[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