[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70699-70702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20638]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0545; FRL-8251-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio; Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for Cincinnati and Dayton
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 9, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA) submitted several volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for
approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The primary purpose
of the rules is to partially replace the VOC reductions from Ohio's
vehicle inspection and maintenance (E-Check) program (which ended on
December 31, 2005) in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. These
replacement rules include a provision requiring the use of lower
emitting solvents in cold cleaner degreasers, the use of more efficient
auto refinishing painting application techniques and a rule requiring
the use of lower emitting portable fuel containers. These rules are
approvable because they contain more stringent requirements than Ohio's
existing rules and they are enforceable. Ohio has correctly calculated
their VOC emission reduction impact. EPA is also approving several
other rule revisions, all of which meet EPA requirements, including an
exemption for its printing rules, a site-specific rule for an aerosol
can filling facility, elimination of the fluid catalytic cracking unit
limitations for a Marathon Petroleum LLC facility, and an alternative
leak detection and repair program for the Premcor Lima Refinery.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0545, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0545. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal at (312)
886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of Ohio's Submitted VOC Rules?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions
[[Page 70700]]
or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is proposing to approve several VOC rules into the OhioSIP.
These include more stringent solvent degreasing rules, an exemption for
its printing rules, a site-specific rule for an aerosol can filling
facility, elimination of the fluid catalytic cracking unit limitations
for a Marathon Petroleum Company LLC facility, an alternative leak
detection and repair program for the Premcor Lima Refinery, a rule
requiring the marketing and sale of only low-emitting portable fuel
containers, and a rule including the use of high efficiency paint
application equipment at auto body refinishing operations.
III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
The primary purpose of the rules that Ohio submitted is to obtain
VOC emission reductions to partially offset the increase in VOC
emissions resulting from elimination of its E-Check program in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas. Ohio EPA has submitted additional VOC and
nitrogen oxide emission reduction measures to fully compensate for this
increase in emissions. These additional emission reduction measures, as
well as other demonstrations needed to remove the E-Check program from
the Ohio SIP, will be the subject of future rulemaking actions. Ohio
has also submitted several site-specific rule revisions that have been
requested by emission sources in Ohio. These rule revisions are also
addressed in this notice.
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of Ohio's Submitted VOC Rules?
A. New VOC Rules and Rule Revisions
(1) 3745-21-09(O)--Solvent Metal Cleaning
A new paragraph (3745-21-09(O)(2)(e)(i)) restricts owners and
operators of cold cleaners located in the Cincinnati and Dayton ozone
nonattainment areas to the use of solvents with a maximum vapor
pressure of 1.0 mmHg, which results in a 67 percent emission reduction,
after a compliance date of May 1, 2006 (as specified in 3745-21-
04(C)(16)(c). This vapor pressure limitation was chosen to further
reduce VOC emissions from cold cleaners. An exemption was added for the
cleaning of paint gun parts. This exemption, in 3745-21-
09(O)(2)(e)(iv), is approvable because the requirement to use less
volatile paint cleaners would probably require the use of higher
emitting processes and because the removal of paint and coatings from
paint gun parts is not generally considered, and regulated, by cold
cleaning regulations. In addition, 3745-21-(6)(b) clarifies that
regardless of whether or not a solvent metal cleaning operation is
exempt from the requirements in 3745-21-09(O)(2)-(O)(5), because it is
subject to the halogenated solvent cleaning rule in subpart T of 40 CFR
Part 63, the solvent in a cold cleaner cannot exceed 1.0 mmHg. These
revisions to the Ohio's solvent metal cleaning rule are approvable
because they make the rule more stringent and are enforceable.
(2) 3745-21-09(T)--Leaks From Petroleum Refinery Equipment
OAC 3745-21-09(T)(4) allows the director of Ohio EPA to accept an
alternative petroleum refinery monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
program to that required by (T)(1) of this rule if the alternative
program is at least as effective in identifying, documenting and
reporting leaks as the program in (T)(1). A new paragraph (T)(4)(a)
approves the November 19,2002 alternative monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting program entitled ``Premcor Lima Refinery, LDAR Plan'' by the
director of Ohio EPA. The alternative monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting program is approved in the SIP. EPA is hereby approving OAC
3745-21-09(T)(4), and the November 19, 2002, alternative monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting program entitled ``Premcor Lima Refinery,
LDAR Plan,'' because EPA agrees that this alternative program is at
least as effective as the existing program in (T)(1) in detecting and
reducing emissions from leaks.
(3) 3745-21-09(Y)--Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure and Publication
Rotogravure Printing Lines
A new paragraph, 3745-21-09(Y)(2)(d), was added to exempt any
printing line at a facility in which the total maximum usage of VOC in
all coatings and inks employed in all lines is less than or equal to
one hundred tons per year. This exemption is consistent with EPA
reasonably available control technology (RACT) guidance. New paragraph
3745-21-09(Y)(3) adds a ``once in, always in'' provision which
clarifies that a facility is not eligible for a facility exemption once
the control requirements of this rule apply to a facility. This ``once
in, always in'' provision is also consistent with EPA RACT policy.
These new paragraphs are approvable.
(4) 3745-21-09(RR)--Sherwin Williams Diversified Brands
This new paragraph contains site-specific RACT requirements for the
Sherwin Williams facility in Bedford Heights that fills aerosol cans.
The primary source of emissions from this facility is filling aerosol
cans with VOC propellant. The numerical emission limit is 0.75 pounds
of VOC per 1,000 aerosol cans produced, which also includes, for each
rolling 12-month period, the emissions from Sherwin Williams' liquid
mixing tanks, can liquid filling operations, gashouse operations, can
brushing operations and can piercing operations. The RACT requirements
specify a minimum 90% control efficiency for the required thermal
incinerator, and specify that VOC emissions from non-emergency safety
diversions of a thermal incinerator are to be included in determining
compliance with the VOC emission rate limitation. This rule is
approvable because (1) it requires that, when operating, a gashouse
(the largest emission source where the propellant is added) thermal
incinerator meets a minimum 90% destruction efficiency and (2)
clarifies safety diversions, the emissions which are included in the
0.75 lbs VOC/1000 cans limit, as well as emergency events (during which
the line is shut down), which are not included. The safety diversion
and emergency event provisions are necessary because of the potential
for an explosion in using an incinerator to control gashouse emissions.
[[Page 70701]]
(5) 3745-21-09(VV)--Marathon Petroleum Company
The control requirements for the Marathon facility's fluid
catalytic cracking unit, previously contained in 3745-21-09(VV)(1),
have been deleted in order to reduce overlapping and conflicting
requirements with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from PetroleumRefineries (Refinery MACT). Deletion of 3745-
21-09(VV)(1) is approvable because the control requirements in 40 CFR
Part 63,Subpart UUU of the Refinery MACT are at least as stringent as
the control requirements in 3745-21-09(VV)(1), and will achieve
equivalent or greater emission reductions from the Marathon facility's
fluid catalytic cracking unit.
(6) 3745-21-17--Portable Fuel Container and Spouts
This new rule, containing the standards for portable fuel
containers (PFCs), was added as an additional control strategy to lower
future VOC emissions throughout Ohio. PFCs are used to transport and
store fuel(gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuel) from a retail
distribution point to a point of use and eventually dispense fuel into
equipment (e.g., a lawnmower). These containers come in a variety of
shapes and sizes with nominal capacities ranging from 1 to over 6
gallons. This rule is based upon the rule by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), which is the leader in PFC technology. This
rule is enforceable, and, based upon CARB test data, PFCs meeting these
limits will achieve a 75 percent emission reduction. This rule is
therefore approvable.
(7) 3745-21-18--Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Refinishing Operations
This new rule was added to lower VOC emissions from auto body
refinishing operations, most of which are at small body shops that
repair and refinish automobiles. This rule eliminates the use of air
spray, which has a low transfer efficiency resulting in higher
emissions, requires proper training in the use of paint application
equipment, specifies proper spray gun cleaning techniques and requires
that VOC containing materials be stored in nonabsorbent, non-leaking
containers and that the containers be closed when not in use. This rule
also requires that auto body refinishing facilities provide
documentation of the above cited control measures. This rule is
approvable because it eliminates air spray and adds additional control
measures that must be properly documented.
B. Revisions That Correct Errors in Previously Adopted and Effective
(On May 27, 2005) VOC RACT Rules
(1) 3745-21-01(V)(9)--Control Device Definition
This definition of a control device for SOCMI Reactors
andDistillation Units was amended to eliminate a reference to a rule
section that had been removed. This revised definition is approvable
because it properly defines a control device and clarifies that a
recovery device is not considered a control device.
(2) 3745-21-12(H)(4)--Bakeries
This section requires any uncontrolled bakery oven exempted under
paragraph (D)(2), and not (D)(2)(a) which does not exist, to keep
records to determine whether the applicability cutoffs in (D)(2) have
been exceeded. This section also requires that Ohio EPA or its
delegated local air agency be notified if the applicability cutoff in
(D)(2) has been exceeded. This section is therefore approvable.
(3) 3745-21-01(AA)--Incorporation by Reference
The revisions to the incorporation by reference section include
both minor changes to properly format citations and new references to
materials referenced in Ohio's VOC regulations. These revisions include
the addition of the ``Standard Specification for Portable Kerosene
Containers for Consumer Use,'' ``Standard Specification for Portable
Gasoline Containers for Consumer Use,'' ``Code for the Manufacture and
Storage of Aerosol Products,'' and ``Protocol for Determining the Daily
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' and are approvable.
C. Analysis of VOC Emission Reductions From Individual Control Measures
Analyses (Please note that these rules have been previously described
in section IV. (A))
(1) 3745-21-09(O)--Solvent Metal Cleaning
Reducing the vapor pressure in cold cleaners to no greater than 1.0
mmHg has been documented to result in a 67 percent reduction in VOC
emissions. Such reduction is based upon a survey of existing solvent
vapor pressures. This regulation is based on similar regulations
previously promulgated in the Chicago/Metro East areas of Illinois,
which was also used as a basis for the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
model rule as discussed in ``Industrial Cleaning'', Midwest RPO (LADCO)
white paper dated March 14, 2005. EPA's default 80 percent rule
effectiveness was also applied. Using 2002 baseline emissions for VOC
(tons/day), a growth factor of 1.199, a 67 percent reduction and an 80
percent rule effectiveness resulted in Cincinnati area estimated
reductions of 2.57 tons per day (TPD) for 2006. Dayton area estimated
reductions were determined to be 1.75 TPD for 2006.
(2) 3745-21-18--Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Refinishing Operations
This rule requires the use of higher transfer efficiency paint
application equipment, which has been documented to achieve a 35
percent reduction, according to the OTC Pechan Report, dated March
2001, and in the LADCO white paper ``Auto Body Refinishing,'' dated
March 28, 2005. EPA's default 80 percent rule effectiveness was also
applied. Using 2002 baseline emissions for VOC (tons/day), a 1.175
growth factor, a 35 percent reduction and an 80 percent rule
effectiveness resulted in Cincinnati area estimated reductions of 0.44
TPD for 2006. Dayton area estimated reductions were determined to be
0.30 TPD for 2006.
(3) 3745-21-17--Portable Fuel Container and Spouts
A February 9, 2005 LADCO white paper estimates that 12,694 tons of
VOCs are emitted yearly in Ohio from PFCs. Ohio has adopted this rule
based on CARB's PFC rule, which has been documented by CARB to achieve
a 75 percent VOC reduction. Emission reductions are estimated by
considering a 75 percent control efficiency, a 10 percent annual
turnover rate, and an 80 percent rule effectiveness. These reductions
will begin to occur in 2007, when this rule goes into effect.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
[[Page 70702]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 21, 2006.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-20638 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P