[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6484-6487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3025]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT7-1-5298a; A-1-FRL-5949-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile
Organic Compounds at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision establishes and
requires reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions which are not subject to control
technology guideline-based regulations (i.e., non-CTG VOC emission
sources) at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut.
The intended effect of this action is to approve a source-specific RACT
determination made by the State in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This action is being taken in accordance with section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: This action will become effective April 10, 1998, unless EPA
recieves adverse or critical comments by March 11, 1998. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-
2211. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA; Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., (LE-131), Washington, D.C. 20460; and the
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State
Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, Environmental
Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit (CAQ), U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK
Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211; (617) 565-2773; or by E-mail
at: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Order No. 8010
On March 21, 1984, EPA approved subsection 22a-174-20(ee) of
Connecticut's regulations as part of Connecticut's 1982 Ozone
Attainment Plan. This regulation requires the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection to determine and impose RACT on all stationary
sources with potential VOC emissions of one hundred tons per year (TPY)
or more that are not already subject to Connecticut's regulations
developed pursuant to the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents.
The total potential VOC emissions from Sikorsky's otherwise unregulated
processes are approximately 504 TPY.
On August 26, 1986, the Connecticut DEP sent draft State Order No.
8010 to EPA as a RACT determination for Sikorsky in Stratford. EPA
reviewed this draft RACT determination, and provided comments on
September 23, 1986. On December 5, 1986, the DEP submitted proposed
State Order No. 8010 incorporating EPA's comments, as a revision to
Connecticut's State Implementation Plan for parallel-processing. EPA
submitted additional comments on January 16, 1987 during the State's
public comment period. The
[[Page 6485]]
DEP conducted a public hearing on January 22, 1987, at which time
Sikorsky submitted comments on the proposed State Order. To simplify
EPA's rulemaking, the State resubmitted a revised proposed State Order
which contains the necessary changes to address all of the comments
made by EPA and others during the public comment period. As mentioned
above, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) was published for public
comment on June 22, 1988 (53 FR 23416). While no formal public comments
were submitted on the NPR, the State Order was appealed by Sikorsky and
a formal hearing regarding the appeal was held on February 14, 1989.
On March 27, 1990, the State of Connecticut formally submitted a
RACT determination for Sikorsky in Stratford as a SIP revision. This
RACT determination package addressed the findings of the hearing
officer as a result of the appeal. At that time, no substantive changes
were made to the State Order as a result of the appeal. Order No. 8010
requires Sikorsky to achieve compliance with Connecticut's federally-
approved Solvent Metal Cleaning regulation for four degreasers which
were previously exempt from this rule. Secondly, the State Order
requires Sikorsky to install a carbon adsorption/solvent recovery
system which meets an overall VOC removal efficiency of 85 percent on a
flowcoater which coats helicopter parts. Finally, the Order No. 8010
requires Sikorsky to meet and maintain emission limitations in terms of
pounds of VOC per gallon of coating (minus water) for eight spray
booths which coat helicopters and helicopter parts, and requires
Sikorsky to maintain the VOC emissions from each of the three other
spray booths at 40 pounds of VOC per day or less.
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)
were enacted. Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAAA required that all States
that were required to make corrections to RACT regulations, needed to
revise their regulations to make them consistent with EPA guidance by
May 15, 1991. Connecticut began its efforts to revise its regulations
well before enactment, and on October 18, 1991, EPA published a final
rule approving Connecticut's revised VOC regulations as part of the
SIP. The revised Connecticut regulations included changes to the
regulations which affect this Sikorsky RACT determination. In fact, had
Connecticut's regulations been consistent with EPA guidance at the time
this Sikorsky ``non-CTG'' RACT determination was being developed,
certain operations at this source would have been subject to
Connecticut's regulations developed pursuant to CTGs. For this reason,
Connecticut's revised requirements in subsections 22a-174-20(l),
``Metal cleaning'' and 22a-174-20(s), ``Miscellaneous metal parts and
products,'' now supersede portions of this State Order.
Where this Sikorsky RACT determination and subsection 22a-174-20(l)
and 20(s) overlap, the more stringent requirements must be met. For
example, provision 7 of the State Order allows a black polyurethane
topcoat in paint shop #1, to meet an emission limit potentially higher
than that required by subsection 22a-174-20(s). In this case, the
requirements of subsection 22a-174-20(s) would apply. Similarly, booths
which individually emitted less than 40 pounds per day were exempted
from control under the State Order. Subdivision 22a-174-20(s) now
requires that any facility that has actual facility-wide emissions
greater than 15 pounds per day from miscellaneous metal parts coating,
is subject to the emission limitations in subdivision 22a-174-20(s)(3).
Therefore, since Sikorsky exceeds this threshold, the booths at
Sikorsky coating miscellaneous metal parts would be subject to the
requirements of subsection 22a-174-20(s).
Additionally, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, requires that the State define RACT for all major stationary
of VOCs that are located in the nonattainment area and for which a CTG
has not been issued. Therefore, this RACT determination is still
necessary because not all of the VOC emitting operations at Sikorsky
are subject to either 22a-174-20(l) and 22a-174-20(s). This RACT
determination defines and establishes RACT for those otherwise
unregulated operations, as required by section 182(b)(2)(C) of the
amended Clean Air Act.
II. Technical Addenda
Subsequent to the finalization of Order No. 8010 and the
publication of the proposed rulemaking notice to incorporate the order
into the Connecticut SIP, on August 31, 1991, Sikorsky submitted a
request to Connecticut for the approval of an alternative emission
reduction plan (AERP), as allowed by section 22a-174-20(cc). The AERP
involved the ``banking'' of VOC credit resulting from the reformulation
of certain coatings and the shutdown of degreasing equipment, for use
in complying with the VOC emission limitations in Order No. 8010. On
April 3 and 8, 1992, Sikorsky submitted revised versions of the AERP
request.
Additionally, on March 1, 1993, Sikorsky submitted an analysis of
its coating operations. This analysis showed that several coatings were
not able to comply with the limits of Order No. 8010. EPA met with
Connecticut and Sikorsky during the Spring of 1993 to discuss the
analysis as well as the potential for using an emissions average for
compliance with the limits in Order No. 8010. At that time, EPA and
Connecticut also discussed the possibility of further defining the
source specific coating limits, based on the limits promulgated in
several air quality management districts in California and EPA's
preliminary drafts of the CTG for aerospace coating operations.
Based on that meeting, Sikorsky revised the draft AERP which was
then submitted to Connecticut on May 6, 1994. During 1994 and 1995, EPA
worked with Connecticut to draft two technical addenda to Order 8010:
Addendum A, which sets source specific coating limits for a number of
specialty coatings; and, Addendum B which sets the conditions for the
use of emissions averaging as a compliance method at the Stratford
facility. On October 6, 1995, Connecticut proposed the 2 addenda for
public comment and on November 13, 1995, a public hearing was held.
On February 16, 1996, Connecticut submitted the two final addenda,
with Order No. 8010, as a revision to the SIP. On July 3, 1996, EPA
deemed the package administratively and technically complete.
This action will have a beneficial effect on air quality. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
Issues
One issue associated with our approval is that Order No. 8010 and
the related Connecticut air regulations, particularly subsections 22a-
174-20(l) and 22a-174-20(s), contain overlapping requirements that
Sikorsky must meet to be in compliance with RACT in Connecticut. Order
No. 8010 will insure compliance with that State order only. Independent
requirements found in subsections 22a-174-20(l) and 22a-174-20(s),
Connecticut's metal cleaning and miscellaneous metal parts and products
surface coating regulations, also apply to some of Sikorsky's
operations. Therefore, where more than one requirement or emission
limit applies, Sikorsky will need to meet the more stringent
requirement or limit.
Another issue associated with this rulemaking is related to the
temporary
[[Page 6486]]
use of banked perchloroethylene (perc) emissions in the emissions
average allowed by Addendum B of Order No. 8010. EPA excluded perc from
the definition of VOC on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588). However, in the
notice, EPA acknowledged that where perc reductions had been banked as
VOC credits, the exclusion of perc from the definition of VOC raised
questions as to the future value of those credits. In that notice, EPA
deferred the decision of whether banked perc credits could be used in
future emission trading transactions, leaving the decision to be worked
out between EPA and individual States.
In Connecticut, EPA believes that there are a number of reasons
that the use of these credits at Sikorsky's Stratford facility is
merited. First, the perc reductions in Addendum B were the result of a
voluntary phase out of a number of solvent degreasers at the Stratford
facility, as part of a pollution prevention effort which began in 1987.
Sikorsky applied to bank these credits in 1991 and again in 1992, prior
to EPA's proposed exclusion of perc from the definition of VOC. Second,
the emissions average, or bubble, has been designed to limit both the
timeframe and quantity of the perc reductions as VOC credits. In
addition to the 20% reduction of the daily allowable emissions required
by the applicable guidance at the time Sikorsky applied, EPA's Emission
Trading Policy Statement of December 1986, a 50% discount has been
applied to the VOC credits from perc at Sikorsky. Additionally,
Addendum B only allows the discounted perc credits to be used in the
bubble until January 1, 2000. Third, since Addendum B limits the
potential use of VOC credits from perc in this bubble to the lowest of
338.7 pounds per day, 2032.2 pounds per week, and 3848 pounds per year
(1.92 tons per year), such use will not interfere with RFP. And
finally, since the use of the VOC credits from perc is not authorized
beyond 1999, the use of the perc credits will not interfere with any
future attainment plan.
A final issue with Order No. 8010 is the ``Notice of
Noncompliance'' sections of each Addendum to the order. This provision
requires Sikorsky to report to DEP any failure to comply with the
requirements of the order and to propose dates by which Sikorsky will
come into compliance. These sections end with the following sentence:
Notification by Respondent [Sikorsky] shall not excuse
noncompliance or delay, and the Commissioner's approval of any
compliance dates proposed shall not excuse noncompliance or delay
unless specifically so stated by the Commissioner in writing.
Addendum A, section 6 and Addendum B, section 5, respectively
(emphasis added). Any written approval of noncompliance by DEP pursuant
to the terms of this order shall operate solely as a matter of state
law. Such approval cannot revise the SIP requirements approved in this
order (see 42 U.S.C. 7410(i)), shall not be binding on EPA, and would
not preclude EPA or citizens from enforcing the requirements of this
order as part of the SIP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act.
Final Action
EPA review of the submittal for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,
including the State Order No. 8010, Addendum A, and Addendum B,
indicates that Connecticut has sufficiently defined VOC RACT for the
non-CTG VOC emission sources at the Stratford facility. Although on
June 22, 1988 (53 FR 23416), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) proposing to approve Order No. 8010 for this facility,
Connecticut subsequently added two technical addenda to the order.
Therefore, rather than finalizing the earlier proposal for Order No.
8010 and separately taking action on the two addenda, EPA is approving
State Order No. 8010, Addendum A, and Addendum B, into the SIP at this
time.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective April 10, 1998 unless adverse or critical comments are
received by March 11, 1998.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective on April 10, 1998.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section
[[Page 6487]]
205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 10, 1998. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) EPA encourages
interested parties to comment in response to the proposed rule rather
than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after
the comment period allowed for in the proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Connecticut was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: December 31, 1997.
Patricia L. Meany,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region I.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart H--Connecticut
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(60) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.
* * * * * *
(c) * * *
(60) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on February 16,
1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated February 16, 1996, submitting a revision to the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(B) State Order No. 8010 dated October 25, 1989 for Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, effective on January 29, 1990, as well as
Addendum A and Addendum B to Order No. 8010, effective on February 7,
1996 and September 29, 1995, respectively. The State order and two
addenda define and impose RACT on certain VOC emissions at Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding a new entry to
existing state citation for Section 22a-174-20, ``Control of Organic
Compound Emissions'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.385 EPA--approved Connecticut regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.385.--EPA-Approved Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
----------------------------------
Connecticut State citation Title/subject Date Federal Register Section 52.370 Comments/
Date adopted by approved by citation description
State EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
22a-174-20...................... Control of organic 1/29/90, 9/29/95, & 2/9/98 63 FR 6484........ (c)(60) VOC RACT for
compound emissions. 2/7/96. Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation in
Stratford.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-3025 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
