[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20315-20318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10975]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affdcedfdf81fcdbcad9caefeaffeee2eee6e381eaffee81e8e0f981">[email protected]</a>

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>