' This section 
    does not clearly state that in a situation where the source continues 
    to operate after filing a renewal application the terms and conditions 
    of the original permit remain enforceable. However, Connecticut's 
    Attorney General Opinion states that Section 4-182(b) of Connecticut's 
    general Statutes ``provides that a permit shall not expire so long as a 
    timely renewal application has been filed and is pending.'' Connecticut 
    should therefore amend its regulation to be consistent with its State 
    statutory law and with Part 70.
        20. Subsection (f)(3) of Connecticut's rule addresses application 
    time frames for sources subject to Connecticut's title V regulation 
    solely by virtue of being subject to applicable requirements under 40 
    CFR parts 60 and 61 that became effective prior to July 21, 1992. The 
    provision requires application within 90 days of notice to the source 
    from the Commissioner or five years after the implementation date of 
    the State's title V rule, whichever is earlier. EPA believes that this 
    provision is Connecticut's attempt to address when ``minor sources'' 
    and ``area sources'' subject to standards under Parts 60 and 61 must 
    apply for title V permits. Forty CFR 70.3(b) provides that a State may
    
    [[Page 64656]]
    
    exempt nonmajor sources from the obligation to obtain a title V permit 
    ``until such time as the Administrator completes a rulemaking to 
    determine how the program should be structured for nonmajor sources * * 
    *'' The possibility that a source would have up to five years from the 
    effective date of Connecticut's program to apply for a title V permit 
    would not necessarily be consistent with Part 70. Connecticut must 
    amend its regulation to be consistent with Part 70.
        21. 40 CFR 70.5(c) states that an applicant cannot omit any 
    information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any 
    applicable requirement. Part 70 puts the burden of determining whether 
    an activity is subject to an applicable requirement on the source. 
    Subsection (g)(3) of Connecticut's rule lists the types of activities a 
    source can omit from its application. Subsection (g)(4) requires an 
    applicant to list on its application activities in subsection (g)(3) 
    ``if the commissioner determines the emissions from any activity or 
    items are needed to determine the applicability [of the State's title V 
    regulation] or to impose any applicable requirement.'' The language of 
    subsection (g)(3) is problematic because it shifts the burden of 
    determining what information is necessary onto the State. The provision 
    is also unclear because the applicant could not provide such 
    information at the time of application since the Commissioner has not 
    yet made a determination. Connecticut must amend its rule by clearly 
    stating that any activity listed in subsection (g)(3)(B) be listed in 
    an application to the extent necessary to determine or impose an 
    applicable requirement
        22. Subsection (j)(1)(U) of Connecticut's rule states that title V 
    permits will include a provision that indicates that the permit ``may 
    be modified, revoked, reopened, reissued, or suspended by the 
    commissioner, or the Administrator in accordance with this section, 
    section 22a-174 of the general statutes, or subsection (d) of section 
    22a-3a-5 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.'' The 
    language of this provision implies that the Administrator's legal 
    authority to modify, revoke, reopen, reissue, or suspend a permit 
    derives from State law. That is not the case. Section 505(e) of the Act 
    and Part 70 provide the Administrator with the legal authority to take 
    such actions.
        While Connecticut's language cannot as a legal matter either create 
    or affect EPA's authority under the Act, Connecticut must amend 
    subsections (j)(1)(U) and (r)(13) to remove any confusion caused by the 
    State rule.
        23. Connecticut has the authority to issue general permits pursuant 
    to its statutory authority under Section 22a-174 of Connecticut's 
    General Statutes. Forty C.F.R. 70.6(d)(1) states that a source will be 
    deemed to be operating without a permit if the source is later 
    determined not to qualify for the conditions and terms of the general 
    permit which it is using to comply with title V. Neither Connecticut's 
    statute governing general permits nor Connecticut's title V regulation 
    contains such a provision. Connecticut must amend its title V 
    regulation or general permit legislation to address this requirement.
        24. Subsection (r)(2)(A)(v) of Connecticut's rule allows for 
    certain permit changes to be processed as administrative amendments, 
    including changes resulting from changes at the source subject to the 
    State's minor preconstruction permitting program.
        The problem with this provision is that Part 70 only allows a 
    limited class of preconstruction review permitting changes to be 
    processed as administrative permit amendments, i.e., those which 
    incorporate the requirements from preconstruction review permits 
    authorized under an EPA-approved program, provided that such a program 
    meets procedural requirements substantially equivalent to the 
    requirements of Secs. 70.7 and 70.8, and compliance requirements 
    substantially equivalent to those contained in Sec. 70.6. Connecticut's 
    minor preconstruction review permitting program does not contain 
    provisions allowing for EPA's opportunity to veto the permit, does not 
    contain provisions relating to notification to affected States, and 
    does not contain the permit content elements of 40 CFR 70.6. Thus, 
    Connecticut's administrative amendment provisions must be amended to 
    require changes to the title V permit involving minor preconstruction 
    review permit requirements to be processed through permit modification 
    procedures that meet part 70 requirements, at least equivalent to 40 
    CFR 70.7(e)(2).
        25. Forty CFR Sec. 70.7(e)(1) requires a State to provide adequate, 
    streamlined, and reasonable procedures for expeditiously processing 
    permit modifications. Once its administrative amendment procedures are 
    amended to meet Part 70 requirements, Connecticut's program will 
    require most permit changes to be processed as significant permit 
    modifications, because Connecticut's regulation does not allow for 
    minor permit modifications. Therefore, Connecticut must amend its 
    permit modification procedures to make them more streamlined and 
    reasonable. Connecticut should either adopt a minor permit modification 
    procedure for certain permit modifications consistent with Part 70, or 
    adopt some other equivalent process for permit modifications that do 
    not require public notice.
        26. Forty CFR 70.5(a)(1)(iii) requires that permit renewal 
    applications be submitted ``at least 6 months prior to the date of 
    permit expiration, or such other longer time * * * that ensures that 
    the term of the permit will not expire before the permit is renewed.'' 
    Connecticut's rule requires that permit renewal applications be 
    submitted no later than 6 months prior to the permit expiration date. 
    Connecticut's rule also requires that Connecticut process permit 
    renewal applications no later than 18 months after receipt of an 
    application. Connecticut's rule therefore does not ``ensure that the 
    term of the permit will not expire before the permit is renewed.'' 
    Connecticut must amend its rule so that the time frames for permit 
    renewal application and permit renewal processing are consistent with 
    one another.
        27. Subsection (s) of Connecticut's rule allows for the transfer 
    from one person to another of the authority to operate under a title V 
    permit to be processed as an administrative amendment. Connecticut's 
    rule does not contain the Part 70 requirement that a transfer may not 
    occur unless a written agreement between the two parties is submitted 
    to the State. Such agreement must contain a specific date for transfer 
    of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability. The problem created 
    by Connecticut's rule is that the State's administrative amendment 
    procedure allows the source to act on the proposed amendment at the 
    time the request for the amendment is made. Thus, the actual transfer 
    would take effect prior to the permit amendment. Connecticut's rule 
    also provides that the commissioner shall modify the permit to reflect 
    the transfer, and only after the permit modification shall the 
    transferee be responsible for complying with the permit. However, this 
    situation would create a problem in an enforcement context. The Clean 
    Air Act in general provides for enforcement against ``owners or 
    operators,'' but does not clearly provide for enforcement against prior 
    owners. EPA may not be able to enforce against the prior owner, even 
    though Connecticut's rule indicates that the prior owner would still be 
    responsible for compliance with the
    
    [[Page 64657]]
    
    permit rather than the new owner/operator. Thus, Connecticut must amend 
    its rule to require submittal by a source of a written agreement 
    consistent with Part 70.
        28. Part 70 requires that where an applicable requirement does not 
    require periodic testing or monitoring, the permit shall include 
    periodic monitoring. Subsection (j)(1)(K)(ii) of Connecticut's rule 
    includes the following language: ``[T]he permittee may be required by 
    the permit to conduct periodic monitoring or record keeping sufficient 
    to yield reliable data * * *.'' Connecticut must amend its rule to 
    change the word ``may'' in subsection (j)(1)(K)(ii) to the word 
    ``shall,'' because the periodic monitoring requirement is not 
    discretionary under Part 70. Connecticut has committed to do periodic 
    monitoring during the interim program.
        29. Subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) of Connecticut's rule allows ``an 
    individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental 
    matters for the company * * *.'' to act as the responsible official. 
    Connecticut must remove this subsection to be consistent with part 70.
    
    III. Administrative Requirements
    
    A. Request for Public Comments
    
        The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed 
    interim approval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information 
    relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained in a docket 
    maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and 
    complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise 
    considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed interim 
    approval. The principal purposes of the docket are:
        (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate 
    documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval 
    process; and
        (2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will 
    consider any comments received by January 6, 1997.
    
    B. Executive Order 12866
    
        The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
    Executive Order 12866 review.
    
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any 
    new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs 
    submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. Because this 
    action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a 
    significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    
    D. Unfunded Mandates
    
        Under Section 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 action proposed today 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 preexisting 
    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.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
    
        Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
    Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
        Dated: November 19, 1996.
    John P. DeVillars,
    Regional Administrator, Region I.
    
    Tables to the Preamble
    
    Table I--Delegation of Parts 61 and 63 Standards as They Apply to 
    Connecticut's Title V Operating Permits Program
    
    Part 61 Subpart Categories
    
    C  Beryllium
    D  Beryllium-Rocket Motor
    E  Mercury
    F  Vinyl chloride
    J  Equip Leaks of Benzene
    L  Benzene-Cole by-Product Recovery Plant
    N  Arsenic-Glass Manufacturing
    O  Arsenic-Primary Copper-Smelters
    P  Arsenic-Trioxide and Metallic
    V  Equip Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
    Y  Benzene Storage Vessels
    BB  Benzene Transfer Operations
    FF  Benzene Waste Operation
    
    40 CFR Part 63
    
    A  General Provisions
    H  Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks
    I  Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain Process Subject to the 
    Negotiated Regulation for Hazardous Leaks
    N  Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating
    O  Ethylene Oxide Emission Standards for Sterilization Facilities
    R  Gasoline Distribution (Stage 1)
    GG  Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
    II  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
    
    Table II--Part 60 Subpart Categories
    
    D  Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
    Da  Electric Utility Steam Generators
    Db  Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units
    Dc  Small Industrial Commercial Institutional Steam Generating Units
    E  Incinerators
    Ea  Municipal Waste Combustors
    F  Portland Cement Plants
    G  Nitric Acid Plants
    H  Sulfuric Acid Plants
    I  Asphalt Concrete Plants
    J  Petroleum Refineries
    K  Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels
    Ka  Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels
    L  Secondary Lead Smelters
    M  Secondary Brass and Bronze Production Plants
    N  Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces Primary Emissions
    Na  Basic Oxygen Process Steelmaking-Secondary Emissions
    O  Sewage Treatment Plants
    P  Primary Copper Smelters
    Q  Primary Zinc Smelters
    R  Primary Lead Smelters
    S  Primary Aluminum Reduction
    T  Phosphate Fertilizer Wet Process
    U  Phosphate Fertilizer-Superphosphoric Acid
    V  Phosphate Fertilizer-Diammonium Phosphate
    X  Phosphate Fertilizer-Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage
    Y  Coal Preparation Plants
    Z  Ferroalloy Production Facilities
    AA  Steel Plants-Electric Arc Furnaces
    CC  Glass Manufacturing Plants
    DD  Grain Elevators
    EE  Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
    GG  Stationary Gas Turbines
    HH  Lime Manufacturing Plants
    KK  Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing
    LL  Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
    NN  Phosphate Rock Plants
    
    [[Page 64658]]
    
    PP  Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing
    QQ  Graphic Arts-Rotogravure Printing
    RR  Tape and Label Surface Coatings
    SS  Surface Coating: Large Appliances
    TT  Metal Coil Surface Coating
    UU  Asphalt Processing Roofing
    VV  Equipment Leaks of VOC in SOCMI
    WW  Beverage Can Surface Coating
    XX  Bulk Gasoline Terminals
    BBB  Rubber Tire Manufacturing
    DDD  VOC Emissions From Polymer Manufacturing Industry
    FFF  Flexible Vinyl and Urethan Coating and Printing
    GGG  Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries
    HHH  Synthetic Fiber Production
    III  VOC From SOCMI Air Oxidation Unit
    JJJ  Petroleum Dry Cleaners
    NNN  VOC From SOCMI Distillation
    OOO  Nonmetallic Mineral Plants
    PPP  Wool Fiberglass Insulation
    QQQ  VOC From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems
    SSS  Magnetic Tape Coating
    TTT  Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
    UUU  Calciners & Dryers in the Mineral Industry
    VVV  Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates
    
    [FR Doc. 96-31057 Filed 12-5-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/06/1996
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
96-31057
Dates:
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by January 6, 1997.
Pages:
64651-64658 (8 pages)
Docket Numbers:
AD-FRL-5657-3
PDF File:
96-31057.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 70