[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27684]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 9, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT-17-1-6536; A-1-FRL-5103-9]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; VOC RACT Catch-Ups

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State 
of Connecticut were received by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) on January 5, 1994. The intended effect of the revisions was to 
change three regulations and to add one regulation, all of which 
require the implementation of reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) for certain sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as 
required by the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the Act). The EPA 
has evaluated these modifications to Connecticut's regulations and by 
this notice is proposing to approve the changes to the three existing 
regulations as part of the SIP. EPA is also proposing a limited 
approval/limited disapproval of the new regulation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 1994. Public 
comments on this document are requested and will be considered before 
taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203-2211. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 10th 
floor, Boston, MA 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, (617) 565-9024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 1994, the Connecticut DEP 
submitted a revision to its SIP. The revision consists of changes made 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 182(b)(2) of the Act to the 
following Connecticut Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution:

Secs. 22a-174-20(s), Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,
Secs. 22a-174-20(v), Graphic Arts Rotogravures and Flexography,
Secs. 22a-174-20(ee), Reasonably Available Control Technology for Large 
Sources, and
Sec. 22a-174-32, Reasonably Available Control Technology for Volatile 
Organic Compounds.

I. Background

    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act (i.e., the Clean Air Act before 
the enactment of the amendments of November 15, 1990), ozone 
nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT rules for sources of 
VOC emissions. EPA issued three sets of control technique guideline 
(CTG) documents, establishing a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for 
various categories of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs were: (1) 
Group I--issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II--issued in 
1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III--issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). 
Those sources not covered by a CTG were called non-CTG sources. EPA 
determined that the area's SIP-approved attainment date established 
which RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. Under Section 
172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment areas were generally required to attain 
the ozone standard by December 31, 1982. Those areas that submitted an 
attainment demonstration projecting attainment by that date were 
required to adopt RACT for sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs. 
Those areas that sought an extension of the attainment date under 
Section 172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987 were required to 
adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., 100 ton per 
year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG sources.
    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act, Connecticut was designated as 
nonattainment for ozone and sought an extension of the attainment date 
under Section 172(a)(2) to December 31, 1987. Therefore, the State was 
required to adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., 100 
ton per year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG sources. However, the 
State of Connecticut did not attain the ozone standard by the approved 
attainment date. On May 25, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of 
Connecticut that portions of the SIP were inadequate to attain and 
maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the 
existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, 
amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 
Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401-7671q. In Section 
182(a)(2)(A) of the amended Act, Congress adopted the requirement that 
pre-enactment ozone nonattainment areas that retained their designation 
of nonattainment and were classified as marginal or above fix their 
deficient RACT rules for ozone by May 15, 1991. All of Connecticut, 
with the exception of the portion of Connecticut located in the New 
York-New Jersey-Long Island Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Area 
(NY-NJ-CT CMSA), was classified as serious nonattainment for ozone. The 
remaining portion of the State, i.e., the Connecticut portion of the 
NY-NJ-CT CMSA, was classified as severe nonattainment for ozone. 56 FR 
56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). The State submitted revisions to meet the RACT 
fix-up requirement and EPA approved those revisions to the Connecticut 
SIP on October 18, 1991 (56 FR 52205).
    Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT 
rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified 
as moderate or above. There are three parts to the Section 182(b)(2) 
RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG--
i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the 
Act; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all 
major sources not covered by a CTG, i.e., non-CTG sources. This RACT 
requirement applies to nonattainment areas that were previously exempt 
from certain RACT requirements to ``catch up'' to those nonattainment 
areas that became subject to such requirements during an earlier 
period. In addition, it requires newly designated ozone nonattainment 
areas to adopt RACT rules consistent with those for previously 
designated nonattainment areas.
    Since Connecticut was previously required to adopt RACT regulations 
for all the CTG and major non-CTG sources to meet the RACT ``catch-up'' 
requirement, the State did not need to adopt any additional RACT rules. 
However, under Section 182 of the Act, the major source definition for 
serious and severe nonattainment areas was lowered to include sources 
that have a potential to emit greater than 50 or greater than 25 tons 
per year of VOC, respectively. Therefore, the State needed to lower the 
applicability cutoff of its non-CTG and/or relevant CTG-based 
regulations to include newly classified major sources in these 
categories.
    VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. 
These rules were adopted as part of an effort to achieve the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The following is EPA's 
evaluation and proposed action for the changes to Connecticut's 
Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution, subsection 22a-174-
20(s), subsection 22a-174-20(v), subsection 22a-174-20(ee), and Section 
22a-174-32.

II. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate 
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40 CFR 
Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). EPA's interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in various EPA policy 
guidance documents. The specific guidance relied on for this action is 
referenced within the technical support document and this notice. For 
the purpose of assisting State and local agencies in developing RACT 
rules, EPA prepared a series of CTG documents. The CTGs are based on 
the underlying requirements of the Act and specify presumptive norms 
for RACT for specific source categories. EPA has not yet developed CTGs 
to cover all sources of VOC emissions. Further interpretations of EPA 
policy are found in, but not limited to, the following: (1) The 
proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy, 52 FR 45044 
(November 24, 1987); (2) the document entitled, ``Issues Relating to 
VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification 
to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,'' otherwise 
known as the ``Blue Book'' (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988 and in the existing CTGs); and (3) the 
``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available 
Technology,'' (Model VOC RACT Rules) issued as a staff working draft in 
June of 1992. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth 
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or 
maintain the SIP. The changes to Connecticut's VOC regulations that 
were included in the January 5, 1994 submittal are briefly summarized 
below.

Subsection 22a-174-20(s)

    This regulation was amended to include an exemption for 
noncompliant coatings used in amounts less than 55 gallons in the 
aggregate for any consecutive 12 month period at a miscellaneous metal 
parts facility. The change is consistent with EPA's August 10, 1990 
policy memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief of the Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 
Programs Branch of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
entitled, ``Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.'' Section 193 of the Clean 
Air Act (i.e., the General Savings Clause), requires that any 
regulation in effect before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 in any nonattainment area may only be modified 
if the modification insures equivalent or greater reductions of the 
same pollutant. Although the proposed change to 22a-174-20(s) 
represents a small relaxation of an existing control requirement, the 
requirements of Section 193 are met by the reductions resulting from 
other changes being proposed in this notice.

Subsection 22a-174-20(v)

    This regulation was amended to define RACT for graphic arts sources 
with potential emissions from all printing operations of 50 tons or 
more per year in the serious ozone nonattainment area or, 25 tons or 
more per year in the severe ozone nonattainment area, which were not 
previously subject to the rule. The adopted regulation maintains the 
applicability of any printing line with actual emissions of 40 pounds 
or more per day. This change is consistent with the requirements of 
Section 182 of the Act.

Subsection 22a-174-20(ee)

    Most of this subsection has been deleted and replaced with a 
reference to the new Section 32, entitled,''Reasonably Available 
Control Technology for Volatile Organic Compounds.'' The amended 
regulation removes the previous major source limits on applicability 
and refers all sources of VOC to Section 32. Sources previously subject 
to 22a-174-20(ee) that have enforceable consent orders or permits which 
currently define RACT at those facilities will continue to be regulated 
by those orders until Connecticut decides otherwise.

Section 22a-174-32

    For major non-CTG sources of VOCs, the addition of this section 
sets forth both presumptive RACT norms and processes by which RACT can 
be established for those sources that cannot meet the presumptive 
norms. However, Section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that a 
SIP revision be submitted by November 15, 1992 including ``provisions 
to require the implementation of reasonably available control 
technology * * *'' In addition, the necessary SIP revision is required 
to ``provide for the implementation of the required measures as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than May 31, 1995.'' Since 
the first two options of Section 22a-174-32 define presumptive norms 
for RACT, and are consistent with EPA's Model VOC RACT Rules for 
``Other Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds,'' that portion 
of the regulation meets the requirements of Section 182 and is 
approvable. However, since the third and fourth options describe a 
process by which RACT can be defined but do not specifically define 
RACT for each source to which such options apply, that portion of the 
rule is not approvable. Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited approval/
limited disapproval of Section 22a-174-32. To receive full approval, 
Connecticut will need to define explicitly, and have approved by EPA, 
RACT for all of those sources which do not conform to the presumptive 
RACT options outlined in the regulation. Alternatively, if it is 
determined that none of the affected sources will rely on the third or 
fourth process options contained in the rule to implement RACT, Section 
22a-174-32 can be fully approved upon Connecticut making such a 
demonstration.

Proposed Action

    EPA has evaluated Connecticut's submittal for consistency with the 
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the 
changes made to subsection 22a-174-20(s), subsection 22a-174-20(v), and 
subsection 22a-174-20(ee) of Connecticut's Regulations for the 
Abatement of Air Pollution meet the requirements of the Act. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing approval under Section 110(k)(3) of those changes.
    However, EPA has determined that the proposed Section 22a-174-32 
does not meet all of the Act's requirements for the reasons described 
above. EPA believes that approval of the submitted rule will strengthen 
the SIP but because of the above-mentioned deficiencies, the rule does 
not meet the requirements of Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. In light of 
such deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule under 
section 110(k)(3) and Part D. However, EPA may grant a limited approval 
of the submitted rule under Section 110(k)(3) and EPA's authority 
pursuant to Section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further 
air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval is limited because 
EPA's action also includes a limited disapproval, due to the fact that 
this rule does not meet the requirement of Section 182(b)(2) because of 
the deficiencies noted above. Thus, in order to strengthen the SIP, EPA 
is proposing a limited approval of Connecticut's submitted Section 22a-
174-32 under Section 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
    As stated, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of this rule 
under Sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act because the rule 
contains deficiencies that have not been corrected as the Act requires. 
Under Section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission 
under Section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the 
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by 
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in 
Section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions 
available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-
month period referred to in Section 179(a) will begin at the effective 
date established in this limited disapproval. Moreover, the final 
disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement 
under section 110(c).
    EPA's evaluation of all the submitted regulations is detailed in a 
memorandum, dated June 2, 1994 entitled ``Technical Support Document--
Connecticut--VOC RACT Catch-ups.'' Copies of that document are 
available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this action. Interested parties may participate in 
the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the 
EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this action.
    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.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of 
these tables. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 
action from review under Executive Order 12866.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Secs. 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 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, I certify 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 
42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: October 6, 1994.
John P. Devillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 94-27684 Filed 11-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P