Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Alternative Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds at Risdon Corporation in Danbury

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT18-1-7204a; A-1-FRL-5999-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Connecticut; Alternative Reasonably Available Control Technology for

Volatile Organic Compounds at Risdon Corporation in Danbury

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 allows an

alternative reasonably available control technology (RACT)

determination for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions at Risdon

Corporation's Danbury facility which are subject to Connecticut's

miscellaneous metal parts and products VOC RACT regulations. The

intended effect of this action is to approve the

[[Page 20316]]

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 rule is effective on June 23, 1998, without further notice

unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by May 26, 1998.

Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a timely

document withdrawal of this rule 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, as well as 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:

A. VOC RACT Requirement

Risdon Corporation (Risdon) operates metal surface coating

equipment at its Danbury facility, including chain-on-edge spray

painting lines and a dip coating tank, for purposes of coating

miscellaneous metal parts (``metal coating lines''). These metal

coating lines are subject to the volatile organic compound (VOC)

emission limits of Section 22a-174-20(s) of the Regulations of

Connecticut State Agencies, which was approved into the Connecticut SIP

on February 17, 1982. Section 22a-174-20(s) sets limits on the quantity

of VOC (e.g., solvents, thinners, etc.) per gallon of coating (e.g.,

paints) that certain types of industrial facilities may use.

B. Emissions Bubble

Risdon was unable to meet the emission limits of Section 22a-174-

20(s) on a coating by coating basis at the Danbury facility. Pursuant

to Section 22a-174-20(cc), Risdon applied for an alternative emission

reduction plan (AERP) to reduce the total emissions from the metal

coating lines which would be equivalent to the reduction which would

have been achieved by having the metal coating lines comply with

Section 22a-174-20(s) on a coating by coating basis. This kind of AERP

is known as an emissions average, or ``bubble,'' and is allowed under

EPA's Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules (59 FR 16690, April 7,

1994) and Emissions Trading Policy Statement (51 FR 43814, December 4,

1986). These policies, as well as the technical support document,

located at the addresses provided in the ``addresses'' section of this

notice, should be referred to for more information regarding bubbles.

Risdon originally submitted an application for the AERP to the

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) on May 31,

1991 and revisions to the application on June 3, 1992, and January 27,

1993. Initially, the AERP proposal included the use of VOC emission

reduction credits (ERCs) from the shutdown of coating lines at Eyelet

Specialty Company, Incorporated in Wallingford, Connecticut. Risdon

owned Eyelet and they were seeking to use the VOC ERCs from Eyelet in a

daily VOC bubble at the Danbury facility. The Eyelet VOC emissions were

included in Connecticut's 1990 emissions inventory, which serves as the

baseline for Connecticut's reasonable further progress (RFP) and

attainment planning. After adjusting the emissions to account for the

coating operations which were shifted to Risdon's Danbury facility

(i.e., the shift in demand), as well as the control requirements to

which Eyelet's processes would have been subject (e.g., VOC RACT), CT

DEP and EPA determined that a portion of the shutdown emissions were

surplus to Connecticut's SIP requirements.

C. Long-Term Average

Subsequently, Risdon made a number of changes at the Danbury

facility which allowed them to comply with the limits of Section 22a-

174-20(s) on a coating by coating basis, except for a few coatings used

on a few days per year. Risdon then proposed a different AERP which

involved averaging the coatings at the Danbury facility on a weekly,

rather than daily, basis. This meant that although they would record

their coating usage each day, they would demonstrate their total VOC

emissions from the coating lines was less than the total emissions

allowed by the regulations each week. Additionally, although they

proposed to demonstrate this without the aid of the Eyelet credits,

Risdon also agreed in the AERP to retire the Eyelet credits.

Under the EPA's EIP rules, extended averaging periods are allowed

provided that the State makes a showing that such long term averaging

is consistent with the RACT, RFP, and the short-term national ambient

air quality standard (NAAQS). The policy states that such a showing

should take into account the extent to which the statistical variations

from an individual source are random or systematic, as well as whether

they are independent of RACT, RFP, and the NAAQS. Furthermore, the

policy requires that the showing demonstrate that the pattern of

emission resulting from the relaxed averaging period approximate the

patterns that occur without the longer term average (see 59 FR 16706).

On January 17, 1996, Connecticut submitted a statistical showing

which they received from Risdon which demonstrated that the pattern of

emissions based on a weekly averaging period approximates the pattern

of daily emissions at the plant on a daily averaging basis (see

Attachment A of the technical support document (TSD) for more

information). The coating lines at Risdon coat metal parts (e.g.,

cosmetic cases) on an as-ordered basis. The variations in emissions

from Risdon are seasonally random, meaning that similar batches may be

run at any time of the year without regard to season. Therefore, the

few days per year when the daily emission limits cannot be met are not

predictable. Given this randomness, the facility is expected to run in

the same manner as before they were allowed the longer averaging time.

Additionally, the consent order No. 8036 also requires Risdon to

retire the 7,587.66 pounds (3.79 tons) of VOC per year from the Eyelet

facility. This means that even though the bubble allows weekly

averaging, there is a daily emissions mitigating effect from the

retired ERCs which is 2 to 3 times greater than any of the peak data

points shown on Attachment A of the TSD. Given the statistical showing

and the retired Eyelet credits, EPA has determined that the weekly

average does not interfere with RACT, RFP, or the NAAQS and therefore,

the weekly average can be approved.

On February 20, 1996, CT DEP formally proposed Order No. 8036 for

public comment and on April 24, 1996, a public hearing was held. EPA

submitted written comments on the proposal on April 9, 1996. The final

Order No. 8036 was issued by CT DEP on May 6, 1996 and submitted to EPA

on June 3, 1996. EPA deemed the submittal technically and

administratively complete on July 3, 1996.

[[Page 20317]]

I. Final Action

As described in the Supplementary Information section of this

notice, EPA review of the submittal for Risdon Corporation, including

State Order No. 8036 and supporting documentation, indicates that

Connecticut has defined an approvable emissions average for compliance

with metal coating VOC RACT requirements at the Danbury facility.

Therefore, EPA is approving State Order No. 8036 into the Connecticut

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 the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will become effective on June 23, 1998 without further

notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comment by May 26,

1998. Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a

document in the Federal Register withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that this rule did not take effect. 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 rule

will be effective on June 23, 1998,and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.

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.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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 CAA 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

To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small

governments, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12875 on October

26, 1993, entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.''

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation which is

not required by statute unless the Federal Government provides the

necessary funds to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and small

governments or EPA provides to the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the prior consultation and communications the agency has

had with representatives of State and small governments and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting

elected and other representatives of State and small governments ``to

provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory

proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

The present action satisfies the requirements of Executive Order

12875 because it is required by statute and because it does not contain

a significant unfunded mandate. Section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that EPA act on implementation plans submitted by states. This

rulemaking implements that statutory command. In addition, this rule

approves pre-existing state requirements and does not impose new

federal mandates binding on State or small governments.

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 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

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action. Small governments are not significantly or uniquely affected

because this rule imposes no requirements on such entities.

D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules

relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA

is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under

section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability. This

rule only affects two specifically-named entities, Risdon Corporation's

Danbury, Connecticut facility and Eyelet Specialty Company,

Incorporated, of Wallingford, Connecticut.

[[Page 20318]]

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by June 23, 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: April 2, 1998.

John P. DeVillars,

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)(73) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(73) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on June 3, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection dated June 3, 1996, submitting a revision to the Connecticut

State Implementation Plan.

(B) State Order No. 8036, dated May 6, 1996, for Risdon

Corporation, effective on that date. The State order define and impose

alternative RACT on certain VOC emissions at Risdon Corporation in

Danbury, Connecticut.

3. In Sec. 52.3854, Table 52.385 is amended by adding a new entry

to existing state citations 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 Rules and Regulations

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

Dates

Connecticut state Title/subject ---------------------------------------------- Federal Register Section 52.370 Comments/

citation Date adopted by state Date approved by EPA citation description

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

* * * * * * *

22a-174-20............ Control of organic June 3, 1996......... April 24, 1998....... [Insert FR citation (c)(73)............. Alternative VOC

compound emissions. from published RACT for Risdon

date]. Corporation in

Danbury.

* * * * * * *

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

[FR Doc. 98-10975 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U