p.1 

OAR Box 1159 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

68) FR NOTICE FRL 6508-7 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 4/30/2008 11:35:04 AM Sheet 68 of 76 
P.2 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday , December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 6963 7 

lists CFR citations with reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other information 

collection requirements, and the current 

OMB control numbers. This listing of 

the OMB control numbers and their 

subsequent codification in the CFR 

satisfies the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. 

This ICR was previously subject to 

public notice and comment prior to 

OMB approval. Due to the technical 

nature of the table, EPA finds that 

further notice and comment is 

unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that 

there is "good cause" under section 

553(b)(B) ofthe Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to 

amend this table without prior notice 

and comment. 

I. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a "significant regulatory action" and 

is therefore not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. In 

addition, this action does not impose 

any enforceable duty, contain any 

unfunded mandate, or impose any 

significant or unique impact on small 

governments as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104—4). This rule also does 

not require prior consultation with 

State, local, and tribal government 

officials as specified by Executive Order 

12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993) 

or Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655 

(May 10,1998), or involve special 

consideration of environmental justice 

related issues as required by Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). Because this action is not subject 

to notice-and-comment requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute, it is not subject to 

the rregulatory flexibility provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.). This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because EPA interprets 

Executive Order 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions-that are 

based on health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5 -

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

Congressional Review Act 

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 mie may take effect, the_ 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a fule report, which includes a 

copy of {he rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a good cause 

finding that notice and public procedure 

is impracticable, unnecessary or 

contrary to the public interest. This 

determination must be supported by a 

brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As 

stated previously, EPA has made such a 

good cause finding, including the 

reasons therefor, and established an 

effective date of December 14,1999. The 

List Rule was promulgated prior to the 

effective date of the Congressional 

Review Act. The RMP Rule which was 

promulgated in June 1996, was 

submitted to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This action is not 

a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). ' 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 2, 1999. 

Oscar Morales, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office 

of Information Collection. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 9 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 etseq., 136-136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 etseq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and 

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2, 

300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-1, 

300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9, 1857 et seq., 

6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 

11023, 11048. 

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by 

revising the entry for "68.120(a), (e), and 

(g)" and adding new entries in 

numerical order under the indicated 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

40 CFR citation QMB control 

No. 

Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions 

68.12 2050-0144 

68.15 2050-0144 

68.39 2050-0144 

68.42 2050-0144 

68.48 2050-0144 

68.50 2050-0144 

68.52 2050-0144 

68.56 2050-0144 

68.58 2050-0144 

68.60 2050-0144 

68.65 2050-0144 

68.67 2050-0144 

68.69 2050-0144 

68.71 2050-0144 

68.73 2050-0144 

68.75 2050-0144 

68.79 2050-0144 

68.81 2050-0144 

68.83 2050-0144 

68.85 2050-0144 

68.95 2050-0144 

68.120(a), (e), and (g) 2050-0144 

68.150 2050-0144 

68.155 2050-0144 

68.160 2050-0144 

68.165 2050-0144 

68.168 2050-0144 

68.170 2050-0144 

68.175 2050-0144 

68.180 2050-0144 

68.185 2050-0144 

68.190 2050-0144 

68.200 2050-0144 

68.215 2050-0144 

68.220 : ' 2050-0144 

[FR Doc. 99-32379 Filed 12-13-99; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-FRL-6508-7] 

RIN2060-A158 /Tt QJ3 J, i. 

Title V Operating Permit Deferrals for 

Area Sources: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Chromium Emissions 

from Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide 

Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations; 

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Facilities; Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning Machines; and Secondary 

Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 
P.3 

6963 8 Federa l Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday, December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 

ACTION: Final rule; amendments^ 

SUMMARY: This action continues to allow 

permitting authorities the discretion to 

defer Clean Air Act (Act) title V 

operating permit requirements until 

December 9, 2004, for area sources of air 

pollution that are subject to five 

NESHAPs. These amendments continue 

to relieve industrial sources, State, local, 

and tribal agencies, and the EPA 

Regional Offices of an undue regulatory 

burden during a time when available 

resources are needed to implement the 

title V permit program for major 

sources. Under these amendments, 

sources must continue to meet all 

applicable requirements, including all 

applicable emission control, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements established by the 

respective NESHAP. 

The title V operating permit deferral 

is an option at the permitting authority's 

discretion under EPA-approved State 

operating permit programs and not an 

automatic deferral that the source can 

invoke. Thus, State operating permit 

authorities are free to require area 

sources subject to the five NESHAPS to 

obtain title V permits. In areas-where no 

State operating permit program is in 

effect, and the Federal operating permit 

program is administered by EPA, we 

will defer the requirement for title V 

permitting for these area sources until 

December 9, 2004. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14,199§, 

ADDRESSES: TheTollowing dockets, 

containing supporting information for 

the original rulemakings, are available 

for public inspection between 8 a.m. 

and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday 

except for Federal holidays: Docket No. 

A-88-11, subpart M NESHAP; Docket 

No. A-88-02, subpart N NESHAP; 

TSocket Nn. ^88-03.suTijiart 0 "* 

NESHAP; DocBt No. A=92^3*9^subpart 

J NESHAPjT3b"cket No.fi-92=43, 

'subpartAiNiiaHAP. These cTocIcets are 

available lor public inspection at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (6102), 401 M Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 

(202) 260-7548, Room M-1500, 

Waterside Mall (ground floor). We may 

charge a reasonable fee for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on today's action, 

contact Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission 

Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-5262. fax 

numher (919) 541-0942, or e-mail: 

colyer.rick@epa.gov. For further 

information regarding applicability of 

your source to today's action, contactyour title V permitting authority. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Judicial. 

Review. We proposed these 

amendments on August 18,1999 (64 FR 

45116). This action promulgating these 

amendments constitutes final 

administrative action concerning that 

proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the 

Act, judicial review of these final 

amendments is available only by filing 

a petition for review in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

by February 14, 2000. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) ofthe Act, only an 

objection to this rule that was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment can be raised 

during judicial review. Moreover, under 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the . 

requirements established by today's 

final action may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceeding brought by us to enforce 

these requirements. 

Technology Transfer Network. The 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is 

a network of our electronic bulletin 

boards. The TTN provides information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. You can 

access, the TTN through the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/. If you need 

more information on the TTN, call the 

HELP line at (919) 541-5384. 

The preamble outline follows. 

I. What types of facilities are potentially 

affected by these amendments? 

II Summary of the Proposed Rule and 

Description of the Final Rule 

III. What has changed since proposal? 

IV What comments did we receive on the 

proposed amendments? 

V. What are the administrative requirements 

for these amendments? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

D. Congressional Review Act 

E. Unfunded.Mandates Reform Act 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

I. What types of facilities are 

potentially affected by these 

amendments? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action 

include: 

." Category 

Industry ^ 

-

North American Industry Clas-

-. sification System Codes 

331492 

332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 447 

332, 333, 334, 335, 336 

8123 

3391 

Examples ot Potentially Regulated Entities. 

Secondary lead smelters. 

Halogenated solvent cleaning machines at fabricated, metal product manufacturing facilities, 

machinery manufacturing facilities, computer and electronic product manufacturing facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component-manufacturing facilities, transportation equipment manufacturing facilities, and gasoline stations. 

Chromium electroplating machines at fabricated, metal product manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing facilities, computer andrelectronic product manufacturing facilities, 

electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing facilities, and transportation equipment manufacturing facilities. 

Ory cleaning and laundry facilities. 

Ethylene oxide sterilizers at medical-equipment and supplies manufacturing facilities. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers of the entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that we are now 

aware could be affected by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in this 

table could also be affected. To 

determine whether your facility, 

company, business organization, etc., is 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in the following sections of title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

(CFR): 

• § 63.320, perchloroethylene dry 

cleaning. 

• §63.340, 

• §63.360, 

• §63.460, 

cleaners. 

• § 63.541, secondary lead smelters 

chromium electroplating, 

ethylene oxide sterilizers, 

halogenated solvent 
P.4 

Federa l Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday , December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 6963 9 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult your title V 

permitting authority. 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule and 

Description ofthe Final Rule 

The purpose of EPA's proposed 

amendments was to allow title V 

permitting authorities to extend the 

deadline for area sources subject to five 

NESHAPs for submitting title V permit 

applications. The source categories 

covered by the proposal were.hard and 

decorative chromium electroplating and 

chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene 

oxide commercial sterilization and 

fumigation operations, 

perchloroethylene dry cleaning 

facilities, secondary lead smelting 

facilities, and halogenated solvent 

cleaning machines at area sources. We 

have previously allowed permitting 

authorities to defer permit applications 

for these area sources in a series of 

rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5,1995; 

61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; and 64 FR 

37683, July 13, 1999). Those provisions 

expire on December 9,1999. Since the 

conditions prompting the allowance for 

previous deferrals have not changed (see 

64 FR 45116, August 18, 1999), we 

proposed to extend the deferral 

provisions for the five NESHAPs for 

another 5 years. We also proposed to 

revise the relevant regulations in order 

to improve their understandability, as 

directed by President Clinton's June 1, 

1998, Executive. Memorandum on Plain 

Language in Government Writing. 

Our authority for establishing the 

deferrals is section 502(a) ofthe Act, 

which allows us to exempt non-major 

sources from the permitting requirement 

if we find that compliance with title V 

is impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome on the 

sources. Our General Provisions 

implementing section 112 ofthe Act 

provide that unless we explicitly 

exempt or defer area sources subject to 

a NESHAP from the title V permitting 

.requirement, they are subject to 

permitting (40 CFR 63.l(c)(2)(iii)). As a 

result, under 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2), 

71.3(b)(2) and 63.1(c)(2), we are to 

determine whether area sources will be 

required to obtain title V permits when 

we adopt the underlying NESHAP. 

When weinitially established the 

ability for permitting authorities to defer 

these area sources from title V, we 

stated that we would decide whether to 

adopt permanent exemptions by the 

time the deferrals expired, and that we 

would continue to evaluate the 

permitting authorities' implementation 

and enforcement of the NESHAP 

requirements for area sources not 

covered by title V permits, the likely 

benefit of permitting such sources, andthe costs and other burdens on such 

sources associated with obtaining title V 

permits. However, as we explained in 

the August 18, 1999, proposal, we do 

not yet have sufficient information to 

determine whether permanent 

exemptions are warranted for these area 

sources and are continuing to evaluate 

the other considerations. Thus, we are 

not prepared to make decisions that 

either permanently relieve these area 

sources from title V or that require them 

to become immediately subject to the 

permitting requirement. 

Moreover, we noted that many 

permitting authorities are struggling to 

timely issue initial title V permits to 

major sources and other sources that 

have been subject to the permitting 

requirement since the beginning of the 

program, and that we are concerned 

about the impact of subjecting area 

sources to the permit application 

deadlines on permitting authorities. We 

stated that we believe the most 

reasonable approach is to extend the 

status quo for one more 5-year cycle of 

permitting while we obtain necessary 

information, rather than to decide by 

default by allowing the existing deferral 

to expire. 

Today's final amendments adopt the 

amendments as proposed and extend 

the option of approved part 70 

permitting authorities to defer the 

subject area sources from the part 70 

permitting requirements. The deferral 

may extend until December 9, 2004. The 

deferral is not an automatic benefit 

provided to the sources. Rather, 

permitting authorities may exercise 

their discretion to either defer the area 

sources or to require them to apply for 

and obtain part 70 permits. Some 

permitting authorities may decide that 

area sources in the subject source 

categories warrant permitting based on 

local considerations or other factors, or 

they may have in place streamlined 

permitting mechanisms (such as the use 

of general permits or "permits by rule") 

that minimize the burden on both the 

permitting authority and the source. 

For area sources that are not covered 

by an effective approved part 70 

program and are subject to the EPAadministered part 71 pennitting 

program, today's final rule amendments 

hereby announce that area sources 

subject to the five NESHAPS mentioned 

above are deferred from permitting 

under part 71 until December 9, 2004. 

For purposes of both part 70 and part 

71, for the reasons discussed in the 

proposal (64 FR 45116, August 18,1999) 

and as explained below, we conclude 

that requiring all area sources subject to 

the NESHAPs that are being amended 

by today's rulemaking to obtain title V 

permits at this time would constitute an 

impracticable, infeasible and 

unnecessary burden on these area 

sources, and would be an additional 

burden on the permitting authorities 

that have not.yet determined that they 

are prepared to begin permitting these 

sources. 

HI. What Has Changed Since Proposal? 

We received seven comment letters, 

most of which supported the proposed 

deferral extension. We have considered 

all comments received (summarized and 

responded to in the next section) and 

concluded that no changes from 

proposal are necessary. 

IV. What Comments Did We Receive on 

the Proposed Amendments? 

The following paragraphs contain 

summaries of the coinments we received 

on the proposal and our responses. 

Comment: Most commenters 

supported the proposed deferral of title 

V permitting of area sources. 

Commenters provided numerous 

reasons for their support, including 

•assertions that the subject area sources 

are already adequately controlled, and 

that there would be no additional 

environmental benefit of requiring them 

to get permits; that permitting would 

impose a significant unnecessary 

burden on regulatory agencies and/or 

sources; that the deferral will allow EPA 

additional time to.^etermine whether 

permanent title V exemptions for area 

sources are appropriate; that additional 

time is necessary for permitting 

authorities to review and issue title V 

permits to sources currently required to 

obtain title V permits; and that current 

rules and permitting mechanisms 

already sufficiently address area sources 

under State and local programs. 

Response: We appreciate the support 

for the proposed extension of the 

deferral. The EPA understands that 

these area sources are already required 

to comply .with emissions standards 

regardless of whether they are required 

to obtain permits. However, there are 

some general advantages to permitting 

that should not be overlooked. 

Requiring sources to obtain title V 

permits helps assure that complex 

applicability determinations, i.e., which 

requirements apply and how, are 

resolved prior to the issuance of a 

permit. In addition to providing clarity 

for a source, the resolution of a source's 

applicability issues facilitates both civil 

and criminal enforcement of the 

source's applicable requirements. In the 

process of applying for a title V permit, 

many sources have discovered that they 
P.5 

agister/Vol. 64, No. 232 / Tuesday, Cecember 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 

are out of compliance with various 

applicable requirements. The 

regulations at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 

require sources to self-certify 

compliance with applicable 

requirements initially and annually and 

provide additional assurance of ongoing 

emissions reductions. Permitting 

provides an opportunity for the public 

to comment on whether a source is 

complying with its applicable 

requirements. Permits also require 

prompt reporting of deviations from the 

permit. In short, one of the benefits of 

title V permitting is that it enhances tho 

effectiveness of rules. 

We are also aware that some States 

and local agencies subject these sources 

to non-title V permitting programs that 

may serve purposes similar to those of 

title V. At this point in the 

implementation of title V, we agree that 

there may be significant undue burden 

on permitting authorities not prepared 

for area source permitting and on area 

sources preparing title V permit 

applications. Some permitting 

authorities did not fully anticipate the 

amount of work necessary to implement 

the title V program, and clearly some of 

these question whether the additional 

work of permitting thousands of area 

sources provides a commensurate 

benefit. Moreover, many of these 

permitting authorities are currently 

struggling to issue permits to major 

sources and other covered sources, and 

are not yet prepared to add to this 

significant permitting responsibility. 

While for some permitting authorities 

this problem could possibly be 

overcome by using more streamlined 

permitting approaches, e.g., general 

permits (see §§ 70.6(d) and 71.6(d)), we 

may use the deferral period to consider 

ways to reduce the permitting burden 

on area sources and to better 

accommodate the needs of area source 

permitting. We will also use the 

additional time to assess whether or not 

permanent exemptions are appropriate. 

We agree that permitting authorities 

should be allowed to defer, if necessary, 

title V permitting for area sources, if 

additional time is necessary to issue 

permits to sources currently required to 

obtain title V permits. It is apparent that 

title V permitting is not at the stage 

originally envisioned when the part 7C 

rules were promulgated. At this point in 

time, EPA anticipated that most, if not 

all, part 70 permits would have been 

issued to sources subject to the program 

upon its effective date, and that 

permitting authorities would be in a 

better position to expand the program to 

other sources. However, many 

permitting authorities need additional 

time to issue permits to sources that are 

currently subject to the program and, 

therefore, are not at an implementation 

stage that allows them to shift their 

attention to area sources. 

Comment: One commenter claimed 

that the deferred area sources would be 

alloii'od to continue to emit chemicals 

unchecked into the air, exposing 

employees and the public to 

uncontrolled levels ofthe emitted 

chemicals during the deferral period. 

This commentor also felt that funding of 

expanding the title V permit program to 

cover area sources would be no problem 

because permit fees would make it 

unnecessary to draw upon limited 

existing resources. This commenter was 

also concer zsd that the permitting 

deferral wo aid impede public access to 

environmental data. The commenter 

stressed the benefits of the permitting 

process, including those involving 

consistent reporting procedures, 

improved measurements of pollution, 

improved air quality data, and greater 

public participation. 

Response: The pennit program does 

not directly control emissions to the air, 

but as discussed above enhances 

compliance assurance with all 

applicable requirements including 

emissions limitations. The permit is 

essentially a comprehensive document 

reflecting the regulatory requirements 

that the source must already meet. The 

existing regulator}' requirements that 

impose e.n'ssion standards, including 

these five Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules, irrespective 

of tire title V permit, provide the air 

emission reduction requirements, and 

most ofthe monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements under the 

Act that aro needed to determine and 

enforce compliance. All of these rules 

ars still in effect, and sources must 

comply with them. Therefore, the 

absence of a title V permit for an area 

source subject to a NESHAP will not 

allow it to emit pollutants "unchecked" 

into the a:.r. 

While 3?A agrees that title V permit 

fees should, be set at levels high enough 

to allow the permitting authority to hire 

and retain qualified permit writers, we 

are aot convinced that the ability to 

charge area sources fees alone would 

enable permitting authorities to 

immediately expand their title V 

programs to cover area sources. This is 

because permitting authorities have also 

faced significant problems in timely 

issuance or7 permits to major sources, 

which are also covered by fees. Since 

area sources are far more numerous than 

major sources, we expect that forcing an 

expansion at this point could raise 

problems apart from adequate funding. 

Many permitting authorities at the 

beginning of the title V permit program 

did not fully anticipate what was 

involved in implementing the title V 

program, have still not caught up on 

their backlog of major source permit 

applications, and may not, merely 

through imposing fees, feel prepared to 

expand title V permitting to area 

sources. 

Finally, while the presence of a title 

V permit does enhance public access to 

information and facilitates citizen 

participation in enforcement, the permit 

deferral should not deny public access 

to environmental information. All nonconfidential emissions information that 

underlying applicable requirements 

direct sources to send to implementing 

agencies is publically available under 

the applicable Tule requirements, 

regardless of the source's permit status 

(see 40 CFR 63.15). 

Comment: One State permitting 

authority commenter believes that area 

source permitting can occur without 

creating an undue burden by issuing 

title V general permits, or "permits by 

rule," to area sources. This commenter 

further recommended establishing a 

strong compliance assistance program to 

enhance the permitting program. In 

addition, the commenter supported a 

strong inspection program and good 

recordkeeping requirements. However, 

the commenter felt that reporting 

requirements were an ineffective burden 

for most area sources. Finally, the 

commenter recommended that should 

EPA decide to continue the deferral as 

proposed, it should use the deferral 

period to review and revise the title V 

program to make it more appropriate for 

area sources. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

in pointing out that general permits 

issued under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 

can be used and can be an effective way 

to issue permits to area sources without 

creating an undue burden for the source 

categories being covered by the general 

permits. The commenter provides a 

good example of the discretionary 

nature ofthe deferral. The deferral being 

promulgated in today's rulemaking does 

not automatically apply to every nonFederal title V permitting authority. 

Rather, this rulemaking allows nonFederal permitting authorities to choose 

whether deferral from title V permitting 

for area sources subject to one or more 

of these five MACT standards is 

appropriate for the area sources in 

question. In this case, the commenter 

has been able to structure his permitting 

program so that the permitting authority 

can issue permits to area sources easily 

and with little additional burden to the 

sources themselves. The commenter has 

also implemented a strong compliance 
P.6 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday , December 14, 1999/Rule s arid Regulations 6964 1 

assistance program, coupled with a 

strong inspection program and good 

recordkeeping requirements to 

complement the general permits being 

issued. The EPA applauds the 

commenter's ability to overcome 

potential difficulties in permitting 

thousands of area sources. 

However, there are many permitting 

authorities that continue to experience 

difficulties in issuing title V permits, 

even to major sources. This, in turn, 

would put a burden on the area sources 

that would have to get permits if the 

deferral were to expire because the 

permitting authority may not be able to 

provide much assistance to area sources 

in preparing their permit applications. 

Many permitting authorities may not be 

able to simply emulate the permitting 

approach taken by the commenter 

because of legislative or other 

constraints. This is evidenced by the 

other permitting authorities that 

commented in support of the deferral. 

The EPA will take under advisement 

the commenter's suggestions that we 

review and revise, if necessary, the area 

source component of the title V permit 

program during the deferral period. The 

EPA is not at this point prepared to 

commit to such a revision or even agree 

that one is appropriate, but would 

welcome further comments on this 

issue. 

Comment: Several commenters 

further recommended a permanent 

exemption from title V permitting for 

area sources subject to these five MACT 

standards. 

Response: For essentially the same 

reasons that we are not prepared to 

immediately require permits for area 

sources, we are not promulgating a 

permanent exemption for these area 

sources at this time. That is, EPA is not 

in a position to conclude whether these 

sources should or should not be 

required to obtain permits. Several 

permitting authorities are currently able 

to accommodate area source permitting. 

The EPA will weigh the burden of title 

V permitting of area sources with the 

advantages of title V permitting in 

making future decisions regarding 

permanent exemptions. The EPA will 

use this deferral period to determine if 

title V permitting is necessary for 

certain or all area sources subject to 

these five MACT standards and deferred 

as of this rulemaking from title V 

permitting until December 9, 2004. As 

stated in the first deferral rulemaking for 

these five MACT source categories, we 

will also continue to evaluate State and 

local agencies' implementation and 

enforcement of these five MACT 

standards for area sources not covered 

by title V permits, the likely benefit of 

permitting such sources, and the costs 

and other burdens on such sources 

associated with obtaining a title V 

permit (see 61 FR 27785 (June 3,1996)). 

V. What Are the Administrative 

Requirements for These Amendments? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is "significant" and, therefore, 

subject to Office of Management (OMB) 

review and the requirements of the 

Executive Order. The Executive Order 

defines "significant regulatory action" 

as one that is likely to result in a rule 

that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that these 

amendments do not qualify as a 

"significant regulatory action" under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, are not subject to review by 

OMB. 

B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13084, the 

EPA may not issue a regulation that is 

not required by statute, that 

significantly or uniquely affects the 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments, and that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by the tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

those governments. If EPA complies by 

consulting, Executive Order 13084 

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a 

separately identified section of the 

preamble to the rule, a description of 

the extent of EPA's prior consultation 

with representatives of affected tribal 

governments, a summary of the nature 

of their concerns, and a statement 

supporting the need to issue the 

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 

13084 requires the EPA to develop an 

effective process permitting elected 

officials and other representatives of 

Indian tribal governments "to provide 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of regulatory policies on 

matters that significantly or uniquely 

affect their communities." 

These amendments do not alter the 

control standards imposed by 40 CFR 

part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, or X for 

any source, including any that may 

affect communities of the Indian tribal 

governments. Under the amendments, 

sources must continue to meet all 

applicable requirements, including all 

applicable emission control, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements established by the 

respective NESHAP. Hence, today's 

action does not significantly or uniquely 

affect the communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 

these amendments. 

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

"meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications." "Policies that have 

Federalism implications" are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have "substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government." Under 

Executive Order .13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. The EPA also may not issue 

a regulation that has Federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

If EPA complies by consulting, . 

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 

provide OMB in a separately identified 

section of the preamble to the rule, a 
P.7 

6964 2 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday, December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 

federalism summary impact statement 

(FSIS). The FSIS must include a 

description of the extent of EPA's prior 

consultation with State and local 

officials, a summary of the nature of 

their concerns and the Agency's 

position supporting the need to issue 

the regulation, and a statement of the 

extent to which the concerns of State 

and local officials have been met. Also, 

when EPA transmits a draft final rule 

with federalism implications to OMB for 

review pursuant to Executive Order 

12866, EPA must include a certification 

from the agency's Federalism Official 

stating that EPA has met the 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

in a meaningful and timely manner. 

These final amendments will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. These 

amendments impose no requirements 

on the States, and simply allow the 

States the option to exercise their 

discretion to defer certain area sources 

from title V permitting. These 

amendments neither preempt States 

from requiring these sources to obtain 

permits, nor impose any burden on 

States seeking to do so. Rather, the 

intent of these amendments is to 

continue to allow States and their area 

sources to avoid burdens that would 

befall them if EPA were to allow the 

current regulatory provisions to expire. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

D. Congressional Review Act 

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 

ofthe United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104—4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with "Federal mandates" that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before the EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 ofthe UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that these 

amendments do not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year nor 

do they significantly or uniquely impact 

small governments, because they 

contain no requirements that apply to 

such governments or impose obligations 

upon them. Thus, today's amendments 

are not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

these final amendments. The EPA has 

also determined that these amendments 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, because they impose no 

additional regulatory requirements on 

owners or operators of affected sources 

and allow State and federal permitting 

authorities to continue to relieve owners 

or operators of such sources of 

regulatory requirements that may 

otherwise apply if this action is not 

taken. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

These amendments do not require the 

collection of any information. Therefore, 

the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act do not apply. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: "Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, 

April 23,1997) applies to any rule that 

(1) is determined to be "economically 

significant" as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns and 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable too other potentially 

effectively and reasonably feasible 

-alternatives considered by the Agency. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that are based on 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5-501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. These 

amendments are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they do 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

/. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

• Section 12 (d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal 

agencies to use voluntary consensus 

standards instead of government-unique 

standards in their regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling and analytical procedures, 

business practices, etc.) that are 
P.8 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday , December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 6964 3 

developed or adopted by one or more 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

Examples of organizations generally 

regarded as voluntary consensus 

standards bodies include the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), and the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA requires Federal agencies like 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

with explanations when an agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

These amendments do not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated December 8, 1999. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons cited in the preamble, 

part 63, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 . 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart M—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.320 is.amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§63.320 Applicability. 

**** * 

(k) If you are the owner or operator of 

a sourceliubject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title 

V permitting authority may defer your 

source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

3. Section 63.340 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§63.340 Applicability and designation of 

sources. 

(e) * * * 

(2) If you are the owner or operator of 

•a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title 

V permitting authority may defer your 

source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

Subpart O—[Amended] 

4. Section 63.360 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:' 

§63.360 Applicability. 

**** * 

(f) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title 

V permitting authority may defer your 

source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, i f 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9> 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

Subpart T—[Amended] 

5. Section 63.468 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§63.468 Reporting requirements. 

**** * 

(j) The Administrator has determined, 

pursuant to section 502(a) ofthe Act, 

that if you are an owner or operator of 

any batch cold solvent cleaning 

machine that is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source, as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, you are exempt from title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

parts 70 or 71, as applicable, for that 

source, provided'you are not otherwise 

required to obtain a title V permit. If you 

own or operate any other solvent 

cleaning machine subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, you are also 

subject to title V permitting 

requirements. Your title V permitting 

authority may defer your source from 

these permitting requirements until 

December 9, 2004, if your source is not 

a major source and is not located at a 

major source as defined under 40 CFR 

63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise 

required to obtain a title V permit. If you 

receive a deferral under this section, 

you must submit a title V permit 

application by December 9, 2005. You 

must continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart applicable to 

area sources, even if you receive a 

deferral from title V permitting 

requirements. 

Subpart X—[Amended] 

6. Section 63.541 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§63.541 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title 

V permitting authority may defer your 

source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

[FRDoc. 99-32325 Filed 12-9-99; 3:21 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 
P.9 

6964 4 Federa l Register/Vol. 64, No. 239/Tuesday , December 14, 1999/Rule s and Regulations 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FEMA-7301] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, FEMA. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists 

communities where modification of the 

base (1% annual chance) flood 

elevations is appropriate because of new 

scientific or technical data. New flood 

insurance premium rates will be 

calculated from the modified base flood 

elevations for new buildings and their 

contents. 

DATES: These modified base flood 

elevations are currently in effect on the 

dates listed in the table and revise the 

Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in 

effect prior to this determination for 

each listed community. 

From the date of the second 

publication of these changes in a 

newspaper of local circulation, any 

person has ninety (90) days in which to 

request through the community that the 

Associate Director reconsider the 

changes. The modified elevations may 

be changed during the 90-day period. 

ADDRESSES: The modified base flood 

elevations for each community are 

available for inspection at the office of 

the Chief Executive Officer of each 

community. The respective addresses 

are listed in the following table. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards 

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, or (email) 

matt.miller@fema.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

modified base flood elevations are not 

listed for each community in this 

interim rule. However, the address of 

the Chief Executive Officer of the 

community where the modified base 

flood elevation determinations are 

available for inspection is provided. 

Any request for reconsideration must 

be based upon knowledge of changed 

conditions, or upon new scientific or 

technical data. 

The modifications are made pursuant 

to section 201 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

For rating purposes, the currently 

effective community number is shown 

and must be used for all new policies 

and renewals. 

The modified base flood elevations 

are the basis for the floodplain 

management measures that the 

community is required to either adopt 

or to show evidence of being already in 

effect in order to qualify or to remain 

qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

These modified elevations, together 

with the floodplain management criteria 

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the 

minimum that are required. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, state or regional entities. 

The changes in base flood elevations 

are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 

10, Environmental Consideration. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Associate Director, Mitigation 

Directorate, certifies that this rule is 

exempt from the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

modified base flood elevations are 

required by the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are required to maintain community 

eligibility in the National Flood 

Insurance Program. No regulatory 

flexibility analysis has been prepared. 

Regulatory Classification 

This interim rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under the criteria of 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30,1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 12612, Federalism 

This rule involves no policies that 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, 

dated October 26,1987. 

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12778. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 

Flood insurance, Floodplains, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is 

amended to read as follows: 

PART 65—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§65.4 [Amended] 

2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 65.4 are amended as 

follows: 

State and County 

Connecticut: 

Hartford 

Hartford 

Hartford 

Location 

Town of Berlin 

Town of West 

Hartford. 

Town of West 

Hartford. 

Dates and name of newspaper where notice was 

published 

September 7, 1999, September 14, 1999, New 

Britain Herald. 

August 11, 1999, August 

18, 1999, Hartford 

News. 

August 26, 1999, West 

Hartford News. 

Chief executive officer of community 

Ms. Bonnie Therrien, Town of Berlin 

Manager, Berlin Town Hall, 240 

Kensington Road, Berlin, Connecticut 06037. 

Mr. Barry Feldman, West Hartford 

Town Manager, West Hartford 

Town Hall, 50 South Main Street, 

West Hartford, Connecticut 06107. 

Mr. Barry Feldman, Town of West 

Hartford Manager, West Hartford 

Town Hall, 50 South Main Street, 

West Hartford, Connecticut 06107. 

Effective date of 

modification 

December 13, 

1999. 

November 16, 

1999. 

September 17, 

1999. 

Community 

No. 

090022 D 

095082 

095082 C