EPA ANTIMICROBIALS DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA ANTIMICROBIALS DIVISION CONTACT: VELMA NOBLE,<PHONE_NUMBER>
EPA INERT INGREDIENTS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CONTACT: P.V. SHAH,<PHONE_NUMBER>

The informative summary, which may be published in accordance with Section 2, is provided separately in both hard and electronic copy in the current Notice of Filing template format.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a pesticide petition from The Clorox Company ("Clorox"), 1221 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612-1888 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.940 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Saturated Aliphatic Acyclic Linear Primary Alcohols, Aldehydes and Acids when used as fragrances in formulations used on food-contact surfaces when applied/used in indoor residential settings at a maximum rate of 0.025%.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data and information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The low-molecular weight saturated aliphatic primary alcohols, aldehydes and acids are ubiquitous in nature and these compounds have been found in the vast majority of all fruits and vegetables and their associated fats and oils, animal tissue and fats and beverages.  These compounds collectively have use as conventional, biochemical and antimicrobial pesticides in addition to being used as both flavoring and fragrance agents.  In most cases, exposures from natural sources exceed those from use as a flavor compound or a fragrance component.  Some group members (such as propionic acid) are endogenous and normal products of mammalian metabolism and all are readily and rapidly metabolized to innocuous products that are either excreted or incorporated into biomolecules.  The Congener group members all pose low toxicity to mammals, are readily biodegradable, and have a safe history of use.  Both the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Flavor Extract Manufacturers' Association (FEMA) have evaluated every member of the Congener group for use as a flavor compound.  All Congener group members are listed in the regulations at either 21 CFR 172, 21 CFR 182 or 21 CFR 184 governing Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption, Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) or Direct Food Substances Affirmed as GRAS, respectively.  Every Congener group member is on the EPA Fragrance Ingredient List (a list of inert fragrance ingredients approved for non-food use).  At least one Congener group member (valeric acid) has been "reassessed" as an inert ingredient.

A. Plant metabolism. Because Clorox is petitioning for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, plant metabolism data are not needed.

Analytical method. Because Clorox is petitioning for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, an enforcement analytical method is not needed.

Magnitude of residues. Because Clorox is petitioning for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, residue data are not needed; however, estimates of residue magnitude from use of indoor food contact sanitizing solutions are presented herein. Assuming a maximal concentration of 0.025% in a food-contact sanitizing solution, a summary of these residues is as follows:

                                Child Resident
                                Adult Resident
Dermal exposure/non-dietary
0.68 ug/kg BW/day
(see RES-2)
Dermal exposure/non-dietary (during application)
0.33 ug/kg BW/day
(see RES-1)
Incidental ingestion/non-dietary
1.4 ug/kg BW/day
(see RES-3)

Oral ingestion/dietary
1 ug/kg BW/day
(see RES-4)
Oral ingestion/dietary
0.36 ug/kg BW/day
(see RES-4)
TOTAL
3.1 ug/kg BW/day
TOTAL
                              0.69 ug/kg BW/day

B.   Toxicological profile:

Linear aliphatic acyclic alcohols, aldehydes and carboxylic acids are absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract and rapidly metabolized.  Following absorption, alcohols are oxidized to their corresponding aldehyde, and aldehydes are oxidized to corresponding carboxylic acids via enzyme pathways with a high capacity (i.e. fatty acid and tricarboxylic acid cycles, which are a fundamental mechanism of cell biochemistry).  Fatty acids are endogenous and essential dietary components.  Short- and medium-chain fatty acids are converted rapidly to carbon dioxide and water in the mitochondria of liver and other tissues.  Fatty acids taken up by tissues can be stored chiefly as triglycerides in adipose tissue or oxidized for energy via the above pathways.  Some aliphatic acids undergo beta-oxidation to yield products that are then further metabolized by the fatty acid cycle.  In general, the fatty acid pathway converts aliphatic alcohols and aldehydes to acetyl Coenzyme A units, which then enter the tricarboxylic acid cycle (i.e. citric acid cycle, or most commonly "Krebs cycle").  The Krebs cycle is a series of reactions through which aerobic organisms make energy from carbohydrates, fats and proteins.

Acute toxicity.  Linear aliphatic alcohols, aldehydes and carboxylic acids exhibit low acute toxicity.  Available oral or gavage studies in rodents (mainly rats) indicate LD50 values ranging from 720 to in excess of 20,000 mg/kg BW.  This is expected given the rapid and complete metabolism the Congener group members undergo in vivo.
Genotoxicity.  Available in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies for the saturated aliphatic acyclic linear primary alcohols, aldehydes, and carboxylic acids generally exhibited consistent negative results in the Ames assay, the unscheduled DNA synthesis test, and in vitro or in vivo mouse micronucleus test.  However, genotoxic activity has been reported for some low molecular weight alcohols, carboxylic acids and aldehydes, including in the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay, the chromosomal aberration test and the forward mutation assays with mouse lymphoma and Chinese hamster lung cells. The positive results from the in vitro genotoxicity assays for aliphatic aldehydes is likely due to reactivity of the aldehyde functional group.
Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  There is no evidence to conclude that oral ingestion of the Congener group as fragrance ingredients would be associated with reproductive or developmental toxicity, particularly in the light of low acute and chronic toxicity, rapid metabolism and low and infrequent exposure.
Subchronic and chronic toxicity.  The alcohols and aldehydes display slightly greater relative toxicity than the acids (which overall is quite low for the entire Congener group), and this is to expected as these classes must be metabolized to acids prior to complete degradation to water and carbon dioxide.  As seen with the acute toxicity data, the repeat-dose toxicity for the Congener group members is fairly consistent when route of exposure, species differences, etc. are taken into account.

   The toxicity data for the aldehydes are largely derived from either Komsta et al. (1988) or Trubek (1958), which were all done on murine species where no effect was found at the highest dose for several chemicals and the resultant no-observed effect levels (NOELs) range from > 112 to > 166 mg/kg BW/day.  In one instance (acetaldehyde), a NOEL and a low-observed effect level (LOEL) of 125 and 625, respectively, were reported based on rat forestomach irritation. Given that there is no analogous structure in humans, others have adjusted no-effect levels based on rat forestomach irritation for human equivalency.  For nonanoic acid, a NOEL of 150 mg/kg BW/day based on forestomach irritation was adjusted to a human NOEL of 1,000.  (See description below.)  Furthermore, the High Production Volume Challenge submission for the C7-C9 aldehydes speculated that the NOEL for all the aldehydes in the category should likely be in excess of 300.

   The toxicity data for the alcohols demonstrate similar toxic potential in dog and rabbit in addition to rodents that are of the same magnitude as the aldehydes.  Available gavage studies indicate that this route of exposure results in lower NOELs (greater toxicity to experimental animal), although two of the three available gavage studies did not find effects at the highest dose (ranging from > 50 to > 180).  Available dietary studies cover rat, dog and rabbit and range from 695 to 1,000.

   The best coverage of the three groups is found among the acids, with all but one study (rabbit) done in the rat and as a result, the data set is remarkably consistent.  Again, exposure via gavage results in lower NOELs (ranging from 1,000 to 1,750 in three studies) than the dietary studies (ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 in nine studies).  One study (acetic acid) was via unspecified oral route and did not observe effects at the only reported dose (> 350 mg/kg BW/day).
Carcinogenicity.  Overall, the Congener group poses low concern for carcinogenicity given several observations.  First, the Congener group displays consistent negative findings in the Ames test, unscheduled DNA synthesis and both in vivo and in vitro mouse micronucleus tests. Second, the aliphatic aldehydes (for which there are several positive findings) are rapidly oxidized to acids that are metabolized via the citric acid cycle.  Third, some members of the Congener group are endogenous and products of normal metabolism.   Finally, exposures are infrequent and of low magnitude.
Endocrine effects.  A review of information from public sources, including the World Health Organization, the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that potential endocrine effects from exposure to members of the Congener group have not been studied. To the best of our knowledge, nothing in the available literature suggests that Congener group members are "endocrine disruptors" or mimic intrinsic hormonal activity.

C. Aggregate Exposure

The exposure assessment consisted of two parts, a dietary and a non-dietary assessment.  The dietary assessment included exposure to group constituents in food based on their use as flavoring additives and as naturally occurring substances.  The dietary assessment also included potential oral exposure to group constituents when used as fragrances in antimicrobial pesticides because it was assumed end-use products would be used on both food and non-food contact surfaces, therefore, an estimate of the potential exposure to a fragrance ingredient in antimicrobial residue that could migrate to food was included.

The non-dietary assessment included potential exposures to group constituents when end-use products are used on either food or non-food contact surfaces.  Based on review of the residential exposure assessments in recent Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents by EPA, it was concluded that dermal exposure to an adult resident applying a cleaning product to a surface, and a child exposed to this same surface post-application via dermal contact and incidental ingestion (i.e., hand-to-mouth contact), constitute the applicable scenarios and exposure routes with the greatest potential exposure.

Dietary and non-dietary exposures, as presented previously, were aggregated for short-term durations (i.e., 1-30 days) for all exposures, using available NOELs from sub-chronic oral toxicity studies (a repeat exposure study of at least 21 days).  This approach is consistent with the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) principles for aggregate risk assessment as well as JECFA's Procedure for Evaluating Flavor Ingredients.  Oral NOELs were used to assess potential risk from dermal absorption by conservatively assuming 100% dermal absorption and the same potential health effect whether exposed via the oral or dermal route. Health risk was estimated using margin of exposure (MOE) as the hazard metric.  Use of an MOE is particularly appropriate for chemicals whose underlying mechanism of toxicity involves a threshold process, where a NOEL is identified for a chemical, such as those identified for group constituents.

1. Dietary exposure - food.
      i.  Acute.  There are no acute dietary exposure concerns as the acute toxicity of the Congener group members is quite low and there is an extensive history of safe ingestion given virtually all the Congener group members are found naturally in foods and/or beverages.  An acute dietary risk assessment is not required, as further evidenced by waiving dietary assessment requirements for all EPA pesticide actions taken on Congener group members to date (i.e. propionic acid, aliphatic alcohols, octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, and decanoic acid all were not considered dietary risks).
      ii.  Chronic indirect.  Using a worst-case scenario, the exposure resulting from the use of Congener group members at the maximal concentration of 0.025% in a food-contact sanitizing solution would be 3.1 ug/kg BW/day for a 15-kg person (child) and 0.69 ug/kg BW/day for a 60-kg person (adult)  (0.59 ug/kg BW/day for a 70-kg adult).  This is generally well below levels found in naturally occurring sources in the diet.
      iii.  Chronic direct.  A typical adult ingests from < 1 to 39,700 ug/day of Congener group members via diet, all from naturally occurring sources in food and/or beverages.  See Table 6 for daily per capita intakes of individual Congener group members and refer to Section 6 for a description of methodology.  Exposure to Congener group members in specific food items, such as the ingestion of acetic acid through foods containing vinegar or propionic acid through foods containing the preservative calcium propionate, can exceed daily intakes via uses of flavors or fragrances, yet have demonstrated a history of safe ingestion.
2.	Drinking water exposure
      i.  Acute. There are no acute dietary exposure concerns via drinking water as the acute
      toxicity of the Congener group members is quite low and there is an extensive history of safe
      ingestion given virtually all the Congener group members are found naturally in
      foods and/or beverages.  A drinking water assessment is not required, as further evidenced by
      waiving dietary assessment requirements for all EPA pesticide actions taken on Congener
      group members to date (i.e. propionic acid, aliphatic alcohols, octanoic acid, nonanoic
      acid, and decanoic acid all were not considered risks via this pathway).
      ii.  Chronic.  There are no chronic dietary exposure concerns via drinking water as the acute
      toxicity of the Congener group members is quite low and there is an extensive history of safe
      ingestion given virtually all the Congener group members are found naturally in
      foods and/or beverages.  A drinking water assessment is not required, as further evidenced by
      waiving dietary assessment requirements for all EPA pesticide actions taken on Congener
      group members to date (i.e. propionic acid, aliphatic alcohols, octanoic acid,
      nonanoic acid, and decanoic acid all were not considered risks via this pathway).
3.	Nondietary exposure.  Non-dietary exposure to an adult during application of a food contact sanitizing solution was estimated to be 0.33 ug/kg BW/day.  Total non-dietary exposure to a child was determined from post-application contact with treated surfaces as well as incidental ingestion following hand-to-mouth contact.  The former exposure was estimated to be 0.68 ug/kg BW/day and the latter 1.4 ug/kg BW/day, for a total non-dietary exposure estimate of 2.08 ug/kg BW/day for a child resident.

D. Cumulative Effects - No cumulative adverse effects are expected from long-term exposure to the members of the Saturated Aliphatic Acyclic Linear Primary Alcohols, Aldehydes and Acids Congener Group.  Despite the fact that the members share common mechanisms of toxicity with one another, cumulative effects are not anticipated due to the low mammalian toxicity and very low levels of exposure.  The common mechanisms of toxicity in this case (i.e. tricarboxylic acid cycle, or "Krebs cycle") are well-studied high-throughput pathways.

E. Safety Determination

A "worst case" exposure analysis was performed on the individual members of Saturated Aliphatic Acyclic Linear Primary Alcohols, Aldehydes and Acids to generate margin of exposure (MOE) values for both the US population (as estimated by an adult exposed dermally during the indoor application of a food contact sanitizing solution) and children (as estimated by indoor post-application dermal and incidental oral exposure to 3 year old).  This analysis estimated the MOE via inert ingredients used as flavor or fragrance components of a food-contact sanitizing solution as well as by considering those compounds that contain structural features that permit no strong initial presumptions of safety or may suggest toxicological effects (Munro et al., 2008).  The MOE calculation for an individual fragrance component is based on the combined or "aggregated" oral intake of the component from natural occurrence, use as a flavor compound and use as a fragrance in food-contact sanitizing solutions intended for use in indoor residential settings. Subchronic/chronic no effect levels (NOELs) were the primary toxicity metric used in the analysis and were obtained from mostly JECFA and supplemented by EPA, Organiziation for Economic Copperation and Development (OECD), etc.  Potential dietary exposures to residues on food were estimated using the IDREAM model and non-dietary exposures were estimated and aggregated to determine total exposure from use of Congener group members in a pesticide formulation.  Detailed methodology was previously submitted to the Agency and subsequently approved by EPA staff.  Given the exposure methodology is intended to be protective of a 3-year old child, the findings of this conservative, assessment is protective of both general US population as well as infants and children.

      1. U.S. population. This conservative screening-level risk analysis demonstrates acceptable (i.e. 100 or greater) margins of exposure (MOEs) for the U.S. population even when considering total aggregate intake from potential exposures from natural occurrence, use as a flavor compound and, most importantly, dietary and non-dietary routes of exposure during and following application of a food-contact sanitizing solution used indoors.

      2. Infants and children. The risk assessment used an exposure scenario protective of a three-year-old child resident exposed to Congener group members from both dietary and non-dietary sources, including post-application exposure to residue following indoor use as a food-contact surface sanitizer. This conservative screening-level risk analysis demonstrates acceptable (i.e. 100 or greater) margins of exposure (MOEs) for infants and children.

F. International Tolerances - No Codex Alimentarius maximum residue levels have been established for any of the Saturated Aliphatic Acyclic Linear Primary Alcohols, Aldehydes and Acids Congener Group members.


Attorney General Statement Table
Subpart C:  Criteria For No Less Stringent

Attorney General's Statement of Applicable State Authorities

The following table contains references to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("RCSA") and the Connecticut General Statutes ("CGS") that provide the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ("DEEP") with the authority to enforce EPA's applicable statutory and regulatory provisions set forth in 40 CFR Part 280 and to administer a Underground Storage Tank ("UST") program that is no less stringent than the federal requirements as provided in 40 CFR Part 281 Subpart C.

Copies of RCSA that correspond to the regulatory requirements in 40 CFR Part 280 are provided in Appendix A and applicable provisions of the CGS are provided in Appendix B.

Overall, CGS § 22a-449(d) provides the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Safety, the authority to establish by regulations the criteria for the nonresidential underground storage of oil, petroleum and chemical liquids, which may include but not be limited to, standards and criteria for the design, installation, operation, maintenance and monitoring of facilities for the underground storage and handling of such liquids. The regulations shall establish such criteria, and the Commissioner shall enforce such regulations as necessary to carry out the intent of Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901, et seq.), as amended from time to time.  Regulations have been adopted by DEEP in accordance with this authority under RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-101 to 22a-449(d)-113, inclusive, with most recent amendments having an effective date of December 1 , 2021.

40 CFR Part 280 subpart C:  Criteria for No Less Stringent

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.30
New UST System Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 280, the state must have requirements that ensure all new UST systems conform with the following system design, construction, installation and notification criteria:
Corresponding State Rule Citations
State Statutory Citations
 USTs and piping in contact with the ground must be designed, constructed, and installed in a manner that will prevent releases for their operating life due to manufacturing defects, structural failure, or corrosion. Unless the state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification in accordance with section 9003(i)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), then the state must meet the following:
(1)  New or replaced tanks and piping must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with section 9003(i)(1) of SWDA except as follows:
  (i)          Underground piping associated with airport hydrant systems (AHS) or field constructed tanks (FCT) greater than 50,000 gallons; or
 Underground suction piping that meets
§281.33(d)(2)(ii).
 New motor fuel dispenser systems installed and connected to an UST system must be equipped with under dispenser containment in accordance with section 9003(i)(1) of SWDA.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(a)(3)(B)RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b)
RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-102(a)(3),(6),(7),(8),(11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17), and (18)

CGS § 22a-449o

(b) Tanks must be provided with equipment to prevent spills and tank overfills when new tanks are installed or existing tanks are upgraded, unless the tank does not receive more than 25 gallons at one time.  Flow restrictors used in vent lines are not allowable forms of overfill prevention when overfill prevention is installed or replaced.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(5)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(a)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b)

(c) Owners and operators must notify the implementing agency of any new UST system and notify within reasonable timeframe of assuming ownership of an UST.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(b)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(e)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b)
CGS § 22a-449(e)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.30 New UST System Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification:

Connecticut requires UST systems be properly designed and constructed, and any portion underground that routinely contains a regulated substance must be protected from corrosion as specified in applicable codes and standards, and must prevent the release of regulated substances during the operational life of the system.  Installation must be performed in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory; in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; by personnel possessing appropriate skills, experience, license and certified by the tank and line manufacturer, if applicable; be present at all times during the installation to ensure proper procedures are followed; and certify on the state registration, an annual notification form via EZFile that the installation of tanks and piping meet the requirements set forth in the RCSA and CGS.

Connecticut's statute broadly requires all USTs, including heating oil for onsite consumptive use installed on or after October 1, 2003 to be double-walled with interstitial monitoring.  This mandatory design requirement addresses secondary containment, release detection, and monitoring, representing improved integrity and release detection. Connecticut's statute also requires release detection for new UST installations and an annual notification for all USTs, except residential heating oil.

Connecticut requires tanks and piping installed on or after October 1, 2003, to use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment on tanks and piping pursuant to CGS § 22a-449o.  Fuel dispensers must be equipped with new under-dispenser containment sumps and new piping containment sumps in accordance with section 9003(i)(1) of SWDA.

The state regulations are more stringent than the corresponding federal regulation by requiring all tank installations to include new under dispenser containment sumps and new piping containment sumps on or after August 8, 2012.

Connecticut prohibits the use of airport hydrant fuel systems and field-constructed tanks in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.30(a)(b), and (c) given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.31
Upgrading existing UST Systems

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have requirements that ensure existing UST systems are upgraded to conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citations
State Statutory Citations
The state must have requirements that ensure existing UST systems meet the requirements of 40 CFR 281.30; are upgraded to prevent releases for their operating life due to corrosion, spills or overfills; or are permanently closed with the following exceptions:

(a) Upgrade requirements for previously deferred UST systems.  Previously deferred AHS and FCT systems must within three years of the effective date of its state requirements meet the requirements of 40 CFR 281.30 or be permanently closed.  This provision would not apply, however, to states that did not defer these UST systems and already had, prior to the effective date of this provision, existing requirements with specified compliance periods for these types of UST systems.

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-110(a), (b) and (c)

RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-101 (a)(3) and (b)

CGS §§ 22a-449 (e); 22a-449o

(b) Upgrade requirements for other UST systems.  States may allow UST systems to be upgraded if the state determines that the upgrade is appropriate to prevent releases for the operating life of the UST system due to corrosion and spills or overfills.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-110
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-111

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.31 Upgrading Existing UST Systems:

The requirement to ensure existing UST systems meet release prevention for their operational life including corrosion, spills, and overfills or otherwise be removed exists in Connecticut's regulation in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-110.  These operating requirements are applicable to all USTs in accordance with RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-102 and 22a-449(d)-103.  Connecticut's regulations and statutes require release detection for new installations, which constitutes all USTs installed on or after 10/1/2003 must be double-walled with interstitial monitoring and annual notification for all USTs, except residential heating oil, in accordance with CGS §§ 22a-449o and 22a-449(e).

Connecticut's regulations prohibit field constructed tanks (FCT) and airport hydrant systems (AHS).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.31 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.32
General Operating Requirements

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have general operating requirements that ensure all new and existing UST systems conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citations
State Statutory Citations
(a) Prevent spills and overfills by ensuring that the space in the tank is sufficient to receive the volume to be transferred and that the transfer operation is monitored constantly.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(a)

(b) Where equipped with cathodic protection, be operated and maintained by a person with sufficient training and experience in preventing corrosion, and in a manner that ensures that no releases occur during the operating life of the UST system.  Note to paragraph (b):  Codes of practice developed by nationally recognized organizations and national independent testing laboratories may be used to demonstrate the state program requirements are no less stringent.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(b)

(c) Be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored; in order to ensure compatibility, the state requirements must also include provisions for demonstrating compatibility with new and innovative regulated substances or other regulated substances identified by the implementing agency or include other provisions determined by the implementing agency to be no less protective of human health and the environment than the provisions for demonstrating compatibility.
RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-103(c)(1) and (c)(2)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(b)(11)

RCSA §§ 22a-449(d)-103(c)(2)(B); 22a-449(d)-103(e)(4)
CGS § 22a-449(e)
(d) At the time of upgrade or repair, be structurally sound and upgraded or repaired in a manner that will prevent releases due to structural failure or corrosion during their operating lives.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(d)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-110(a)

(e) Have spill and overfill prevention equipment periodically tested or inspected in a manner and frequency that ensures its functionality for the operating life of the   equipment and have the integrity of containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring of piping periodically tested in a manner and frequency that prevents releases during the operating life of the UST system.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(a)(4)

(f) Have operation and maintenance walkthrough inspections periodically conducted in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation and maintenance for the operating life of the UST system.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2)

(g) Have records of monitoring, testing, repairs, and inspections.  These records must be made readily available when requested by the implementing agency.
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-103(b)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2)(B)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-103(e)(2)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-103(d)(9)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-103(e)
RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-104(g)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.32 General Operating Requirements:

Connecticut's UST system operating requirements are no less stringent than the General Operating Requirements found in 40 CFR 281.32.

Connecticut's regulations require that USTs be compatible with the regulated substances they contain and manufacturer performance standards require determination of compatibility.  For UST systems storing innovative regulated substances, in addition to the general requirement for compatibility in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(c)(1), owners or operators must affirmatively demonstrate the compatibility of system components with such substances.  Connecticut's regulations and statutes require notification within 30 days after a change in status which includes a change in the substance being stored.  Connecticut requires post-notification and that owners/operators utilize an online electronic notification system that does not allow facility updates prior to the action being taken.  Pre and post notifications create a redundancy for the UST owners/operators without much added benefit to them or to DEEP.

The periodic testing requirement in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15) has moved to a 3-year testing interval in order to be no less stringent than the federal requirement. The inspection requirements in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2) ensure that the spill prevention and containment sumps be inspected monthly using the protocols in PEI RP 900.  The addition of monthly inspections of the sumps helps ensure system functionality and integrity, and provides a meaningful, timely and frequent look at risk areas in a manner that helps prevent releases during the operating life of the UST system.

For further clarification, the required three-year interval for testing will apply to all UST systems regardless of installation date as made clear in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15)(B).  UST Systems will be initially tested in accordance with requirements found in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a)(15)(A) depending on their installation date as a catch up provision and then every three years thereafter.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.32 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.33
Release Detection

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have release detection requirements that ensure all UST systems conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citations
State Statutory Citations
 Ensure all UST owners and operators have a method, or combination of release detection methods, that is:
 Capable of detecting a release of the regulated substance from any portion of the UST system that routinely contains regulated substances  -  as effectively as any of the methods allowed under this part  -  for as long as the UST system is in operation.  In comparing methods, the implementing agency shall consider the size of the release that the method can detect and the speed and reliability with which the release can be detected.
 Designed, installed, calibrated, operated and maintained so that releases will be detected in accordance with the capabilities of the method.
 Operated and maintained, and electronic and mechanical components and other equipment are tested or inspected periodically, in a manner and frequency that ensures proper operation to detect releases for the operating life of the release detection equipment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(a)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2)(C)(viii)

 Release detection requirements must, at a minimum, be applied at all UST systems immediately, except for UST systems previously deferred under §280.10(a)(1). Release detection requirements must, at a minimum, be scheduled to be applied to those previously deferred UST systems as follows:
 Immediately when a new previously deferred UST system is installed, and
 For any previously deferred UST system within three years of the effective date of its state requirements. Note:  This provision does not apply to states that did not defer these UST systems and already had, prior to the effective date of this provision, existing release detection requirements with specified compliance periods for these types of UST systems.

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c)(2)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(a)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b)

CGS § 22a-449o
 All petroleum tanks must meet the following requirements:
 Be sampled, tested or checked for releases at least monthly, except that tanks installed before October 13, 2015 or upgraded tanks (that is, tanks and piping protected from releases due to corrosion and equipped with both spill and overfill prevention devices) may temporarily use monthly inventory control or its equivalent conducted every five years for the first 10 years after the tank is installed; and
 New or replaced petroleum tanks must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with section 9003(i)(1) of SWDA except when the state requires manufacturer and installer financial responsibility and installer certification in accordance with section 9003(i)(2) of SWDA.

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(c)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(e)

CGS § 22a-449o
 All underground piping attached to the tank that routinely conveys petroleum must conform to the following:
(1)  If the petroleum is conveyed under greater than atmospheric pressure:
  The piping must be equipped with release detection that detects a release within an hour by restricting or shutting off flow or sounding an alarm; and
 The piping must have monthly monitoring applied or annual tightness tests conducted.
(2)  If suction lines are used:
      (i)   Tightness tests must be conducted at least once every three years, unless a monthly method of detection is applied to this piping; or
  (ii) The piping is designed to allow the contents of the pipe to drain back into the storage tank if the suction is released and is also designed to allow an inspector to immediately determine the integrity of the piping system.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(c)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(f)

  Except as provided for in § 281.30(a)(1) new or replaced petroleum piping must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment in accordance with section 9003(i)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act except when the state requires evidence of financial responsibility and certification in accordance with section 9003(i)(2) of SWDA.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(f)
CGS § 22a-449o
(e) All new hazardous substance UST systems must use interstitial monitoring within secondary containment of the tanks and the attached underground piping that conveys the regulated substance stored in the tank.  For hazardous substance UST systems installed prior to October 13, 2015, owners and operators can use another form of release detection if the owner and operator can demonstrate to the state (or the state otherwise determines) that another method will detect a release of the regulated substance as effectively as other methods allowed under the state program for petroleum UST systems and that effective corrective action technology is available for the hazardous substance being stored that can be used to protect human health and the environment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(d)
CGS § 22a-449o

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.33 Release Detection:

Connecticut requires that USTs have leak detection systems on tanks and piping that continuously monitor for the presence of liquid in the interstitial spaces associated with both double-walled tanks and piping. Connecticut further requires that the leak detection systems be maintained in good working order and that they continuously perform as designed.

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(a)(1)(B) describes the standards for the installation, calibration, and operation and maintenance of release detection equipment in Connecticut. Each leak monitoring system must use a system of audible alarms and visual indicators in a location where they can be readily heard and seen. The requirements further mandate that following the notification of a potential leak by the audible or visual indicator, the owner must immediately investigate.

Connecticut does not "phase-in" systems exempted from immediate compliance as described in 40 CFR
§ 281.33(b) and 40 CFR § 280.10(a)(1) but instead requires immediate compliance with all systems.

As previously stated, Connecticut prohibits AHS and FCTs pursuant to RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(b). Any existing systems in Connecticut have aged out due to life-expectancy.   CGS § 22a-449(o) requires that all new installations be double walled and interstitially monitored.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.33 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.34
Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have release reporting, investigation, and confirmation requirements that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citations
State Statutory Citations
(a) Ensure all owners and operators promptly investigate all suspected releases, including:
 When unusual operating conditions, release detection signals and environmental conditions at the site suggest a release of regulated substances may have occurred or the interstitial space may have been compromised; and
 When required by the implementing agency to determine the source of a release having an impact in the surrounding area.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(a)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(b)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(c)

(b) Ensure all owners and operators promptly report all confirmed underground releases and any spills and overfills that are not contained and cleaned up.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(d)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(a)
CGS § 22a-450
(c) Ensure all owners and operators contain and clean up unreported spills and overfills in a manner that will protect human health and the environment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(d)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(a)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.34 Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation:

Owners and operators of UST systems shall report to DEEP within 24 hours, or any time period provided under applicable law, including, but not limited to, CGS § 22a-450, whichever is earliest, and follow the procedures provided for in RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(c) for certain conditions, including unusual operating conditions.

When required by DEEP, owners and operators of UST systems shall follow the procedures in RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-105(b) to determine if the UST system is the source of off-site impacts. These impacts include the discovery of regulated substances including, but not limited to, the presence of free product or vapors in soils, basements, sewer and utility lines, and nearby surface and drinking waters that has been observed by DEEP or brought to its attention by another party.

Unless corrective action is initiated in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-106, owners and operators shall immediately investigate and confirm within 7 days or another time period specified in writing by DEEP whether a suspected release is an actual release of regulated substances requiring reporting under RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-105(a)(1), using either a system tightness test and site check to measure for the presence of a release or another procedure given prior written approval by DEEP.

Connecticut requires owners and operators of UST systems to immediately contain and immediately clean up a spill or overfill and report to DEEP within 24 hours, or any time period provided under applicable law including, but not limited to, CGS § 22a-450 and any implementing regulations, whichever is earliest, and begin corrective action in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106 of these regulations as needed.

Connecticut requires owners and operators to ensure that releases due to spilling or overfilling do not occur. The owner and operator shall ensure that the volume available in the tank is greater than the volume of product to be transferred to the tank before the transfer is made and that the transfer operation is monitored constantly to prevent overfilling and spilling. The owner or operator shall report, investigate, and clean up any spills and overfills in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(d).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.34 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.35
Release Reporting and Corrective Action

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have release reporting and corrective action requirements that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation
(a) All releases from UST systems are promptly assessed and further releases are stopped.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(c)&(d)

(b) Actions are taken to identify, contain and mitigate any immediate health and safety threats that are posed by a release (such activities include investigation and initiation of free product removal, if present).
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(e)&(f)

(c) All releases from UST systems are investigated to determine if there are impacts to soil and groundwater, and any nearby surface waters.  The extent of soil and groundwater contamination must be delineated when a potential threat to human health and the environment exists.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(g)

(d) All releases from UST systems are cleaned up through soil and groundwater remediation and any other steps are taken, as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(h)(1)(2)(3)&(4)

(e) Adequate information is made available to the state to demonstrate that corrective actions are taken in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.  This information must be submitted in a timely manner that demonstrates its technical adequacy to protect human health and the environment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(h)(1)&(2)

(f) In accordance with § 280.67 (Public Participation), the state must notify the affected public of all confirmed releases requiring a plan for soil and groundwater remediation, and upon request provide or make available information to inform the interested public of the nature of the release and the corrective measures planned or taken.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(i)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.35 Release Reporting and Corrective Action:

Connecticut requires owners and operators of petroleum or hazardous substance UST systems to, in response to a confirmed release from the UST system, comply with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106, except for USTs excluded under RCSA § 22a-449(d)-101(a)(2) and UST systems subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C corrective action requirements. The requirements may include, but are not limited to, prohibiting discharges without a permit; immediately performing corrective actions; immediately addressing UST component failures; performing initial response actions, abatement measures, site characterizations, free product removal, and investigations for soil and ground-water cleanup; and developing and submitting to DEEP for approval a corrective action plan for responding to contaminated soils and groundwater.

For each confirmed release that requires a corrective action plan, DEEP provides notice to the public by means designed to reach those members of the public directly affected by the release and the planned corrective action and, upon request, make available to the public information on site releases and decisions concerning the corrective action plans in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-106(i).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.35 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.36
Out of Service UST Systems and Closure

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have requirements for out of service UST systems and closure that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citation

State Statutory Citation
 Removal from service. All new and existing UST systems temporarily closed must:
 Continue to comply with general operating requirements, release reporting and investigation, and release response and corrective action;
 Continue to comply with release detection requirements if regulated substances are stored in the tank;
 Be closed off to outside access; and
 Be permanently closed if the UST system has not been protected from corrosion and has not been used in one year, unless the state approves an extension after the owner and operator conducts a site assessment.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-107(a)

(b) Permanent closure of UST systems.  All tanks and piping must be cleaned and permanently closed in a manner that eliminates the potential for safety hazards and any future releases.  The owner or operator must notify the state of permanent UST system closures.  The site must also be assessed to determine if there are any present or were past releases, and if so, release response and corrective action requirements must be complied with.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-107(b)&(c)

(c) All UST systems taken out of service before the effective date of the federal regulations must permanently close in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section when directed by the implementing agency.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-107(d)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.36 Out of Service UST Systems and Closure:

When an UST system is temporarily closed, owners and operators shall continue operation and maintenance of corrosion protection in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(b), and any release detection in accordance with RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-104. Owners and operators must comply with RCSA  §§ 22a-449(d)-105 and 22a-449(d)-106 if a release is suspected or confirmed. When an UST system is temporarily closed for 3 months or more, owners and operators shall leave vent lines open and functioning; and cap and secure all other lines, pumps, manways, and ancillary equipment. When an UST system is temporarily closed for more than 12 months, owners and operators are required to permanently close the UST system if it does not meet either performance standards of RCSA § 22a-449(d)-102(a) for new UST systems or the upgrading requirements in RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-110.

Owners and operators are required to notify DEEP of their intent to permanently close a UST system at least 30 days before beginning permanent closure under RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-107(b)(2), or other reasonable time period determined in writing by DEEP.  An assessment of the excavation zone is required by owners and operators to assess the site at closure pursuant to RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-107(c), after notifying DEEP, but before completion of permanent closure. In general, there is a 30-year life expectancy requirement for UST systems in Connecticut, with extensions given to UST systems that satisfy eligibility criteria and certain terms and conditions. On June 22, 2016, pursuant to RCSA § 22a-449(d)-111(d), DEEP issued an Approval of an Alternative Life Expectancy For Certain Underground Storage Tanks . This Approval extends the life expectancy of certain USTs to forty (40) years from the date of installation.

When directed by DEEP, owners and operators of UST systems permanently closed before December 22, 1988 need to assess the excavation zone and close the UST systems if releases from the USTs pose a current or potential threat to human health and the environment, or if the owner or operator of the UST system has been found to violate any of the UST requirements.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.36 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.37
Financial Responsibility for UST Systems Containing Petroleum

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR part 280, the state must have Financial Responsibility requirements that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation
 In order to be considered no less stringent than the federal requirements for financial responsibility for UST systems containing petroleum, the state requirements for financial responsibility for petroleum UST systems must ensure that:
 Owners and operators have $1 million per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a timely manner to protect human health and the environment;
 Owners and operators not engaged in petroleum production, refining, and marketing and who handle a throughput of 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month or less have $500,000 per occurrence for corrective action and third-party claims in a timely manner to protect human health and the environment;
 Owners and operators of 1 to 100 petroleum UST's must have an annual aggregate of $1 million; and
 Owners and operators of 101 or more petroleum UST's must have an annual aggregate of $2 million.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109(d)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109(v)

(b) States may allow the use of a wide variety of financial assurance mechanisms to meet this requirement.  Each financial mechanism must meet the following criteria in order to be no less stringent than the federal requirements.  The mechanisms must: be valid and enforceable; be issued by a provider that is qualified or licensed in the state; not permit cancellation without allowing the state to draw funds; ensure that funds will only and directly be used for corrective action and third party liability costs; and require that the provider notify the owner or operator of any circumstances that would impair or suspend coverage.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109(e)-(n)

RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109(p)

(c) States must require owners and operators maintain records that demonstrate compliance with Financial Responsibility requirements, and these records must be made readily available when requested by the implementing agency.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109(r)

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.37 Financial Responsibility for UST Systems Containing Petroleum:

Connecticut requires owners or operators of UST systems to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action and/or for compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage in lieu of a state fund. Owners and operators need to maintain financial assurance in the annual aggregate amounts of $1,000,000 for 1-100 UST systems and $2,000,000 for 101 or more UST systems, which scope and amount is equivalent to the federal requirements.

In Connecticut, each financial mechanism meets the criteria in 40 CFR 281.37(b) and is no less stringent than the federal requirements.  The mechanisms must: be valid and enforceable; be issued by a provider that is qualified or licensed; have no permit cancellation without allowing DEEP to draw funds; ensure that funds will only be directly used for corrective action and third party liability costs; and require that the provider notify the owner or operator of any circumstances that would impair or suspend coverage in accordance with RCSA Sec. 22a-449(d)-109.

Owners and operators shall maintain evidence of all financial assurance mechanisms used to demonstrate FR until released from RCSA § 22a-449(d)-109 pursuant to subsection (t). An owner or operator shall maintain such evidence at the UST site or the owner's or operator's place of business. Records maintained off-site shall be made available upon request of DEEP. An owner or operator using a mechanism specified in RCSA § 22a-449 (d)-109(f) must maintain an updated copy of a "Certification of Financial Responsibility worded exactly as specified in the federal requirements of 40 CFR §281.37(c).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.37  given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.38
Lender Liability

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR 280, the state must have lender liability requirements that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation
 A state program that contains a security interest exemption will be considered to be no less stringent than, and as broad in scope as, the federal program, provided that the state's exemption:
 Mirrors the security interest exemption provided for in 40 CFR part 280, subpart I; or
 Achieves the same effect as provided by the following key criteria:
 A holder, meaning a person who maintains indicia of ownership primarily to protect a security interest in a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a petroleum UST or UST system is located, who does not participate in the management of the UST or UST system as defined under §280.10 of this chapter, and who does not engage in petroleum production, refining, and marketing as defined under §280.200(b) of this chapter is not:
 An owner of a petroleum UST or UST system or facility or property on which a petroleum UST or UST system is located for purposes of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 280; or
 An operator of a petroleum UST or UST system for purposes of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 280, provided the holder is not in control of or does not have responsibility for the daily operation of the UST or UST system.
N/A

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.38 Lender Liability:

Connecticut's current regulation that went through SPA in 1994 does not contain this provision and there are no plans to add it since it is less stringent than what is currently in place.  Connecticut's program does not contain a security interest exemption for its UST program.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.38 with prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.39
Operator Training

In order to be considered no less stringent than the corresponding federal requirements in 40 CFR §280, the state must have operator training requirements that conform with the following:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation
The state must have an operator training program that meets the minimum requirements of section 9010 of SWDA.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.39 Operator Training:

In Connecticut, all persons, including owners and operators that have primary responsibility for daily on-site operation and maintenance and for addressing emergencies presented by a spill or release from a UST or UST system, must designate Class A, B, and C Operators who have been trained and certified in accordance with a DEEP-approved training program. Trained operators need to be retrained every 2 years following initial training, and whenever DEEP requires retraining in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(e). Owners and operators need to submit to DEEP a statement signed by the owner or operator and the designated Class A and Class B Operators, identifying the names of the designated Class A and B Operators; the DEEP-approved training programs from which they obtained their certification; the dates of certification; and the dates such certification expires. For underground storage facilities whose USTs or UST systems began operating after August 8, 2012, this information needs to be submitted prior to beginning operation. In addition, owners and operators need to post at each underground storage facility an information sheet that includes names of each designated Class C Operator; name of the DEEP-approved training program(s) from which each Class C Operator obtained her or his certification, or the name of the certified Class A or B Operator who trained each Class C Operator; the certification dates for each Class C Operator; the expiration dates of each such certification; and the most recent date of Class C Operator training in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(a).

All operator training programs in Connecticut need to be approved in writing by DEEP in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(b). If a DEEP-approved operator training program has had its approval revoked by DEEP, any Class A, B, or C Operator who has been trained and certified by this program shall remain trained and certified unless they are directed by DEEP to be retrained, or their certification expires after 2 years or pursuant to changes to the previously approved training program curriculum.

Additional operator requirements include written operator response guidelines, posting of said response guidelines, reporting procedures for releases and suspected releases and periodic inspections by or under the direction of the Class A or B Operator in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(c).

If DEEP determines that an approved or deemed approved operator training program has become insufficient to adequately train Class A, B, or C Operators, DEEP reserves the right to revoke the approval of the operator training program. Evidence of such insufficiency shall include, but not be limited to, inadequately trained Class A, B, or C Operators; compliance issues; or a failure to document completion of required training in accordance with RCSA § 22a-449(d)-108(d).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.39 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.40
Legal Authorities for Compliance Monitoring

The state must have the following specific compliance monitoring authorities:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation

(a) Any authorized representative of the state engaged in compliance inspections, monitoring, and testing must have authority to obtain by request any information from an owner or operator with respect to the UST system(s) that is necessary to determine compliance with the regulations.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-103(e)
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-104(g)
CGS § 22a-6

CGS § 22a-449q
(b) Any authorized representative of the state must have authority to require an owner or operator to conduct monitoring or testing.
RCSA § 22a-449(d)-105(c)
CGS §§ 22a-449(f) and (g)
CGS § 22a-6
(c) Authorized representatives must have the authority to enter any site or premises subject to UST system regulations or in which records relevant to the operation of the UST system(s) are kept, and to copy these records, obtain samples of regulated substances, and inspect or conduct the monitoring or testing of UST system(s).

CGS § 22a-449(f)
CGS § 22a-6

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.40 Legal Authorities for Compliance Monitoring:

Overall, the Commissioner has broad authority to order compliance with any of the applicable statutory and  regulatory requirements and the provision of information regarding such compliance.  These broad statutory authorities are bolstered by authority of the Commissioner, through delegated inspectors, to place a notice of disabled UST systems at a facility when non-compliance is observed effectively closing the facility until such time as the owner or operator can demonstrate compliance through corrective action or production of appropriate records.  The Commissioner can also require more immediate investigation of any suspected releases than the default requirement of 7 days.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.40 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.41
Legal Authorities for Enforcement Response

The state must have the following specific enforcement response authorities for state program approval:
Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation

(a) Any state agency administering a program must have the authority to implement the following remedies for violations of state program requirements:
(1) To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from engaging in any unauthorized activity that is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment;
(2) To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement;
(3) To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties as follows:
(i) Civil penalties for failure to notify or for submitting false information pursuant to tank notification requirements must be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more per violation.
(ii) Civil penalties for failure to comply with any State requirements or standards for existing or new tank systems must be capable of being assessed for each instance of violation, up to $5,000 or more for each tank for each day of violation. If the violation is continuous, civil penalties shall be capable of being assessed up to $5,000 or more for each day of violation.

CGS § 22a-7

CGS § 22a-6
CGS § 22a-428
CGS § 22a-432
CGS § 22a-433
CGS § 22a-435

CGS § 22a-438

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.41 Legal Authorities for Enforcement Response:

Overall, the Commissioner has broad authority to order compliance with any of the applicable statutory and  regulatory requirements, including the authority to address potential sources of pollution and seek civil penalties for any violation of the chapter authorizing the UST program. These broad statutory authorities are bolstered by authority of the Commissioner, through delegated inspectors, to place a notice of disabled UST systems ("Red Tag") at a facility when non-compliance is observed effectively closing the facility until such time as the owner or operator can demonstrate compliance through corrective action or production of appropriate records.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.41 given prior SPA approval and subsequently adopted regulatory amendments.

SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.42
Public Participation in Enforcement Proceedings

Any state administering a program must provide for public participation in the state enforcement process by providing any one of the following three options:
State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation

(a) Authority that allows intervention analogous to Federal Rule 24(a)(2), and assurance by the appropriate state enforcement agency that it will not oppose intervention under the state analogue to Rule 24(a)(2) on the ground that the applicant's interest is adequately represented by the State.

(b) Authority that allows intervention of right in any civil action to obtain the remedies specified in § 281.41 by any citizen having an interest that is or may be adversely affected; or

(c) Assurance by the appropriate state agency that:
(1) It will provide notice and opportunity for public comment on all proposed settlements of civil enforcement actions (except where immediate action is necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment);
(2) It will investigate and provide responses to citizen complaints about violations; and
(3) It will not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule, or regulation.
Connecticut Practice Book § 9-18

RCSA § 22a-3a-6(k)
CGS § 52-107

CGS § 4-177a
CGS § 22a-19

Certification of SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.42 Public Participation in Enforcement Proceedings

Connecticut allows public intervention in civil actions through section 9-18 of the practice book. Connecticut's Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ("UAPA"), namely CGS, § 4-177a, calls for intervention in administrative licensing and enforcement proceedings before an agency when a person has substantial interests involved in the administrative proceeding and further, the CTDEEP Rules of Practice carry these UAPA concepts forward and provide for additional intervenor status when the intervention is in the interest of justice and will not interfere with the orderly conduct of the proceeding.  RCSA § 22a-3a-6(k)(1) and (2).

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for SPA Objective 40 CFR § 281.42 given prior SPA approval and existing statutory and regulatory provisions regarding third-party intervention and public participation in enforcement proceedings.

Objective: Section 9002(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991a)
Section 1526 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Public Record Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory
Citation

(a) The public record of a state must include:
 The number, sources, and causes of underground storage tank releases in the state.
 The record of compliance by underground storage tanks in the state with Subtitle I or a state program approved under Section 9004 of Subtitle I.
 Data on the number of underground storage tank equipment failures in the state.
See MOA

(b) The State must update the public record at least annually
See MOA

(c) Each state must develop a website that does one of the following:
 The public record is posted on or downloadable from the internet.  This option may be an interactive website that retrieves the information, a website that lists the information, or a file that is downloadable in electronic format.
 The website describes how to receive an electronic copy of the public record (for example via e-mail).
See MOA

Notes on Objective from the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act from Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the Public Record Provisions, 9002(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991a), Section 1526 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

The objectives listed are addressed in the Memorandum of Agreement executed between EPA and CTDEEP and are further cited as obligations in the underlying agreement applicable to  federal grant funding provided to DEEP as an approved UST program.

Objective:  Section 9012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991)
Section 1527 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation
(a) The state must prohibit the delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product to an underground storage tank that has been determined to be ineligible by the state for such delivery, deposit, or acceptance
See MOA
CGS § 22a-449(g)
(b) The state must develop criteria for determining which underground storage tanks are ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product;
See MOA
CGS § 22a-449(g)
(c) The state must develop a process for reclassifying ineligible underground storage tanks as eligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product;

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(d) The state must develop a process for providing adequate notice to underground storage tank owners and operators and product deliverers that an underground storage tank has been determined to be ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product;

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(e) The state must delineate a process for the application of delivery prohibition in rural and remote areas.

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(f) A state must classify an underground storage tank as ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product as soon as practicable after the state determines an underground storage tank meets one or more of the following conditions:
:: Required spill prevention equipment is not installed;
:: Required overfill protection equipment is not installed;
:: Required leak detection equipment is not installed;
:: Required corrosion protection equipment is not installed; or
:: Other conditions a state deems appropriate.
See MOA
CGS § 22a-449(g)
(g) A state should also classify an underground storage tank as ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product if the owner or operator of that tank has been issued a written warning or citation (notice of violation or other form indicating a violation) under any of the following circumstances and the owner or operator has failed to take corrective action after a reasonable time frame that is determined by the state:
:: Failure to properly operate or maintain. or both, leak detection equipment;
:: Failure to properly operate or maintain, or both, spill, overfill, or corrosion protection equipment;
:: Failure to maintain financial responsibility;
:: Failure to protect a buried metal flexible connector from corrosion; or
:: Other conditions a state deems appropriate.
See MOA
CGS § 22a-449(g)
(h) The state, after notification by the owner or operator that the violation(s) has been corrected, must do the following as soon as practicable:
:: Confirm compliance. If any deficiencies that led to the delivery prohibition remain, the state must notify the owner or operator.
:: Return the underground storage tank to being eligible to receive product if the violation(s) has been corrected and confirmed by the state.

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(i) The state must make a reasonable effort to notify tank owners or operators in writing (e.g., field notification, mail, e-mail, or fax) prior to prohibiting the delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product.  If an owner or operator is not present at the facility at the time the underground storage tank is identified as ineligible, an employee at the facility at the time of identification (in lieu of the owner or operator) may be notified in writing prior to prohibiting delivery.

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(j) The state must develop processes and procedures for notifying product deliverers when an underground storage tank is ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product.  The mechanism a state chooses for identifying eligible or ineligible underground storage tanks (e.g., green tags, red tags) may provide adequate notice to product deliverers.

CGS § 22a-449(g)
(k) The state may only defer application of delivery prohibition for up to 180 days after determining an underground storage tank is ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of product.

Certification on Objective from the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act from Energy Policy Act of 2005 for Delivery Prohibition, 9012 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991), Section 1527 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Under the Red Tag program authorized by CGS § 22a-449(g), if Commissioner determines that one or more of the following violations exist at a UST system, he may place a notice on or disable the system and require the tank contents to be pumped out until the violations are corrected:
 There is a release from a UST;
 Design, construction, installation and operation of UST system is not in accordance with the requirements of CGS § 22a-449o or RGSA §§ 22a-449(d)-101 through 22a-449(d)-113; and
 Failure to have or operate proper leak detection, overfill or spill protection measures

Deliveries to a "red tagged" UST are prohibited. Within two business days of red tagging a system, the CT DEEP Commissioner must provide the owner or operator of the system with an opportunity for a hearing.

It is the opinion of the Connecticut Attorney General that the state meets the no less stringent criterion for the Objective for delivery prohibition given prior SPA approval and existing statutory and regulatory provisions regarding the notice of disabled UST systems ("Red Tag") existing within the Commissioner's authority.

Objective: Section 9005(c)(1), 9005(c)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991d)
Section 1523 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act from Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- Inspection Requirements
Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Inspection Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Corresponding State Rule Citation
State Statutory Citation

(a) Underground storage tanks that have not been inspected since December 22, 1998 must have an on-site inspection conducted not later than August 8, 2007 to determine compliance with Subtitle I and 40 CFR part 280 requirements or requirements or standards of a state program developed under Section 9004.
See MOA

(b) On-site inspections of each underground storage tank must be conducted at least once every three years to determine compliance with Subtitle I and 40 CFR part 280 requirements or requirements or standards of a state program developed under Section 9004.
See MOA

(c) At a minimum, an on-site inspection must assess compliance with the following:
:: Notification (failure to notify)
:: Corrosion protection
- tanks and piping have appropriate corrosion protection
- documentation available including testing, inspections, and other records
:: Overfill prevention in place and operational
:: Spill prevention in place and operational
:: Tank and piping release detection
- appropriate method and appropriate equipment or procedures in place
- documentation of proper monitoring and testing
:: Reporting suspected releases
:: Records of tank and piping repairs
:: Secondary containment where required
:: Financial responsibility
:: Temporary closure
See MOA

Notes on Objective from the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act from Energy Policy Act of 2005 for Inspection Requirements, 9005(c)(1), 9005(c)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I (42 U.S.C. 6991d), Section 1523 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

The objectives listed are addressed in the Memorandum of Agreement executed between EPA and CTDEEP and are further cited as obligations in the underlying agreement applicable to federal grant funding provided to DEEP as an approved UST program.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30528]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 18, 2015, starting at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Pocius, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on June 18, 2015, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591.
    The Agenda includes:
    1. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. Airman Certification Systems Working Group (ARAC)
    b. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group
(ARAC)
    c. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (TAE)
    d. Engine Harmonization Working Group (TAE)--Engine Endurance
Testing Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
    e. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (TAE)--Phase 2 Tasking
    f. Materials Flammability Working Group (TAE)
    g. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group (TAE)--Transport Airplane Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
    h. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation
Working Group (TAE)
    2. New Tasks
    a. Air Traffic Controller Basic Qualification Training Working
Group (ARAC)
    3. Status Report from the FAA
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than June 11,
2015. Please provide the following information: full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers outside the
Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance
charges.
    The public must arrange by June 11, 2015 to present oral statements
at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the
Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-12866 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P