Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford

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