Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders, 20262-20267 [2017-08647]
Download as PDF
20262
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of non-regulatory
SIP provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
*
*
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan update for the Middle
Tennessee Area and RVP
standard.
*
Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson, and Wilson Counties.
[FR Doc. 2017–08646 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0648; A–1–FRL–
9958–37–Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of
Single Source Orders
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Connecticut.
The revisions establish reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
two facilities that emit volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in the state.
Additionally, we are also approving
Connecticut’s request to withdraw seven
previously-approved single source
orders from the SIP. This action is being
taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective June 30, 2017, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 31,
2017. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2016–0648 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email Anne
Arnold at: arnold.anne@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
State effective
date
*
11/21/2016
EPA approval date
*
*
5/1/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs
Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109–
3912; (617) 918–1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT
Order Submittals
1. Order for Mallace Industries
2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand
III. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT
Order Withdrawal Requests
1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global
Manufacturing
2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North
America
3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal
Chemical Company
4. Withdrawal Request for Watson
Laboratories
5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft
6. Withdrawal Request for Dow Chemical
7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky
Aircraft
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires
states in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR), as well as moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas, to
implement RACT for major sources of
volatile organic compounds.
Connecticut is in the OTR and the state
is currently designated nonattainment
and classified as moderate for the 2008
ozone standard. See 40 CFR 81.307.
The Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection
(CT DEEP) submitted to EPA two single
source orders establishing RACT for
sources of VOCs for incorporation into
the Connecticut State Implementation
Plan (SIP), and also submitted requests
to withdraw from the SIP seven
previously-approved orders. The two
orders submitted for approval are
Consent Order 8001, issued to Mallace
Industries, located in Clinton,
Connecticut, submitted to EPA on
January 13, 2006, and Consent Order
8029, issued to Hamilton Sundstrand,
located in Windsor Locks, Connecticut,
submitted to EPA on November 15,
2011. The seven withdrawal requests
are for the following previouslyapproved Consent Orders: Order 8021
issued to Pfizer Global Manufacturing;
Order 8032 issued to Heminway and
Bartlett Company (which was
subsequently renamed Coats North
America); Order 8009 issued to Uniroyal
Chemical Company; Order 8200 issued
to Watson Laboratories; Order 8014
issued to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft;
Order 8011 issued to the Dow Chemical
Company; and Order 8010 issued to
Sikorsky Aircraft.
A description of these submittals and
our evaluation of them appears below in
Section II of this document.
II. Description and Evaluation of VOC
RACT Order Submittals
1. Order for Mallace Industries
Consent Order 8001 was issued to
Frismar, Incorporated, located in
Clinton, Connecticut, on October 19,
1987, pursuant to section 22a–174–
20(cc) of the Regulations of Connecticut
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
State Agencies (RCSA),1 which at the
time was the state’s alternative emission
reduction mechanism for sources that
could not otherwise meet prescribed
RACT measures. Connecticut submitted
the order to EPA as a SIP revision
request, and EPA approved the order on
November 28, 1989. See 54 FR 48885.
Subsequently, ownership of the facility
changed to Mallace Industries, and on
September 13, 2005, Connecticut issued
Consent Order 8258 to Mallace to
maintain the appropriate, enforceable
operating conditions contained within
Order 8001, and to reflect the new
ownership and current operating
conditions. Consent Order 8258
contains a lower annual cap for one of
the two paper coating machines at the
facility, lowering its annual emissions
cap from 34.0 tons to 15.9 tons. With
this restriction, the source’s total
emissions will be below the 50 tons per
year major source RACT applicability
threshold. The order contains daily,
monthly, and annual recordkeeping
requirements, and the facility is
required to submit a report to the state
annually that includes a summary of the
monthly VOC emissions for the facility.
Connecticut held a public hearing on
Consent Order 8258 on January 6, 2006,
and by letter dated January 13, 2006,
submitted the order to EPA as a SIP
revision request. Since Consent Order
8258 has a lower cap on emissions than
the previously SIP-approved order for
this facility, the anti-back sliding
requirements of Section 110(l) of the
CAA have been met. Therefore, we are
approving the order into the
Connecticut SIP.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand
Consent Order 8029 was issued to
Hamilton Standard, located in Windsor
Locks, Connecticut, on December 22,
1989, pursuant to RCSA section 22a–
174–20(ee).2 Connecticut submitted the
order to EPA as a SIP revision request,
which EPA approved on March 12,
1990. See 55 FR 9121. Subsequently, the
facility determined that potential VOC
emissions from test rigs were also
subject to VOC RACT. Since the original
order did not cover this equipment,
Connecticut issued an amended order,
Consent Order 8029A, to supersede the
original order. Consent Order 8029A
maintains the appropriate, enforceable
operating conditions contained within
Order 8029, and contains additional
VOC limits for calibration fluids used in
1 This regulation has been approved into the
Connecticut SIP. See 47 FR 24452; June 7, 1982.
2 This regulation has been approved into the
Connecticut SIP. See 49 FR 41026; October 19,
1984.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
the facility’s test rigs. Connecticut held
a public hearing on Consent Order
8029A on August 24, 2011, and by letter
dated November 15, 2011, submitted the
order to EPA as a SIP revision request.
Since the order contains additional
emission reduction requirements
beyond the previously SIP-approved
order for this facility, the anti-back
sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of
the CAA have been met. Therefore, we
are approving the order into the
Connecticut SIP.
In addition, the CAA section 193
General Savings Clause applies to the
above two orders since they were
approved into the Connecticut SIP prior
to the CAA amendments of 1990.
Section 193 of the CAA prohibits any
control measure in effect in a
nonattainment area prior to the
enactment of the CAA Amendments of
1990 to be modified after enactment,
unless such modification yields
equivalent or greater emission
reductions. Our review of the updated
orders issued to Mallace Industries and
Hamilton Sundstrand indicates that
they meet this requirement.
III. Description and Evaluation of VOC
RACT Order Withdrawal Requests
1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global
Manufacturing
In 1988, Connecticut issued Consent
Order 8021 to Pfizer Incorporated,
located in Groton, Connecticut, to
establish VOC RACT requirements
pursuant to RCSA section 22a–174–
20(ee). The state submitted this order to
EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA
approved it into the Connecticut SIP on
November 30, 1989. See 54 FR 49284.
During an inspection conducted on
September 3, 2002, Connecticut
confirmed that the manufacturing
operations covered by Order 8021 had
been permanently discontinued.
Furthermore, within an April 23, 2003
letter to Connecticut, Pfizer notified the
agency that it no longer intended to
manufacture any of the products subject
to Order 8021, making the order
obsolete. By letter dated July 1, 2004,
Connecticut requested that Order 8021
be withdrawn from the SIP. The state
held a public hearing on this SIP
withdrawal request on January 15, 2004,
and we are approving the request and
removing the order from the
Connecticut SIP. For facilities such as
this, as well as those described in
sections III.2, III.3, and III.4 below,
where operations have been
permanently discontinued (i.e.,
equipment has been removed) and this
fact has been confirmed by inspection,
the CAA section 110(l) anti-back sliding
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20263
requirements and the CAA section 193
General Savings Clause requirements
have been met as there are no longer any
emissions from these operations.
2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North
America
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8032 to the Heminway and Bartlett
Company, located in Watertown,
Connecticut, in 1989. The order was
issued to establish VOC RACT
requirements pursuant to RCSA section
22a–174–20(ee), and an amended order
was issued to update the ownership and
operating conditions at the facility in
2004. Subsequent to the issuance of the
amended order, the facility shut down,
which Connecticut confirmed by an
inspection conducted on May 13, 2005.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a
SIP revision request on January 13,
2006, asking that the order, which EPA
approved into the Connecticut SIP on
March 12, 1990 (see 55 FR 9442), be
removed from the Connecticut SIP. The
state held a public hearing on this SIP
withdrawal request on January 6, 2006,
and we are approving the request and
removing the order from the
Connecticut SIP.
3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal
Chemical Company
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8009 to the Uniroyal Chemical
Company, located in Naugatuck,
Connecticut, in 1989. The order was
issued to establish VOC RACT
requirements pursuant to RCSA section
22a–174–20(ee). Connecticut submitted
Order 8009 to EPA as a SIP revision
request, which EPA approved on
December 22, 1989. See 54 FR 52798.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order,
the facility shut down, which
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection
conducted on August 26, 2004.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a
SIP revision request on January 13,
2006, asking that the order be removed
from the Connecticut SIP. The state held
a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal
request on January 6, 2006, and we are
approving the request and removing the
order from the Connecticut SIP.
4. Withdrawal Request for Watson
Laboratories
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8200 to Watson Laboratories, located in
Danbury, Connecticut, in 2002. The
order was issued to establish VOC
RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA
section 22a–174–32(e)(6).3 Connecticut
3 This regulation has been approved into the
Connecticut SIP. See 65 FR 62620; October 19,
2000.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
20264
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
submitted Order 8200 to EPA as a SIP
revision request, and EPA approved the
Order on October 24, 2005. See 70 FR
61384. Subsequent to the issuance of the
order, the facility shut down, which
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection
conducted on September 13, 2005.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a
SIP revision request on January 13,
2006, asking that the order be removed
from the Connecticut SIP. The state held
a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal
request on January 6, 2006, and we are
approving the request and removing the
order from the Connecticut SIP.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt &
Whitney Aircraft
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8014 to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft located
in East Hartford, Connecticut, in 1989.
The order was issued to establish VOC
RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA
section 22a–174–20(ee). Connecticut
submitted the order to EPA as a SIP
revision request, and EPA approved the
Order on May 30, 1989. See 54 FR
22890. Subsequent to the issuance of the
order, Connecticut adopted regulations
limiting VOC emissions from the
equipment and activity covered by
Order 8014, and the facility ceased
operation of most activity covered by
the order. Specifically, the degreasers
covered by Order 8014 have all been
removed from the facility. Additionally,
in 2010, Connecticut adopted section
22a–174–20(ii) defining RACT for hand
wiping operations. These requirements
were approved by EPA on June 9, 2014
(see 79 FR 32873) and are at least as
stringent as those within Order 8014.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a
SIP revision request on July 15, 2016,
asking that Order 8014 be removed from
the Connecticut SIP. The state offered a
notice of opportunity for public hearing
on this SIP withdrawal request on
March 18, 2016. Since the newer SIPapproved regulatory requirements are at
least as stringent as the previously SIPapproved order, the CAA section 110(l)
anti-back sliding requirements and the
CAA section 193 General Savings
Clause requirements have been met.
Therefore, we are approving the state’s
request and removing the Order 8014
from the Connecticut SIP.
6. Withdrawal Request for Dow
Chemical
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8011 to the Dow Chemical Company
located in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, in
1988. The order was issued to establish
VOC RACT requirements pursuant to
RCSA section 22a–174–20(ee).
Connecticut submitted Order 8011 to
EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
approved the Order on March 8, 1989.
See 54 FR 9781. Subsequent to the
issuance of the order, Dow shut down
portions of its manufacturing operation,
and transferred other portions of its
manufacturing operations to Trinseo,
LLC, and Americas Styrenics, LLC.
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection
conducted on August 1, 2011, that
portions of the manufacturing
operations covered by Order 8011 had
been dismantled. Additionally, a
Connecticut ‘‘Order Closure’’ dated May
4, 2016, indicates that Dow no longer
owns or operates equipment covered by
Order 8011, and that the VOC emitting
equipment remaining at the facility
operated by the entities mentioned
above are subject to similar regulatory
limits which, in most cases, were
transferred to the new owners.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a
SIP revision request on July 15, 2016,
asking that the Order 8011 be removed
from the Connecticut SIP. The state
provided public notice and an
opportunity to comment on its intent to
revise the SIP. Since the VOC emitting
equipment subject to the Order 8011 has
either been removed from the facility or
is covered by other regulatory
requirements that are at least as
stringent as that required by Order 8011,
the CAA Section 110(l) anti-back sliding
requirements and the CAA section 193
General Savings Clause requirements
have been met. Therefore, we are
approving Connecticut’s request, and
removing the order from the
Connecticut SIP.
7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky
Aircraft
Connecticut issued Consent Order
8010 to Sikorsky Aircraft located in
Stratford, Connecticut, in 1988. The
order was issued to establish VOC
RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA
section 22a–174–20(ee). Subsequently,
in 1995, Connecticut added Addendum
A to the order to set coating limits for
the facility. Addendum B was also
added to the order, providing emission
reduction credits as a result of degreaser
shutdowns. Connecticut submitted
Order 8010 and both addenda to EPA as
a SIP revision request, which EPA
approved on February 9, 1998. See 63
FR 6484.
Subsequent to the issuance of the
order and addenda, Connecticut issued
Order 8246 to Sikorsky on October 31,
2003, to reflect updated operating
conditions and regulations applicable to
the facility. Order 8246 required
Sikorsky to limit VOC emissions to the
emission limits specified within 22a–
174–20(s), with the exception of the
limits for the coating of the exterior
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
surface of assembled aircraft, as the
facility could not meet that limit.
Therefore, Order 8246 provided a
method of compliance for the facility’s
use of exterior aircraft coatings through
the generation and use of VOC emission
reduction credits to offset excess
emissions.
Subsequent to the issuance of Order
8246, Connecticut adopted amendments
to 22a–174–20(s). EPA approved the
amendments to RCSA 22a–174–20(s)
into the Connecticut SIP on June 9,
2014. See 79 FR 32873. The
amendments incorporated VOC content
limits for coatings from EPA’s aerospace
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
(see 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), and
EPA’s aerospace control techniques
guideline (see EPA–453/R–97–004,
December 1997). By letter dated January
30, 2014, Sikorsky documented that all
coatings used at the facility meet the
requirements of the amended version of
22a–174–20(s). Since the facility
demonstrated that it can meet the limits
within 22a–174–20(s), compliance via
the generation and use of VOC emission
reduction credits is no longer necessary.
On May 4, 2016, Connecticut closed
out the order because it had become
obsolete, primarily due to the state’s
adoption of amendments to RCSA 22a–
174–20(s). Connecticut submitted a
withdrawal request to EPA for Order
8010 on July 15, 2016, asking that it be
removed from the Connecticut SIP. The
state offered a notice of opportunity for
public hearing on this SIP withdrawal
request on March 18, 2016. Since the
current SIP requirements are at least as
stringent as those in Order 8010, the
CAA Section 110(l) anti-back sliding
requirements and the CAA section 193
General Savings Clause requirements
have been met. Therefore, we are
approving Connecticut’s request, and
removing the order from the
Connecticut SIP.
In addition, although Connecticut had
previously submitted Order 8246 for
Sikorsky to EPA as a SIP revision
request, this request was later
withdrawn by letter dated July 21, 2016,
prior to EPA taking action on it.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving, and incorporating
into the Connecticut SIP, single source
orders that establish VOC RACT
requirements for Mallace Industries and
Hamilton Sundstrand. EPA is also
removing from the Connecticut SIP
previously approved orders for Pfizer
Global Manufacturing, Coats North
America, Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Watson Laboratories, Pratt and Whitney
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Aircraft, Dow Chemical, and Sikorsky
Aircraft.
The 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 to approve the SIP revision
should relevant adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective June 30,
2017 without further notice unless the
Agency receives relevant adverse
comments by May 31, 2017.
If the EPA receives such comments,
then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
the proposed rule. All parties interested
in commenting on the proposed rule
should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is
advised that this rule will be effective
on June 30, 2017 and no further action
will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is incorporating by reference
VOC RACT orders for Mallace
Industries and Hamilton Sunstrand, as
previously discussed in section II in this
rulemaking. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20265
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 nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because
this is a rule of particular applicability,
EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under
section 801.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 30, 2017.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 27, 2016.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
20266
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart H—Connecticut
2. Section 52.370 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(48)(i)(C),
(c)(51)(i)(D), (c)(52)(i)(D), (c)(53)(i)(C),
(c)(55)(i)(B), (c)(60)(i)(C), (c)(96)(i)(E),
and (c)(115) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.370
Identification of plan
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(48) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8011, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(48)(i)(B), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(C).
*
*
*
*
*
(51) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) State Order No. 8014, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(51)(i)(B), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(D).
(52) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) State Order No. 8021, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(52)(i)(B), and
appendices C and D to State Order No.
8021, which were approved in
paragraph (c)(52)(C), are removed
without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(E).
(53) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8009, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(53)(i)(B), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(F).
*
*
*
*
*
(55) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8032, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(G).
*
*
*
*
*
(60) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8010, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(60)(i)(B), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(H).
*
*
*
*
*
(96) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) State Order No. 8200, which was
approved in paragraph (c)(96)(i)(C), is
removed without replacement; see
paragraph (c)(115)(i)(I).
*
*
*
*
*
(115) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection on July 1,
2004, January 13, 2006, November 15,
2011, and July 15, 2016.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) State of Connecticut vs. Mallace
Industries Corporation, Consent Order
No. 8258, issued as a final order on
September 13, 2005.
(B) State of Connecticut vs. Hamilton
Sundstrand, a United Technologies
Company, Order No. 8029A, issued as a
final order on September 3, 2009.
(C) State Order No. 8011, and attached
Compliance Timetable and Appendix A
(allowable limits by product
classification) for Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, issued as
State Order No. 8011, effective on
October 27, 1988, and approved in
paragraph (c)(48(i)(B) is removed
without replacement.
(D) State Order No. 8014, and
attached Compliance Timetable for Pratt
& Whitney Division of United
Technologies Corporation in East
Hartford, Connecticut, issued as State
Order No. 8014, effective on March 22,
1989, and approved in paragraph
(c)(51)(i)(B) is removed without
replacement.
(E) State Order No. 8021, and attached
Compliance Timetable, and Appendix A
(allowable limits on small, uncontrolled
vents and allowable outlet gas
temperatures for surface condensers) for
Pfizer, Incorporated in Groton,
Connecticut, issued as State Order No.
8021, effective on December 2, 1988,
and approved in paragraph (c)(52)(i)B)
is removed without replacement.
(F) State Order No. 8009, and attached
Compliance Timetable, Appendix A,
Appendix B, and Appendix C for
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. in
Naugatuck, Connecticut, issued as State
Order No. 8009, effective on September
5, 1989, and approved in paragraph
(c)(53)(i)(B), is removed without
replacement.
(G) State Order No. 8032, and
attached Compliance Timetable for the
Heminway & Bartlett Manufacturing
Company in Watertown, Connecticut,
issued as State Order No. 8032, effective
on November 29, 1989, and approved in
paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B), is removed
without replacement.
(H) State Order No. 8010, for Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, effective on
January 29, 1990, as well as Addendum
A and Addendum B to Order No. 8010,
effective on February 7, 1996 and
September 29, 1995, respectively, issued
as State Order No. 8010, and two
addenda, define and impose RACT on
certain VOC emissions at Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation in Stratford,
Connecticut, and approved in paragraph
(c)(60)(i)(B) is removed without
replacement.
(I) State Order No. 8200, issued by the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection to Watson
Laboratories, Inc., effective October 3,
2002, and approved in paragraph
(c)(96)(i)(C) is removed without
replacement.
(ii) Additional materials. [Reserved]
3. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is
amended by adding two entries for
existing state citation 22a–174–32 to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut
regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS
Dates
Title/subject
*
22a–174–32
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Connecticut
state citation
*
Reasonably available
control technology for
volatile organic compounds.
Reasonably available
control technology for
volatile organic compounds.
22a–174–32
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Date adopted
by State
Date approved
by EPA
Section
52.370
Comments/description
*
9/13/05
*
5/1/17
*
[Insert Federal Register
citation].
*
(c)(115) ......
*
VOC RACT for Mallace
Industries
9/3/09
5/1/17
[Insert Federal Register
citation].
(c)(115) ......
VOC RACT for Hamilton
Sundstrand
*
Jkt 241001
Federal Register citation
PO 00000
*
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
*
01MYR1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2017–08647 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0702; FRL–9961–36–
Region 9]
Approval of Arizona Air Plan
Revisions, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality and Pinal
County Air Quality Control District
pollution sources under the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) and the Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (PCAQCD).
These revisions concern emissions of
particulate matter (PM) from
construction sites, agricultural activity
and other fugitive dust sources. We are
approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).
These rules will be effective on
May 31, 2017.
DATES:
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0702. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
ADDRESSES:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions include a state statute and
certain state rules that govern air
SUMMARY:
20267
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly-available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Final Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Final Action
On January 9, 2017, 82 FR 2305, the
EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the Arizona SIP:
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
PCAQCD .........................
Chapter 4—Article
1.
Chapter 4—Article
3.
Fugitive Dust .................................................................................
10/28/15
12/21/15
Construction Sites—Fugitive Dust ................................................
10/28/15
12/21/15
Arizona revised statutes
(ARS)
Statute #
Statute title
ARS .................................
§ 49–424 ...............
Duties of Department ....................................................................
Arizona administrative
code (AAC) rule number
AAC #
AAC title
AAC .................................
R18–2–210 ...........
AAC .................................
R18–2–610 ...........
AAC .................................
R18–2–610.03 ......
AAC .................................
AAC .................................
R18–2–612 ...........
R18–2–612.01 ......
AAC .................................
Appendix 2 ...........
Attainment, Nonattainment, and Unclassifiable Area Designations.
Definitions for R18–2–610.01, R18–2–610.02, and R18–2–
610.03.
Agricultural PM General Permit for Crop Operations; Pinal
County PM Nonattainment Area.
Definitions for R18–2–612.01 .......................................................
Agricultural PM General Permit for Irrigation Districts; PM Nonattainment Areas Designated After June 1, 2009.
Test Methods and Protocols .........................................................
PCAQCD .........................
We proposed to approve these rules
because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules
and our evaluation.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. We
received no comments during this
period.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted.
Therefore, as authorized in section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Apr 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully
approving these rules into the Arizona
SIP.
EPA notes that R18–2–610.03, Section
F, and R18–2–612.01, Section E, allow
commercial farmers and irrigation
districts to develop BMPs different than
those in the July 2, 2015 version of the
rules and to submit alternatives ‘‘that
are proven effective through on-farm
demonstration trials’’ to the AgBMP
Committee. These provisions also state
that alternative BMPs ‘‘shall not become
effective unless submitted as described
in A.R.S. § 49–457(L),’’ and ARS § 49–
457(L) in turn provides that approved
alternative BMPs must be submitted to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Adopted
Effective date
4/18/14
Amended/
effective date
Submitted
Submitted
12/21/15
Submitted
07/02/15
12/21/15
07/02/15
12/21/15
07/02/15
12/21/15
07/02/15
07/02/15
12/21/15
12/21/15
07/02/15
12/21/15
EPA as a SIP revision.1 EPA
understands these provisions to
establish the point at which alternative
BMPs may take effect as a matter of state
law. For alternative BMPs to take effect
as a matter of federal law, the State of
Arizona must submit them to EPA as a
revision to the SIP, and EPA must
complete a notice and comment
1 ARS 49–457(L) provides: ‘‘The [Ag BMP]
committee may periodically reexamine, evaluate
and modify best management practices. Any
approved modifications shall be submitted to the
United States environmental protection agency (sic)
as a revision to the applicable implementation
plan.’’
E:\FR\FM\01MYR1.SGM
01MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20262-20267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08647]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0648; A-1-FRL-9958-37-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source Orders
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Connecticut. The revisions establish reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for two facilities that emit volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in the state. Additionally, we are also approving
Connecticut's request to withdraw seven previously-approved single
source orders from the SIP. This action is being taken in accordance
with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 30, 2017, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 31, 2017. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2016-0648 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email Anne Arnold
at: arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Submittals
1. Order for Mallace Industries
2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand
III. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Withdrawal
Requests
1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global Manufacturing
2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North America
3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal Chemical Company
4. Withdrawal Request for Watson Laboratories
5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
6. Withdrawal Request for Dow Chemical
7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky Aircraft
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR), as well as moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas,
to implement RACT for major sources of volatile organic compounds.
Connecticut is in the OTR and the state is currently designated
nonattainment and classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone standard.
See 40 CFR 81.307.
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(CT DEEP) submitted to EPA two single source orders establishing RACT
for sources of VOCs for incorporation into the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan (SIP), and also submitted requests to withdraw from
the SIP seven previously-approved orders. The two orders submitted for
approval are Consent Order 8001, issued to Mallace Industries, located
in Clinton, Connecticut, submitted to EPA on January 13, 2006, and
Consent Order 8029, issued to Hamilton Sundstrand, located in Windsor
Locks, Connecticut, submitted to EPA on November 15, 2011. The seven
withdrawal requests are for the following previously-approved Consent
Orders: Order 8021 issued to Pfizer Global Manufacturing; Order 8032
issued to Heminway and Bartlett Company (which was subsequently renamed
Coats North America); Order 8009 issued to Uniroyal Chemical Company;
Order 8200 issued to Watson Laboratories; Order 8014 issued to Pratt &
Whitney Aircraft; Order 8011 issued to the Dow Chemical Company; and
Order 8010 issued to Sikorsky Aircraft.
A description of these submittals and our evaluation of them
appears below in Section II of this document.
II. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Submittals
1. Order for Mallace Industries
Consent Order 8001 was issued to Frismar, Incorporated, located in
Clinton, Connecticut, on October 19, 1987, pursuant to section 22a-174-
20(cc) of the Regulations of Connecticut
[[Page 20263]]
State Agencies (RCSA),\1\ which at the time was the state's alternative
emission reduction mechanism for sources that could not otherwise meet
prescribed RACT measures. Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a
SIP revision request, and EPA approved the order on November 28, 1989.
See 54 FR 48885. Subsequently, ownership of the facility changed to
Mallace Industries, and on September 13, 2005, Connecticut issued
Consent Order 8258 to Mallace to maintain the appropriate, enforceable
operating conditions contained within Order 8001, and to reflect the
new ownership and current operating conditions. Consent Order 8258
contains a lower annual cap for one of the two paper coating machines
at the facility, lowering its annual emissions cap from 34.0 tons to
15.9 tons. With this restriction, the source's total emissions will be
below the 50 tons per year major source RACT applicability threshold.
The order contains daily, monthly, and annual recordkeeping
requirements, and the facility is required to submit a report to the
state annually that includes a summary of the monthly VOC emissions for
the facility. Connecticut held a public hearing on Consent Order 8258
on January 6, 2006, and by letter dated January 13, 2006, submitted the
order to EPA as a SIP revision request. Since Consent Order 8258 has a
lower cap on emissions than the previously SIP-approved order for this
facility, the anti-back sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of the
CAA have been met. Therefore, we are approving the order into the
Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP.
See 47 FR 24452; June 7, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Order for Hamilton Sundstrand
Consent Order 8029 was issued to Hamilton Standard, located in
Windsor Locks, Connecticut, on December 22, 1989, pursuant to RCSA
section 22a-174-20(ee).\2\ Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a
SIP revision request, which EPA approved on March 12, 1990. See 55 FR
9121. Subsequently, the facility determined that potential VOC
emissions from test rigs were also subject to VOC RACT. Since the
original order did not cover this equipment, Connecticut issued an
amended order, Consent Order 8029A, to supersede the original order.
Consent Order 8029A maintains the appropriate, enforceable operating
conditions contained within Order 8029, and contains additional VOC
limits for calibration fluids used in the facility's test rigs.
Connecticut held a public hearing on Consent Order 8029A on August 24,
2011, and by letter dated November 15, 2011, submitted the order to EPA
as a SIP revision request. Since the order contains additional emission
reduction requirements beyond the previously SIP-approved order for
this facility, the anti-back sliding requirements of Section 110(l) of
the CAA have been met. Therefore, we are approving the order into the
Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP.
See 49 FR 41026; October 19, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause applies to
the above two orders since they were approved into the Connecticut SIP
prior to the CAA amendments of 1990. Section 193 of the CAA prohibits
any control measure in effect in a nonattainment area prior to the
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to be modified after enactment,
unless such modification yields equivalent or greater emission
reductions. Our review of the updated orders issued to Mallace
Industries and Hamilton Sundstrand indicates that they meet this
requirement.
III. Description and Evaluation of VOC RACT Order Withdrawal Requests
1. Withdrawal Request for Pfizer Global Manufacturing
In 1988, Connecticut issued Consent Order 8021 to Pfizer
Incorporated, located in Groton, Connecticut, to establish VOC RACT
requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). The state
submitted this order to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved
it into the Connecticut SIP on November 30, 1989. See 54 FR 49284.
During an inspection conducted on September 3, 2002, Connecticut
confirmed that the manufacturing operations covered by Order 8021 had
been permanently discontinued. Furthermore, within an April 23, 2003
letter to Connecticut, Pfizer notified the agency that it no longer
intended to manufacture any of the products subject to Order 8021,
making the order obsolete. By letter dated July 1, 2004, Connecticut
requested that Order 8021 be withdrawn from the SIP. The state held a
public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on January 15, 2004, and
we are approving the request and removing the order from the
Connecticut SIP. For facilities such as this, as well as those
described in sections III.2, III.3, and III.4 below, where operations
have been permanently discontinued (i.e., equipment has been removed)
and this fact has been confirmed by inspection, the CAA section 110(l)
anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings
Clause requirements have been met as there are no longer any emissions
from these operations.
2. Withdrawal Request for Coats North America
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8032 to the Heminway and Bartlett
Company, located in Watertown, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was
issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-
174-20(ee), and an amended order was issued to update the ownership and
operating conditions at the facility in 2004. Subsequent to the
issuance of the amended order, the facility shut down, which
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on May 13, 2005.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January
13, 2006, asking that the order, which EPA approved into the
Connecticut SIP on March 12, 1990 (see 55 FR 9442), be removed from the
Connecticut SIP. The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal
request on January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and
removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.
3. Withdrawal Request for Uniroyal Chemical Company
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8009 to the Uniroyal Chemical
Company, located in Naugatuck, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was
issued to establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-
174-20(ee). Connecticut submitted Order 8009 to EPA as a SIP revision
request, which EPA approved on December 22, 1989. See 54 FR 52798.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order, the facility shut down, which
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on August 26, 2004.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January
13, 2006, asking that the order be removed from the Connecticut SIP.
The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on
January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and removing the
order from the Connecticut SIP.
4. Withdrawal Request for Watson Laboratories
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8200 to Watson Laboratories,
located in Danbury, Connecticut, in 2002. The order was issued to
establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-
32(e)(6).\3\ Connecticut
[[Page 20264]]
submitted Order 8200 to EPA as a SIP revision request, and EPA approved
the Order on October 24, 2005. See 70 FR 61384. Subsequent to the
issuance of the order, the facility shut down, which Connecticut
confirmed by an inspection conducted on September 13, 2005.
Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request on January
13, 2006, asking that the order be removed from the Connecticut SIP.
The state held a public hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on
January 6, 2006, and we are approving the request and removing the
order from the Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This regulation has been approved into the Connecticut SIP.
See 65 FR 62620; October 19, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Withdrawal Request for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8014 to Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
located in East Hartford, Connecticut, in 1989. The order was issued to
establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-
20(ee). Connecticut submitted the order to EPA as a SIP revision
request, and EPA approved the Order on May 30, 1989. See 54 FR 22890.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order, Connecticut adopted
regulations limiting VOC emissions from the equipment and activity
covered by Order 8014, and the facility ceased operation of most
activity covered by the order. Specifically, the degreasers covered by
Order 8014 have all been removed from the facility. Additionally, in
2010, Connecticut adopted section 22a-174-20(ii) defining RACT for hand
wiping operations. These requirements were approved by EPA on June 9,
2014 (see 79 FR 32873) and are at least as stringent as those within
Order 8014. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request
on July 15, 2016, asking that Order 8014 be removed from the
Connecticut SIP. The state offered a notice of opportunity for public
hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on March 18, 2016. Since the
newer SIP-approved regulatory requirements are at least as stringent as
the previously SIP-approved order, the CAA section 110(l) anti-back
sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General Savings Clause
requirements have been met. Therefore, we are approving the state's
request and removing the Order 8014 from the Connecticut SIP.
6. Withdrawal Request for Dow Chemical
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8011 to the Dow Chemical Company
located in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, in 1988. The order was issued to
establish VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-
20(ee). Connecticut submitted Order 8011 to EPA as a SIP revision
request, and EPA approved the Order on March 8, 1989. See 54 FR 9781.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order, Dow shut down portions of its
manufacturing operation, and transferred other portions of its
manufacturing operations to Trinseo, LLC, and Americas Styrenics, LLC.
Connecticut confirmed by an inspection conducted on August 1, 2011,
that portions of the manufacturing operations covered by Order 8011 had
been dismantled. Additionally, a Connecticut ``Order Closure'' dated
May 4, 2016, indicates that Dow no longer owns or operates equipment
covered by Order 8011, and that the VOC emitting equipment remaining at
the facility operated by the entities mentioned above are subject to
similar regulatory limits which, in most cases, were transferred to the
new owners. Accordingly, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision request
on July 15, 2016, asking that the Order 8011 be removed from the
Connecticut SIP. The state provided public notice and an opportunity to
comment on its intent to revise the SIP. Since the VOC emitting
equipment subject to the Order 8011 has either been removed from the
facility or is covered by other regulatory requirements that are at
least as stringent as that required by Order 8011, the CAA Section
110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA section 193 General
Savings Clause requirements have been met. Therefore, we are approving
Connecticut's request, and removing the order from the Connecticut SIP.
7. Withdrawal Request for Sikorsky Aircraft
Connecticut issued Consent Order 8010 to Sikorsky Aircraft located
in Stratford, Connecticut, in 1988. The order was issued to establish
VOC RACT requirements pursuant to RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee).
Subsequently, in 1995, Connecticut added Addendum A to the order to set
coating limits for the facility. Addendum B was also added to the
order, providing emission reduction credits as a result of degreaser
shutdowns. Connecticut submitted Order 8010 and both addenda to EPA as
a SIP revision request, which EPA approved on February 9, 1998. See 63
FR 6484.
Subsequent to the issuance of the order and addenda, Connecticut
issued Order 8246 to Sikorsky on October 31, 2003, to reflect updated
operating conditions and regulations applicable to the facility. Order
8246 required Sikorsky to limit VOC emissions to the emission limits
specified within 22a-174-20(s), with the exception of the limits for
the coating of the exterior surface of assembled aircraft, as the
facility could not meet that limit. Therefore, Order 8246 provided a
method of compliance for the facility's use of exterior aircraft
coatings through the generation and use of VOC emission reduction
credits to offset excess emissions.
Subsequent to the issuance of Order 8246, Connecticut adopted
amendments to 22a-174-20(s). EPA approved the amendments to RCSA 22a-
174-20(s) into the Connecticut SIP on June 9, 2014. See 79 FR 32873.
The amendments incorporated VOC content limits for coatings from EPA's
aerospace National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) (see 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), and EPA's aerospace control
techniques guideline (see EPA-453/R-97-004, December 1997). By letter
dated January 30, 2014, Sikorsky documented that all coatings used at
the facility meet the requirements of the amended version of 22a-174-
20(s). Since the facility demonstrated that it can meet the limits
within 22a-174-20(s), compliance via the generation and use of VOC
emission reduction credits is no longer necessary.
On May 4, 2016, Connecticut closed out the order because it had
become obsolete, primarily due to the state's adoption of amendments to
RCSA 22a-174-20(s). Connecticut submitted a withdrawal request to EPA
for Order 8010 on July 15, 2016, asking that it be removed from the
Connecticut SIP. The state offered a notice of opportunity for public
hearing on this SIP withdrawal request on March 18, 2016. Since the
current SIP requirements are at least as stringent as those in Order
8010, the CAA Section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirements and the CAA
section 193 General Savings Clause requirements have been met.
Therefore, we are approving Connecticut's request, and removing the
order from the Connecticut SIP.
In addition, although Connecticut had previously submitted Order
8246 for Sikorsky to EPA as a SIP revision request, this request was
later withdrawn by letter dated July 21, 2016, prior to EPA taking
action on it.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP,
single source orders that establish VOC RACT requirements for Mallace
Industries and Hamilton Sundstrand. EPA is also removing from the
Connecticut SIP previously approved orders for Pfizer Global
Manufacturing, Coats North America, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Watson
Laboratories, Pratt and Whitney
[[Page 20265]]
Aircraft, Dow Chemical, and Sikorsky Aircraft.
The 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 to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June
30, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by May 31, 2017.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on June 30, 2017 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is incorporating by reference VOC RACT orders for Mallace
Industries and Hamilton Sunstrand, as previously discussed in section
II in this rulemaking. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 27, 2016.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 20266]]
Subpart H--Connecticut
0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(48)(i)(C),
(c)(51)(i)(D), (c)(52)(i)(D), (c)(53)(i)(C), (c)(55)(i)(B),
(c)(60)(i)(C), (c)(96)(i)(E), and (c)(115) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(48) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8011, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(48)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(C).
* * * * *
(51) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) State Order No. 8014, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(51)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(D).
(52) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) State Order No. 8021, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(52)(i)(B), and appendices C and D to State Order No. 8021, which
were approved in paragraph (c)(52)(C), are removed without replacement;
see paragraph (c)(115)(i)(E).
(53) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8009, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(53)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(F).
* * * * *
(55) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8032, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(55)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(G).
* * * * *
(60) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) State Order No. 8010, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(60)(i)(B), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(H).
* * * * *
(96) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) State Order No. 8200, which was approved in paragraph
(c)(96)(i)(C), is removed without replacement; see paragraph
(c)(115)(i)(I).
* * * * *
(115) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on July
1, 2004, January 13, 2006, November 15, 2011, and July 15, 2016.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) State of Connecticut vs. Mallace Industries Corporation,
Consent Order No. 8258, issued as a final order on September 13, 2005.
(B) State of Connecticut vs. Hamilton Sundstrand, a United
Technologies Company, Order No. 8029A, issued as a final order on
September 3, 2009.
(C) State Order No. 8011, and attached Compliance Timetable and
Appendix A (allowable limits by product classification) for Dow
Chemical, U.S.A. in Gales Ferry, Connecticut, issued as State Order No.
8011, effective on October 27, 1988, and approved in paragraph
(c)(48(i)(B) is removed without replacement.
(D) State Order No. 8014, and attached Compliance Timetable for
Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies Corporation in East
Hartford, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8014, effective on
March 22, 1989, and approved in paragraph (c)(51)(i)(B) is removed
without replacement.
(E) State Order No. 8021, and attached Compliance Timetable, and
Appendix A (allowable limits on small, uncontrolled vents and allowable
outlet gas temperatures for surface condensers) for Pfizer,
Incorporated in Groton, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8021,
effective on December 2, 1988, and approved in paragraph (c)(52)(i)B)
is removed without replacement.
(F) State Order No. 8009, and attached Compliance Timetable,
Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C for Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Inc. in Naugatuck, Connecticut, issued as State Order No. 8009,
effective on September 5, 1989, and approved in paragraph
(c)(53)(i)(B), is removed without replacement.
(G) State Order No. 8032, and attached Compliance Timetable for the
Heminway & Bartlett Manufacturing Company in Watertown, Connecticut,
issued as State Order No. 8032, effective on November 29, 1989, and
approved in paragraph (c)(55)(i)(B), is removed without replacement.
(H) State Order No. 8010, for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,
effective on January 29, 1990, as well as Addendum A and Addendum B to
Order No. 8010, effective on February 7, 1996 and September 29, 1995,
respectively, issued as State Order No. 8010, and two addenda, define
and impose RACT on certain VOC emissions at Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut, and approved in paragraph
(c)(60)(i)(B) is removed without replacement.
(I) State Order No. 8200, issued by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection to Watson Laboratories, Inc., effective
October 3, 2002, and approved in paragraph (c)(96)(i)(C) is removed
without replacement.
(ii) Additional materials. [Reserved]
0
3. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding two entries for
existing state citation 22a-174-32 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
-------------------------------- Comments/
Connecticut state citation Title/subject Date adopted Date approved Federal Register citation Section 52.370 description
by State by EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
22a-174-32.................... Reasonably 9/13/05 5/1/17 [Insert Federal Register (c)(115)........ VOC RACT for
available citation]. Mallace
control Industries
technology for
volatile organic
compounds.
22a-174-32.................... Reasonably 9/3/09 5/1/17 [Insert Federal Register (c)(115)........ VOC RACT for
available citation]. Hamilton
control Sundstrand
technology for
volatile organic
compounds.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20267]]
[FR Doc. 2017-08647 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P