[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3668-3680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1223]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0003; FRL-9105-7]
Conditional Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; Ohio; Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a variety of actions regarding revisions to
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-21 (Carbon Monoxide,
Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons, and related Materials
Standards). EPA is proposing the following actions: To approve into the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) certain regulation revisions within OAC
3745-21 which have been adopted by the State; to disapprove a
regulation revision pertaining to high performance architectural
coatings; to conditionally approve a revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of
OAC 3745-21-09, if the State gives EPA a letter that commits to address
noted deficiencies no later than one year from the expected date of
EPA's conditional approval; to take no action on certain regulation
revisions, and to provide notice that EPA and Ohio have created a path
forward for facilities operating under previously issued alternate VOC
limit and emission control exemptions for miscellaneous metal coating
operations under OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). This action addresses
revisions to OAC 3745-21 in a set of submittals dated October 9, 2000,
February 6, 2000, and August 3, 2001; and also addresses revisions to
OAC 3745-21, submitted on June 24, 2003, as part of Ohio's five-year
rule review process.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2005-OH-003, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Fax: (312) 886-5824.
4. 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.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office 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-
2005-OH-003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http://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 Anthony Maietta, Life
Scientist, at (312) 353-8777 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony J. Maietta, Life Scientist,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Criteria Pollutant Section, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (312) 353-8777;
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. 2000/2001 Submittals
A. Review of the State's Submittals
1. What rule revisions does the State want approved into the
SIP, and are these rule revisions approvable?
2. What is EPA's view of the source-specific miscellaneous metal
coating submittal currently before EPA?
III. Five-Year Rule Review
A. Background
1. Why has the State requested revisions to this rule?
2. When did the State submit the requested rule revisions to
EPA?
[[Page 3669]]
3. When did the State adopt these rule revisions and have they
become effective?
4. When were public hearings held?
5. What issues were raised at the public hearings and how did
the State respond?
B. What are the revisions that the State requests be
incorporated into the SIP?
1. Grammar, Spelling, and Definitions
2. Attainment Dates and Compliance Schedules
3. Clarifications
4. Revised State Rule Applicability
5. Site-Specific Emissions Limit Amendments
6. Site-Specific Source Removal
C. What are the environmental effects of these actions?
IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action
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--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions 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. 2000/2001 Submittals
A. Review of the State's Submittals
1. What rule revisions does the State want approved into the SIP, and
are these rule revisions approvable?
The State of Ohio has adopted a number of revisions to the State's
organic material and volatile organic compounds (VOC) \1\ emission
control regulations, and has requested EPA to approve these rule
revisions for incorporation into Ohio's SIP. Two separate State
submittals for the 2000/2001 period are addressed in this proposed
rule. On October 9, 2000, Ohio submitted revisions to a number of
Ohio's VOC and organic material emission control regulations covering
multiple source facilities. On February 6, 2001, Ohio submitted a
request for EPA to review a Permit-To-Install (PTI) for Adelphia,
Incorporated. The source-specific PTI relies on certain VOC rule
revisions documented in the State's October 9, 2000 submittal, and,
therefore, the concurrence by EPA depends on the approval and SIP-
incorporation of the specific State rule revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State differentially defines ``organic material'' and
``volatile organic compounds'' in the State's rules. Volatile
organic compounds, as defined, are a subset of organic material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2001, Ohio submitted a request for EPA to review a PTI
for Honda of America Manufacturing, Incorporated. However, on December
4, 2002, Honda sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA) acknowledging concerns about whether the company had
adequately reviewed the option of add-on controls and whether the
company had justified a long-term limit on coating usage. As a result,
Honda formally withdrew its request to Ohio EPA. On June 12, 2008, Ohio
EPA submitted a formal withdrawal of the PTI request, and so this
rulemaking does not address such request.
As noted below, the State's June 24, 2003 submittal includes rule
paragraphs which have been amended and adopted by the State since the
State's October 9, 2000 submittal. Because the June 24, 2003 submittal
reflects current versions of these particular rule paragraphs and
because the versions of these rule paragraphs contained in the October
9, 2000 submittal may now be outdated, we will address these rule
paragraphs in the discussion of the 2003 submittal or in a separate
rulemaking.
In addition, the State submitted a new version of OAC 3745-21-07 on
April 7, 2008. This submittal is currently under review by EPA, so we
are not taking action on these parts of the original submittal in this
notice, and will instead address these rule paragraphs in a separate
rulemaking.
Revisions to Ohio's VOC and Organic Material Rules Submitted on October
9, 2000
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-01 (Definitions):
OAC 3745-21-01(B)(4):
Ohio revised the definition of ``organic compound'' to match the
definition of that term as used in paragraph (PP) of OAC 3745-31-01.
Ohio now defines ``organic compound'' to mean any chemical compound
containing carbon, excluding: Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide; carbonic
acid; metallic carbides; metallic carbonates; ammonium carbonate;
methane (except methane from landfill gases); and ethane. This rule
revision is acceptable and we are proposing to approve it.
OAC 3745-21-01(B)(6):
Ohio revised the definition of ``Volatile Organic Compounds'' to
exclude additional compounds considered to be negligibly reactive in
the chemical formation of ozone. Since this definition is further
amended in the June 24, 2003, five-year rule review submittal, we will
address all of the relevant changes in the definition in Section III of
this proposed rule.
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-04 (Attainment Dates and Compliance Time
Schedules):
All amended rule paragraphs in this section are also covered in
Section III of this proposed rule.
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-09 (Control of Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Stationary Sources):
OAC 3745-21-09(A)(4):
Paragraph (A) addresses the applicability of the VOC emission
control requirements contained in OAC 3745-21-09. Paragraph (A)(4) has
been revised to remove the applicability of paragraph (DDD) (Stage II
vapor control system requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities)
for gasoline dispensing facilities located in the Toledo, Ohio area
(Lucas and Wood Counties). Ohio revised this rule because the Toledo
area was redesignated to attainment of the one-hour ozone standard
before the Stage II vapor control requirements were required to be
implemented in this area and because the need for Stage II vapor
controls has been superseded by the implementation of vehicle onboard
emission controls. Therefore, the revision to paragraph (A)(4) is
acceptable and we are proposing to approve it.
OAC 3745-21-09(B)(3):
Paragraphs (B)(3)(d) and (B)(3)(e) address requirements for
recordkeeping and notification of violation (exceedance of maximum
daily coating usage limits) for coating lines exempted from the VOC
emission limitations specified in OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1).
Because, as discussed below, the addition of paragraph
(U)(2)(e)(ii) to OAC 3745-21-09 is acceptable, it is appropriate to
also incorporate paragraphs (B)(3)(d) and (B)(3)(e) into the SIP.
Exempted sources must continue to monitor coating usage and VOC
emissions and must notify the State of exceedances of maximum daily
coating usage limits.
[[Page 3670]]
OAC 3745-21-09(O)(1) and OAC 3745-21-09(O)(6):
Paragraph (O) addresses requirements for solvent metal cleaning
sources. Paragraph (O)(1) has been modified to reference new paragraph
(O)(6), which exempts specified types of sources from the requirements
of paragraphs (O)(2) (cold cleaner requirements), (O)(3) (open top
vapor degreaser requirements), and (O)(4) (conveyorized degreaser
requirements).
Paragraph (O)(6) is further revised in the June 24, 2003, submittal
and is addressed in Section III of this proposed rule. Since Paragraph
(O)(1) depends on paragraph (O)(6), we also propose action on the
revision to paragraph (O)(1) in Section III of this proposed rule.
OAC 3745-21-09(R)(4):
Paragraph (R) contains VOC emission control requirements for
filling of underground storage tanks at gasoline service stations.
Paragraph (R)(4) specifies source exemption criteria for this State
rule. Paragraph (R)(4)(a) has been modified to exempt two source types:
(i) Any gasoline service station which has an annual gasoline
throughput of less than 120,000 gallons; and (ii) gasoline transfers
made to stationary storage tanks which are equipped with internal or
external floating roofs. The uncorrected language of this paragraph
would have exempted sources only if they met both of these conditions,
which was not the intent of the State. We believe that the two
exemptions are acceptable as independent exemptions. Therefore, the
revision of paragraph (R)(4) is acceptable and we are proposing to
approve it.
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h):
OAC 3745-21-09(U) specifies VOC emission control requirements for
sources conducting surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and
products. Paragraph (U)(1) specifies VOC content limits for various
coating operations or coating types. The State-adopted rule, in
paragraph (U)(1)(h), contains a VOC content limit of 6.2 pounds per
gallon of coating, or, if an emissions control system is employed, 39.2
pounds of VOC per gallon of solids, for high performance architectural
aluminum coatings. (As a result of the difference between VOC content
limits expressed per gallon of coating versus per gallon of coating
solids, these are comparable limits.) Although the State has previously
requested that these VOC content limits be placed into the SIP, EPA has
not approved these VOC content limits. In its October 9, 2000, SIP
revision request, Ohio EPA is again requesting the approval of these
VOC content limits for high performance architectural aluminum coatings
as a SIP revision.
The VOC content limit for high performance architectural aluminum
coatings of 6.2 pounds per gallon of coating, or, if an emissions
control system is employed, 39.2 pounds of VOC per gallon of solids,
was incorporated into the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings document in September,
2008. This limit is less stringent than the general limit that applied
to this subcategory in previous guidance. For Ohio in particular,
approval of OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) would allow more emissions than the
Ohio SIP currently allows.
Under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA ``shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment [or other requirements].''
The State has not demonstrated that the relaxation of the VOC content
limit for high performance architectural aluminum coatings would not
interfere with attainment of the ozone standard and other requirements.
Therefore EPA believes it must continue to disapprove this requested
relaxation.
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2):
Paragraph (U)(2) specifies the types of sources that are exempted
from the emission control requirements of paragraph (U)(1).
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(e):
Paragraph (U)(2)(e), which exempts sources based on coating usage
rate limits, has been amended to restrict the exemption of
miscellaneous metal parts and products coating lines in Ashtabula,
Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Medina,
Portage, Summit, and Warren Counties to coating lines that apply no
more than three (3) gallons of coating per day. Other exemption clauses
in this paragraph remain essentially unchanged, but have been
grammatically modified to accommodate the revised exemption limit for
the applicable counties.
Ohio EPA has submitted analyses for the Cincinnati and Cleveland
areas assessing the allowable VOC emission rates for miscellaneous
metal coating lines under the reasonably available control technology
(RACT) based VOC content limit and under various coating usage rate
limits (gallons per day per coating line). The analysis considered VOC
emissions for all miscellaneous metal coating facilities in each area
as contained in Ohio EPA's source permit files. The analysis determined
daily allowable VOC emissions for each coating line at each facility.
Based on the coatings in use at the facilities, the analysis concluded
that, in both areas, an exemption of coating lines using no more than
three gallons per day per coating line would allow total VOC emissions
within five percent of the allowable VOC emissions expected without the
exemption.
Based on these results, we conclude that the State rule, as
revised, will provide emission reductions that are suitably close to
the emission control benefits that would be achieved with a regulation
strictly following RACT requirements. Therefore, this rule revision is
acceptable and we are proposing to approve it.
Please note that paragraph (U)(2)(e) is further revised in the
State's June 24, 2003, submittal; we discuss this paragraph in more
detail below. This section discusses paragraph (U)(2)(e) only to the
extent that it is revised in the October 9, 2000, submittal.
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f):
Paragraph (U)(2)(f) authorizes the exemption of metal coating lines
meeting certain criteria from the miscellaneous metal coating VOC
content and emission control requirements of paragraph (U)(1).
Effective January 24, 1983, Ohio EPA's rule stated that in order to
qualify for this emission control exemption, a coating line must be
subject to a state-issued permit to install (PTI) that specifies
alternate emission control requirements constituting ``best available
technology.'' Sources qualify for an alternative to the limits of
paragraph (U)(1) only if best available technology for the source is
found to be less stringent than, or inconsistent with, the emission
control requirements of paragraph (U)(1). The best available technology
must provide, where an emission limitation is applicable, the lowest
emission limitation that a subject emissions unit is capable of meeting
by application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.
On March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15235), EPA inadvertently approved a
version of paragraph (U)(2)(f) which allowed the State to approve and
issue PTIs for miscellaneous metal coating units without EPA review and
concurrence, and without approval of source-specific SIP revisions for
the applicable coating units. The particular version that EPA approved
had a State effective date of January 17, 1995. Subsequently, EPA
realized that it erred in approving this paragraph. In a September 24,
1999, letter to Ohio EPA, we informed the State of the erroneous
approval of (U)(2)(f) and commented that, if the State did not adopt
and submit an
[[Page 3671]]
acceptable revision to the paragraph, EPA intended to publish a
correction rescinding the 1995 approval.
In an attempt to rectify the deficiencies in the 1995 version, the
State submitted an October 9, 2000, SIP revision request that provided
a revised version of (U)(2)(f) (which became effective at the State on
June, 15, 1999) that required EPA review of, and concurrence with, the
PTIs prior to their finalization and issuance by the State. This
revised version of paragraph (U)(2)(f), however, did not provide a
suitable process involving formal EPA review of prospective exemptions
for inclusion in the Ohio SIP. Section 110 of the CAA dictates a
process in which States adopt measures required under the CAA, States
submit these measures to EPA, and then EPA conducts formal rulemaking
to assess whether these measures are to be added to the SIP. From the
State's effective date of their rule change (June 15, 1999), paragraph
(U)(2)(f) remained deficient because it did not contain the necessary
language to require exemptions to be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.
On March 23, 2009, Ohio submitted a revised version of paragraph
(U)(2)(f) which, upon review, was found to be approvable because it
provides EPA its proper role in reviewing and incorporating exemption
limits into Ohio's SIP. EPA approved this version of paragraph
(U)(2)(f) on July 28, 2009, at 74 FR 37171. Because this version
supersedes previous versions, we propose to take no action on paragraph
(U)(2)(f) from any submittal in this notice.
EPA and Ohio EPA have held discussions on how to best address
future requests for exemptions from the miscellaneous metal coating
limits in paragraph (U)(1). These discussions have reflected several
premises:
1. Given the broad coverage of the miscellaneous metal coating
rule, cases will arise where reasonably available control technology
for a particular coating unit is less stringent or is inconsistent with
the limits given in Ohio's rule 3745-21-09(U)(1), such that an
alternative emissions limit is necessary;
2. Ohio has been applying exemption provisions of paragraph
(U)(2)(f) in good faith. EPA does not intend to revisit the exemptions
that Ohio granted during the time that Ohio had this unilateral
authority. Discussions between EPA and Ohio EPA are intended instead to
define a process for addressing future exemption requests;
3. EPA and Ohio EPA will seek to define an exemption review process
that accommodates requirements within the State of Ohio for prompt
permit review;
4. EPA and Ohio will seek to define an exemption review process
that provides for joint review of exemption requests, that provides for
Ohio to issue permits containing alternative emission limits after any
EPA comments are taken into account, but that also reflects standard
provisions that the Federally enforceable limitations in the SIP are
revised only after EPA formally approves source-specific revisions
through formal EPA SIP revision rulemaking.
EPA and Ohio have taken steps to establish a process for review of
alternate miscellaneous metal coating limits based on the above
premises. As noted above, Ohio has adopted and submitted a rule which
provides for formal EPA SIP review of such alternate limits, and EPA
has approved this rule. EPA and Ohio have also prepared a MOU outlining
a process for issuing those exemptions.
The following table lists the facilities and source units that have
been granted source permits by the State before June 15, 1999, under
paragraph (U)(2)(f), along with their associated emission/VOC content
limits. EPA proposes to retain the effectiveness of (U)(2)(f)
exemptions issued between May 5, 1995, and June, 15, 1999. The permits
issued before that date are listed here but will be addressed in the
near future in a separate rulemaking. This table does not list any
permits issued after June 15, 1999, because State rules starting on
that date did not authorize the State to issue permits exempting
sources from limits under paragraph (U)(1) without EPA concurrence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short term limit VOC content/other
Facility ID Facility name (hr/day) TPY limit limit PTI PTI issue date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1409000714.......... Polymet 25 lbs VOC/month.. 0.15 tons VOC/yr.. None.............. 14-4578 Wednesday, September 23, 1992.
Corporation.
1409000716.......... Chase-Durus 55 lbs VOC/day; 10 5.72 tons OC/yr 5.5 lbs OC/gal, as 14-04268 Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
Industries. gal/day for both from coating applied,
metal and non- metal and 5.72 including water
metal. TPY from coating and exempt
non-metal; PTO: solvents (PTO
2.48 tons VOC/yr. uses VOC/gal).
1409000842.......... Ransoholff Inc.... 75 lbs VOC/day 10.55 tons VOC/yr. 7.5 lbs VOC/gal 14-04268 Wednesday, March 5, 1997.
from coatings; coating, as
830 lbs VOC/mo applied; 8.3 lbs
from CU; 10 gal/ VOC/gal CU, as
day of coating. applied.
1409000842.......... Ransoholff Inc.... 75 lbs VOC/day 10.55 tons VOC/yr. 7.5 lbs VOC/gal 14-04612 Wednesday, March 5, 1997.
from coatings; coating, as
830 lbs VOC/mo applied; 8.3 lbs
from CU; 10 gal/ VOC/gal CU, as
day of coating. applied.
1409000892.......... Phoenix 56.1 lbs OC/day... 4.5 tons OC/yr.... None.............. 14-04612 Thursday, January 21, 1999.
Presentations Inc.
1409000892.......... Phoenix 56.1 lbs OC/day... 4.5 tons OC/yr.... None.............. 14-04612 Thursday, January 21, 1999.
Presentations Inc.
1409000892.......... Phoenix 56.1 lbs OC/day... 4.5 tons OC/yr.... None.............. 14-04014 Thursday, January 21, 1999.
Presentations Inc.
[[Page 3672]]
1413080305.......... Lt. Moses Willard 49.6 lbs/day w/ 4.75 tons OC/yr 7.3 lbs OC/gal, 14-4220 Tuesday, December 23, 1997.
Inc. metal parts. from metal parts; including water
10.7 tons OC/yr and exempt
from wood and solvents for all
metal and all CU. coatings and all
CU materials.
1413080305.......... Lt. Moses Willard 49.6 lbs/day w/ 4.75 tons OC/yr 7.3 lbs OC/gal, 14-4348 Tuesday, December 23, 1997.
Inc. metal parts. from metal parts; including water
10.7 tons OC/yr and exempt
from wood and solvents for all
metal and all CU. coatings and all
CU materials.
1431072466.......... Air Placement 5.27 lbs VOC/hr; 1 1.36 TPY: PTO and 5.27 lbs VOC/gal 14-4027 Wednesday, September 27, 1989.
Equipment Co. gal/hr topcoat; 1 a Summary limit topcoat as an
gal/hr primer. in PTI. average; 5.22 lbs
VOC/gal primer;
6.47 lbs VOC/gal
CU.
1431403268.......... Cincinnati Sub- 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, 6.46 tons VOC/yr.. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, 14-1750 Wednesday, December 7, 1988.
Zero Products. as a monthly as a monthly
volume weighted volume weighted
average. average.
1431403268.......... Cincinnati Sub- 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, 1.28 tons VOC/yr.. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, 14-1750 Wednesday, December 7, 1988.
Zero Products. as a monthly as a monthly
volume weighted volume weighted
average. average.
1431403974.......... WHM Equipment Co.. 46.15 lbs VOC/day; 4.03 tons VOC/yr.. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal 14-4610 Wednesday, May 28, 1997.
8 gals coating/ coatings; 6.15
day and 1 gal/day lbs VOC/gal CU.
CU.
1431483908.......... Panel Fab, Inc.... 56.05 lbs VOC/day; 5.56 tons VOC/yr.. 6.1 lbs VOC/gal of 01-6635 Wednesday, March 6, 1996.
8 gal/day coating, as
coating; 1 gal/ applied; 7.25 lbs/
day CU. gal of CU.
1483060233.......... Fujitec America, 2.89 lbs VOC/gal 11.7 tons/yr...... 2.89 lbs VOC/gal 01-08869 December 8, 1983.
Inc. of prime coat. of prime coat.
1483060233.......... Fujitec America, 5.383 lbs VOC/day; 0.864 ton VOC/yr 6.72 lbs VOC/gal 01-6743 October 15, 1990.
Inc. 0.801 gal coating/ including CU. coating, minus
day. water (PTO:
Excluding water
and exempt
solvents).; 7.2
lbs VOC/gal CU
minus water (PTO:
Excluding water
and exempt
solvents).
1483090326.......... Cincinnati Fan & 102.4 lbs VOC/day. Summary limit: 5.7 lbs VOC/gal 01-6743 Wednesday, April 26, 1995.
Ventilator. 16.54 tons VOC/yr. coating,
excluding water
and exempt
solvents; 7.3 lbs
VOC/gal for CU.
0180000130.......... Honda MAP......... 6.5 lbs VOC/gal, 81.7 tons/rolling 6.5 lbs VOC/gal as 03-10256 01-2675, issued 9/18/90; 01-6642 mod
as applied, when 12-mo. applied, when 8/7/01; 01-8869 mod 12/02/04; mod 1/
coating metal coating metal 13/05, mod 9/20/07.
motorcycle parts auto parts; 4.3
and non-metal. lbs VOC/gal of
clear coat,
excluding water
and exempt
solvents, or if a
control system is
used 10.3 lbs VOC/
gal of solids on
metal non-
motorcycle parts;
3.5 lbs VOC/gal
coating,
excluding water.
[[Page 3673]]
0180000130.......... Honda MAP......... 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 55.3 tons/rolling 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 03-10256 December 24, 1997.
a daily volume- 12 mo. from a daily volume-
weighted average. coatings. weighted average.
0180000130.......... Honda MAP......... 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 43.7 tons/rolling 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 03-10256 December 24, 1997.
a daily volume- 12 mo. from a daily volume-
weighted average. coatings. weighted average.
0278080612.......... Ohio Trailer...... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn None.............. 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 03-10256 October 11, 1984.
primer, excluing primer, excluding
water; 4.5 lbs water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat, VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water excluding water
(PTO: Excluding (PTO: Excluding
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, as solvents, as
applied on a applied on a
daily volume- daily volume-
weighted weighted average).
average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
0278080612.......... Ohio Trailer...... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn None.............. 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 03-10256 October 11, 1984.
primer, excluing primer, excluing
water; 4.5 lbs water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat, VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water excluding water
(PTO: Excluding (PTO: Excluding
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, as solvents, as
applied on a applied on a
daily volume- daily volume-
weighted weighted average).
average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
0278080612.......... Ohio Trailer...... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn None.............. 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 03-0257 October 11, 1984.
primer, excluding primer, excluding
water; 4.5 lbs water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat, VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water excluding water
(PTO: Excluding (PTO: Excluding
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, as solvents, as
applied on a applied on a
daily volume- daily volume-
weighted weighted average).
average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
0306010138.......... Goodyear Tire and 202 lbs VOC/day... None.............. None, 202 lbs VOC/ 14-04268 October 2, 1991.
Rubber, St. Marys. day; 416 gal
primer/mo and 520
gal top coat/mo.
0306020025.......... American Trim basecoat: 1.53 lbs basecoat: 6.69 basecoat: 4.64 lbs 14-04268 October 29, 1997.
(Superior Metal OC/hr; topcoat tons OC/yr; VOC/gal; topcoat
Products: Plant 1.72 lbs OC/hr; topcoat 7.57 tons 4.92 lbs VOC/gal;
4). ink: 0.07 lb OC/ OC/yr; ink: 0.31 ink: 3.43 lbs VOC/
hr. tons OC/yr; CU gal, all
6.00 tons/yr and excluding water
986 lbs OC/mo. and exempt
solvents.
0306020025.......... American Trim basecoat: 1.96 lbs basecoat: 8.56 basecoat and 14-04612 October 29, 1997.
(Superior Metal OC/hr; topcoat: tons OC/yr; topcoat: 3.00 lbs
Products: Plant 1.96 lbs OC/hr. topcoat 8.56 tons VOC/gal excluding
4). OC/yr; CU 6.00 water and exempt
tons/yr and 986 solvents.
lbs OC/mo.
[[Page 3674]]
0387020354.......... Henry Filters..... 35.0 lbs OC/hr- 19.0 ton OC/yr & 7.0 lbs VOC/gal, 14-04612 June 26, 1996; last as a
K001. 1.6 tons/mo from excluding H20 & modification on 8/22/2002.
K001, K002, K003 exempt solvents,
together (K002 as applied.
and K003 in
different permit).
0546000117.......... Honda East Liberty 87.2 lbs VOC/hr... EU Group Limits: 5.32 lbs VOC/gal, 14-04612 April 17, 1996.
11 EUs: 1,268.65 excluding water
tons VOC/rolling and exempt
12-mo coating; 18 solvents, as a
EUs: 103.3 tons monthly volume-
per rolling 12 weighted average.
mo. and 38.44
tons/mo from CU.
0546000117.......... Honda East Liberty 19.6 lbs VOC/hr 29.2 tons VOC per 6.54 lbs VOC/gal, 14-04014 April 17, 1996.
from coatings; rolling 12-mo. excluding water
5.8 lbs/hr from from coatings; and exempt
non-PRM solvents. 9.98 tons VOC per solvents, as a
rolling 12-mo for monthly volume-
non-PRM solvents. weighted average.
0575010106.......... American Trim..... 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 18.895 tons VOC/ 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 14-4822 June 30, 1994.
coating as rolling 12. coating as
applied minus applied minus
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, for solvents, for
extreme extreme
performance performance
coatings. coatings.
0575010106.......... American Trim LLC. 5.21 lbs VOC/gal 18.874 tons VOC/ 5.21 lbs VOC/gal 14-4822 January 5, 1994.
coating as rolling 12. coating as
applied minus applied minus
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, for solvents, for
extreme extreme
performance performance
coatings; 7.76 coatings; 7.76
lbs VOC/gal lbs VOC/gal
cleanup. cleanup.
0575010106.......... American Trim..... 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 22.8 tons VOC/ 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 14-4220 September 13, 1995.
coating as rolling 12. coating as
applied minus applied minus
water and exempt water and exempt
solvents, for solvents, for
extreme extreme
performance performance
coatings; 7.76 coatings; 7.76
lbs VOC/gal lbs VOC/gal
cleanup. cleanup.
0575010106.......... American Trim..... 5.21 lbs VOC/gal, 27.8 tons VOC/ 5.21 lbs VOC/gal, 14-4220 December 3, 1998 (05-9516); 05-12030
as applied minus rolling 12 mo. as applied minus mod issued final 7/30/02 and new
water and exempt water and exempt mod draft issued 9/9/04.
solvents for solvents for
extreme extreme
performance performance
coatings; 7.76 coatings; 7.76
lbs VOC/gal CU. lbs VOC/gal CU.
0708000017.......... Hawkline, LLC 2007.87 lbs VOC/ 204.4 tons VOC/ 3.5 lbs VOC/gal, 14-4348 February 28,1996.
(formerly Trinity day. rolling 12. excluding water
Industries). as a monthly
volume-weighted
average.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted below, Ohio submitted requests for two source facilities,
i.e., Honda of America Manufacturing, Incorporated and Adelphia,
Incorporated, for exemptions from RACT requirements through source
permits based on paragraph (U)(2)(f), as revised in 1999. These permits
were issued at a time when the state's rules required EPA concurrence
on the permit, and EPA intends to grant concurrence only through
rulemaking on a formal SIP submittal. Ohio has not formally requested
SIP approval of these permits, and, in fact Ohio has withdrawn the
submittal for Honda. Nevertheless, in this proposed rulemaking, we are
providing a partial review of these permits to facilitate future
review, presumably to occur if and when Ohio submits the provisions
[[Page 3675]]
of these permits as a formal SIP revision request.
OAC 3745-21-09(Y):
This paragraph addresses the VOC emissions control requirements for
flexographic, packaging rotogravure, and publication rotogravure
printing lines. Paragraph (Y)(1)(a) specifies the VOC content limits
for coatings and inks used in these printing lines. The VOC content
limit contained in paragraph (Y)(1)(a)(i) has been revised to add the
exclusion of ``exempt solvents.'' The revised VOC content limit
becomes: Forty (40) percent VOC by volume of the coating/ink, excluding
water and exempt solvents. This revision to Paragraph (Y) is acceptable
and we are proposing to approve it.
OAC 3745-21-09(KK):
This paragraph contains source-specific non-control technique
guideline (non-CTG) RACT requirements for the Morton Thiokol facility
located at 2000 West Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. Paragraph (KK)(1) has
been revised to change the method of calculating the emissions control
efficiency of the vapor recovery system for this facility. The revised
method requires the owner/operator to determine the amount of VOC
vented to the vapor recovery system and the percentage of vented VOC
captured by the vapor recovery system. The revised emissions monitoring
requirement provides a more accurate determination of the emissions
control efficiency of the vapor recovery system than the prior use of
the assumption that all VOC used in the processes are emitted.
This revision to the rule is a technical improvement. Since the
rule depends on the determination of the emission control efficiency of
the VOC recovery system, this rule revision will allow a more accurate
determination of compliance with the VOC emission control requirements.
This rule revision is acceptable and we are proposing to approve it.
OAC 3745-21-09(BBB):
This paragraph contains source-specific non-CTG RACT requirements
for the BF Goodrich Company Akron Chemical Plant located at 240 West
Emerling Avenue, Akron, Ohio. Paragraph (BBB)(1) has been amended to
delete a requirement that, for the agerite resin D process, the VOC
emissions from the vapor recovery system vents and neutralization and
distillation system vents (except wash kettle or still feed condenser
vents, stills vacuum jet tailpipe vents, and process emergency safety
relief devices) be vented to an emissions control device that is
designed and operated to achieve an emissions control efficiency of at
least 90 percent, by weight. In place of this deleted emissions control
efficiency requirement, the revised paragraph now specifies a total
annual VOC emissions limit of 1.0 ton from the recovery system and
neutralization and distillation system vents.
A 1994 compliance test showed that the facility's agerite resin D
process unit emits a maximum of 0.146 pounds VOC per hour. In-process
VOC reductions help to keep the annual VOC emissions from the agerite
resin D process to under 1.0 ton per year. Because the BF Goodrich
Company has claimed that a 90 percent VOC control efficiency
requirement is not reasonable, the Company has sought an alternate
emission requirement based on an annual emission limit.
Although EPA can approve alternative site-specific source emission
requirements where warranted and this emission source is relatively
small, constrained to VOC emissions of 1.0 ton per year or less, this
revised rule is deficient from the standpoint that the revised rule
does not specify or identify test procedures and recordkeeping
requirements compatible with the revised emission limit. Therefore,
this revised rule is not enforceable and is not approvable in its
current form. EPA assumes that the State can correct this rule
deficiency and submit a revision to the rule in a reasonable time of
less than one year following final rulemaking on this rule revision.
Therefore, we are proposing to conditionally approve this rule. EPA may
approve the requested revision based on a commitment of the State to
correct the erroneous content by a date certain, but not later than one
year after the date of conditional approval of the plan revision. The
State must submit such a commitment to EPA before EPA completes final
rulemaking on this conditional approval. Any such conditional approval
will be treated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such
commitment. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.
If Ohio submits revisions correcting the deficiencies, as discussed
above, within one year from this conditional approval becoming final
and effective, EPA will publish a subsequent notice in the Federal
Register to acknowledge conversion of the conditional approval to a
full approval.
OAC 3745-21-09(DDD):
This rule paragraph is further revised in the June 24, 2003
submittal. All revisions to this paragraph, including those in the
October 9, 2000 submittal, are addressed in the discussion of the 2003
submittal.
Summarized Revisions to OAC 3745-21-10 (Compliance Test Methods and
Procedures):
OAC 3745-21-10(C):
Paragraph (C)(3)(c) refers to the determination of the emissions
capture efficiency of any vapor collection system used to collect and
transport VOC from the point of origin to an emissions control system.
This paragraph has been amended to require that capture efficiencies be
determined in accordance with Methods 204 through 204F, as specified in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M or
in accordance with the alternative capture efficiency testing protocols
specified in the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
document titled ``Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency,''
dated January 9, 1995. This revised capture efficiency test method
requirement replaces a requirement that the capture efficiency be
computed or measured in a manner based on accepted engineering
practices and in a manner acceptable to Ohio EPA.
Ohio's requested SIP revision seeks to require that capture
efficiency determinations either comply with the test procedures
specified in the CFR or comply with alternative test procedures
outlined in EPA's January 9, 1995, ``Guideline for Determining Capture
Efficiency.'' This requirement is acceptable and we are proposing to
approve it.
OAC 3745-21-10(O):
Paragraph (O)(2)(c) allows the owner/operator of equipment at a
petroleum refinery subject to paragraphs (T) or (DD) of OAC 3745-21-09
to use engineering judgment rather than more specific quantitative
procedures specified in paragraph (O)(2)(b) to demonstrate that the VOC
content of a process fluid does not exceed 10 percent by weight. In the
event that Ohio EPA or EPA disagree with an engineering judgment, the
specific quantitative procedures specified in paragraph (O)(2)(b) must
be used to resolve the disagreement.
Paragraph (O)(2)(c) has been revised to correct prior typographical
errors in this portion of the rule. These typographical error
corrections do not significantly change this rule from the previously
approved version contained in the SIP. Therefore, these error
corrections are acceptable and we are proposing to approve them.
2. What is EPA's view of the source-specific miscellaneous metal
coating submittal currently before EPA?
A February 6, 2001 state specific submittal from Ohio EPA with a
VOC
[[Page 3676]]
emissions control exemption for Adelphia, Incorporated (Adelphia) in
Cleveland, Ohio involves the source seeking alternative VOC emission
limits through a State PTI under the provisions of revised OAC 3745-21-
09(U)(2)(f). As noted above, this revised rule allows a miscellaneous
metal coating source to seek a State PTI which would establish emission
control requirements that are less stringent than, or are otherwise
inconsistent with, RACT requirements without obtaining EPA approval of
a source-specific SIP revision, but requiring EPA concurrence with the
PTI.
As noted above, under the version of OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f)
applicable at the time this PTI was issued, this permit may only be
issued after EPA concurrence, but EPA intends to provide concurrence
only if Ohio satisfies the applicable public hearing requirements so we
can process this PTI as a possible source-specific SIP revision. EPA
does not have a formal SIP revision request, and so we are not
proposing to act on the PTI in the context of this rule. Nevertheless,
we interpret Ohio's submittal for Adelphia as a possible future source-
specific SIP revision request. Although the PTI inherently depends on
the approval of OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f), which we are proposing to take
no action on, the State could revert the PTI submittal to a SIP
revision request, which is an acceptable approach under the CAA. To
avoid further delay in addressing the possible needs of this source for
special consideration under existing RACT requirements, we are
addressing the merits of the submittal here as if the State had
submitted it as a source-specific SIP revision request. Before any
approval of this submittal as a source-specific SIP revision request
could occur, the State would need to issue the PTI or otherwise adopt
the limits and then formally request its approval by EPA as a SIP
revision. The State would also have to address SIP procedure
requirements, including addressing the public hearing requirement. The
PTI submittal is addressed below.
Adelphia, Incorporated
Adelphia owns and operates a facility in Cleveland, Ohio that coats
threads of metal fasteners used by several customers in the manufacture
of automobiles. This facility has been in operation since 1974, and is
located in the Cleveland ozone maintenance area, where miscellaneous
metal parts and products coating facilities have been required to
comply with RACT requirements.
Prior to submitting its request for a source control variance PTI
under OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f), Adelphia operated five coating lines at
the Cleveland facility. These coating lines typically operated at rates
below maximum capacities. Adelphia, however, realized that it would
have to increase production rates to meet customer demands. This
observation was coupled with the realization that Adelphia uses
coatings with VOC contents exceeding the limits contained in OAC 3745-
21-09(U)(1) and that compliant coatings were not currently available.
These observations were the basis for Adelphia seeking the PTI. The
requested PTI would provide for the use of six coating lines with
limitations on coating usage rates and for increased VOC content
limits.
To meet anticipated coating demands and to possibly comply with
Ohio VOC control requirements, Adelphia considered a number of options,
including: (1) Adding coating lines to keep per line coating usages
rates below 3 gallons per day, in compliance with Ohio's VOC control
requirements for the Cleveland area; (2) use of new VOC-compliant
coatings; and (3) use of add-on VOC emission control systems.
Adelphia anticipated that coating usage rates in the near future
would approach 40 gallons per day. To achieve a per line coating usage
rate limit of 3 gallons per day, as allowed under OAC 3745-21-
09(U)(2)(e)(ii), as amended in 1999 and as reviewed elsewhere in this
proposed rule, Adelphia would have to add a significant number of
coating lines. Adelphia determined that the economics of its coating
operations would not support the use of so many coating lines applying
limited amounts of coatings each day (no more than 3 gallons of coating
per line per day).
Adelphia has documented that it has made serious attempts to obtain
compliant coatings from a number of coating suppliers. Prior to
requesting the PTI, Adelphia was able to obtain acceptable coatings
(those coatings that meet customer specifications) from only one
supplier. That coating supplier only provides acceptable coatings with
VOC contents of 5.7 pounds per gallon of coating as applied, well above
the VOC content limits of 3.5 and 3.0 pounds per gallon of coating,
excluding water and exempt compounds, as applicable to Adelphia's
operations as specified in OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1)(c) and (i). Adelphia is
currently only licensed to apply the coatings from this single
supplier. Adelphia's attempts to expand its license to additional
suppliers with compliant coatings have been refused by those coating
suppliers.
Adelphia documented its assessment of the technical and economic
feasibility of using add-on VOC emission controls. Following Ohio's
Guideline 46 to determine cost-effectiveness of alternative
emission control systems, Adelphia investigated the use of add-on
controls for each coating line singly and for all lines vented to a
single add-on emissions control system. Adelphia investigated both
regenerative VOC capture systems and thermal destruction systems.
Adelphia determined that the most cost-effective VOC control systems
would involve the use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer system. Use of
such an emissions control system with appropriate VOC capture and
ducting systems resulted in cost-effectiveness estimates ranging from
$18,868 per ton of VOC controlled for a single control system for all
lines combined to $21,642 per ton of VOC controlled for separate
emission control systems on each coating line. Adelphia notes that the
lowest cost-effectiveness estimate is double the highest value that
Ohio has previously found to be cost-effective for miscellaneous metal
coating operations. Adelphia also notes that such emission control
costs would be a high percentage of Adelphia's annual operating costs,
jeopardizing the continued existence of its coating operations.
Considering Adelphia's supporting documentation and best available
technology determination, Ohio EPA issued a draft PTI to Adelphia on
February 6, 2001. Besides standard PTI requirements, the PTI included
the following source-specific VOC control requirements:
(1) The VOC emissions from the coatings facility-wide are limited
to 29.64 tons per rolling twelve month period, and the VOC emissions
from each coating line are limited to 10.4 tons for each rolling twelve
month period;
(2) The application of coatings for each coating line is limited to
10 gallons per day, and all six permitted coating lines are limited to
the application of no more than 40 gallons of coatings in total per
day; and,
(3) The VOC content of the coatings applied cannot exceed 5.7
pounds per gallon, excluding water and exempt solvents.
The PTI also specifies the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements needed to track and enforce these VOC emission control
requirements for each coating line. The PTI specifies reporting
requirements, which include requirements for notification of Ohio EPA
in the event that monthly records show a violation of the VOC emission
control requirements. Finally, the PTI
[[Page 3677]]
requires Adelphia to continue the pursuit to find suppliers of coatings
meeting the requirements of OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1) and to periodically
inform Ohio EPA of its progress in this effort.
We have determined that Adelphia has made reasonable efforts to
comply with the requirements of OAC 3745-21-09(U)(1) and (U)(2)(e) and
has successfully documented the need for a source-specific rule
revision. The only issue of concern that we have found in the PTI is
that the source-specific rule would provide for annual limits on VOC
emissions, which deviate from short-term emission limits preferred by
EPA. This problem, however, is mitigated by the inclusion of daily
coating usage limits and a VOC content limit that together will
constrain daily peak VOC emissions. We conclude that, if Ohio satisfies
the applicable public hearing requirements to process this PTI as a
possible source-specific SIP revision, we would expect that this SIP
revision would be approvable.
III. Five-Year Rule Review
A. Background
1. Why has the State requested revisions to this rule?
Every five years, Ohio EPA is required to review and revise its
rules as necessary. Changes are generally minor, and clarification
language is added to address rule comprehension problems.
2. When did the State submit the requested rule revisions to EPA?
On June 24, 2003, the Director of Ohio EPA submitted a request to
approve the incorporated revisions to OAC 3745-21: Carbon Monoxide,
Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons, and Related Materials
Standards into the SIP.
On October 9, 2000, Ohio submitted prior revisions to OAC 3745-21.
The previous section of this notice addresses revisions to OAC 3745-21
which were requested prior to the State's June 24, 2003, submittal.
Some of the rule paragraphs with revisions contained in the State's
October 9, 2000, submittal, however, include rule paragraphs further
amended and adopted by the State and covered by the State's June 24,
2003, submittal. These paragraphs include: (1) 3745-21-01: (B)(6); (2)
3745-20-04: (B)(1), (B)(1)(a), (B)(5), (C)(16)(b), and (C)(27)(c); and,
(3) 3745-21-09: (O)(1), (O)(6), and (DDD).
The June 24, 2003, submittal reflects current versions of these
particular rule paragraphs, and since the versions of these rule
paragraphs contained in the October 9, 2000, submittal may now be
outdated, we are also addressing those older rule paragraphs in this
section.
3. When did the State adopt these rule revisions and have they become
effective?
Ohio EPA adopted the revisions on October 25, 2002, and the
revisions became effective on November 5, 2002.
4. When were public hearings held?
Ohio EPA held a public hearing on March 14, 2002, in Columbus,
Ohio. Ohio EPA also submitted the draft rules to a list of interested
parties.
5. What issues were raised at the public hearings and how did the State
respond?
No comments were received concerning OAC 3745-21-02, 3745-21-03,
3745-21-04, 3745-21-06, 3745-21-08, and 3745-21-11. One comment was
received for OAC 3745-21-01, in which the interested party requested
the addition of a definition for ``CARB certification''. Ohio EPA added
the requested definition to the rule.
Ohio received multiple comments for OAC 3745-21-09. Honda of
America requested clarification language for portions of this rule. In
response to Honda of America's requests, Ohio EPA revised the portions
of the rules which would not affect the rule's scope or definition.
Ohio EPA denied revision requests that, in its opinion, did not provide
further clarification. Ohio EPA also denied revision requests which
would have changed the scope or definition of the rule.
One comment was received for OAC 3745-21-10, in which the
interested parties requested revising the rule language to reflect the
addition of the ``CARB certification'' definition to OAC 3745-21-01.
Ohio EPA revised the rule.
B. What are the revisions that the State requests be incorporated into
the SIP?
The State requests changes to OAC 3745-21-01 Definitions; 3745-21-
02 Ambient air quality standards and guidelines; 3745-21-03 Methods of
ambient air quality measurement; 3745-21-04 Attainment dates and
compliance schedules; 3745-21-06 Classification of regions; 3745-21-08
Control of carbon monoxide emissions from stationary sources; 3745-21-
09 Control of emissions of volatile organic compounds from stationary
sources and perchloroethylene from dry cleaning facilities; and, 3745-
21-10 Compliance test methods and procedures. The revisions are of the
following nature:
1. Grammar, Spelling, and Definitions
A number of the revisions to OAC 3745-21 correct improper grammar
and spelling. Revisions of this nature have been made to the following:
(1) OAC 3745-21-01: Paragraphs (B)(6), (M)(17); and, (2) OAC 3745-21-
09: Paragraphs (O)(5)(b), (O)(6)(a), (FF)(1), (II)(3), (II)(4),
(PP)(2), (UU)(3), Appendix A.
The phrases ``CARB certified'' and ``CARB certification'' have been
added to OAC 3745-21-01(H)(4) which applies to rules that govern vapor
recovery systems. Paragraphs (H)(4) to (H)(19) have been renumbered to
allow for the addition of the new definition. Further additions of
``CARB certification'' references have been added to OAC 3745-21-
09(DDD) and OAC 3745-21-10 Appendix A and Appendix B.
A definition which does not have a corresponding rule attached to
it has been removed. The rule that referenced the definition for
``Architectural coatings'' in 3745-21-01(C)(1) was amended in a
previous revision, and the definition is no longer necessary.
Spelling and grammar revisions to OAC 3745-21-01, 3745-21-02, 3745-
21-09, and 3745-21-10 do not affect the scope or enforceability of
these rules. The revisions have been made to make the rules easier to
read and understand.
2. Attainment Dates and Compliance Schedules
Because so many changes were made to OAC 3745-21-04, the entire
rule was rescinded and rewritten. OAC 3745-21-04(A) defines attainment
dates for counties that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone. The dates of
attainment for these counties have been revised to be consistent with
the CAA, as amended.
OAC 3745-21-04(C) contains a lengthy list of interim and final
compliance dates for categorized and site specific CO and VOC sources.
All of the interim and final compliance dates for these sources passed
prior to the November 5, 2002, adoption of these revisions into Ohio
law. Ohio EPA removed the now defunct interim compliance dates and
rewrote the following paragraphs of OAC 3745-21-04(C) to reflect only
the final compliance dates: (C)(2), (C)(3)(c), (C)(4)(a), (C)(4)(b),
(C)(5)(a), (C)(5)(b), (C)(6)(a), (C)(6)(b), (C)(7), (C)(8)(a),
(C)(8)(b), (C)(8)(c), (C)(9)(a), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10)(a), (C)(10)(b),
(C)(11), (C)(12), (C)(13), (C)(14), (C)(16)(a), (C)(17), (C)(18),
(C)(19)(a), (C)(20), (C)(21), (C)(22), (C)(23), (C)(24), (C)(25),
(C)(26), (C)(27), (C)(28)(a), (C)(28)(b), (C)(30), (C)(31), (C)(33),
(C)(35), (C)(36), (C)(37),
[[Page 3678]]
(C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(40), (C)(41), (C)(46), (C)(48)(a), (C)(48)(b),
(C)(51), (C)(54), (C)(55), (C)(58), (C)(59), (C)(60), (C)(62), (C)(65),
and (C)(66).
The final compliance dates remain federally enforceable. Because
the interim compliance dates have long passed, and because the final
compliance dates are the only ones necessary for enforcement of the
rule, removing the interim compliance dates is acceptable and we are
proposing to approve it. It should be noted that we are taking no
action on paragraph (C)(3)(a) because the paragraph has subsequently
been amended by the State in a March 23, 2009, submittal and will be
addressed in a separate rulemaking.
OAC 3745-21-04 contains two paragraphs which offer alternative
compliance timelines for can coating lines and printing lines. These
alternative compliance timelines were originally offered so that
affected sources could take advantage of extra time for complying with
the regulations, if necessary. Paragraphs (C)(3)(b) and (C)(32)(b) have
been removed in the revision because the alternative dates (December
31, 1985, and December 31, 1987) have long since passed, and there is
no longer any need to offer these alternative dates. Removal of these
paragraphs is acceptable and we are proposing to approve it.
3. Clarifications
Many revisions to OAC 3745-21 have been made to make the rule
easier to understand. These revisions resulted in part because of
comments received from interested parties. The revisions allow the
rules to be brief and clear as to what necessary steps should be taken
to comply with the law.
Ohio EPA revised paragraphs (A) and (B) of OAC 3745-21-02 so that
the concentration of CO and ozone will be measured solely in parts per
million by volume (ppmv). The measurement definition of CO and ozone in
milligrams per cubic meter was removed. This change is acceptable
because the ppmv measurement already existed in the rule, because ppmv
are the official units of these standards, and removal of the
alternative measurement simplifies the sampling process. We are
proposing to approve these revisions.
Paragraphs (B), (B)(1), and (B)(2) of OAC 3745-21-03 have been
revised so that the reader gains a better understanding of what is
considered valid equipment for monitoring CO and ozone. References to
the CFR have been added to OAC 3745-21-03(C) which the reader can
reference to determine the Federal standards for continuous ozone
sampling equipment. Ohio EPA clarified the language of final compliance
dates for gasoline dispensing facilities and gasoline tank trucks in
the following paragraphs of OAC 3745-21-04: (C)(19)(b), (C)(19)(c),
(C)(19)(d), (C)(28)(e), (C)(29), (C)(64)(a)(i), (C)(64)(a)(ii),
(C)(64)(a)(iii), (C)(64)(b)(i), (C)(64)(b)(ii), and (C)(64)(b)(iii).
The original compliance dates were stated in relation to a period
of time after a specified date. The revised compliance dates now state
the final date possible for compliance (for example, ``by not later
than six months after March 31, 1993'' becomes, ``September 30,
1993'').
OAC 3745-21-08(A) states which areas in Ohio are subject to
controls and measures contained in OAC 3745-21-08. Paragraph (A) states
that only counties classified as ``Priority I'' are subject to this
rule. This paragraph has been rescinded.
OAC 3745-21-08(B), which concerns best available control techniques
(BACT) applicability to new sources of CO, has been rescinded. OAC
3745-31-05(A)(3) is now the rule that covers new source BACT.
OAC 3745-21-08(C), which allows the use of alternative means of
emission control, has been rescinded. This does not decrease the
effectiveness of OAC 3745-21-08, because with the revision, a new
source must use federally enforceable, State-mandated control
technology.
OAC 3745-21-08(D) has been reworded to apply the CO controls
described within this paragraph to new sources of CO that are emitted
during the operation of grey iron cupolas, blast furnaces, or basic
oxygen steel furnaces. The additions clarify the fact that the
paragraph applies to new sources of CO of the type described in this
paragraph.
OAC 3745-21-08(E) has been reworded to apply described CO controls
to new sources of CO emitted through the waste gas stream during the
operation of petroleum cracking systems, petroleum fluid cokers, or
other petroleum processes. The additions clarify the fact that the
paragraph applies to new sources of CO of these types.
Various paragraphs in OAC 3745-21-09 have been revised to let the
reader understand which specific rules apply. The revised paragraphs
state various recordkeeping, recording, applicability, emissions, and
emissions exceedances reports requirements for sources in Ohio in a
clearer way. Revisions of this nature were made to the following
paragraphs: (B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(f), (B)(3)(h), (B)(3)(j), (B)(3)(l),
(B)(4)(a), (B)(4)(b), (C)(4), (H)(1)(a), (H)(1)(b), (H)(3), (O)(6)(b),
(U)(1), (U)(2)(e), and (U)(2)(h).
Ohio EPA added references to the CFR in paragraphs (NN) and (VV) of
OAC 3745-21-09. These revisions clarify the specifications for a
continuous VOC emission control system (paragraph (NN)) and methods for
continuous emissions monitoring (Paragraph (VV)).
The last type of clarification revisions deal with
perchloroethylene's non-VOC status. Perchloroethylene is a widely used
dry cleaning chemical which EPA removed from the list of VOC's (see 40
CFR 51.100(s)). As a result, portions of OAC 3745-21 were revised to
clarify the status of perchloroethylene. The following paragraphs have
been revised in this manner: OAC 3745-21-01(C)(5)(a); OAC 3745-21-
09(AA)(1)(b) and (AA)(1)(c); and OAC 3745-21-10(J).
These clarification revisions were made in part because of comments
received from interested parties. They allow the rules to be brief and
clear as to what steps are necessary to comply with the law. The
revisions do not change the scope or enforceability of the rule, and,
therefore, are acceptable. We are proposing to approve these revisions.
4. Revised State Rule Applicability
OAC 3745-21-06, which classifies regions of the State for
determining applicability to CO and VOC regulations, has been revised
by eliminating an exemption for CO regulations. This revision does not
reduce the scope or enforceability of CO regulations, and therefore, it
is acceptable. We are proposing to approve this revision.
5. Site-Specific Emissions Limit Amendments
OAC 3745-21-09(II), which deals with site-specific non-CTG RACT
emissions limits for the ``International Paper Company'' in Springdale,
Ohio, has been revised to lower the acceptable amount of VOC in the
fountain solution employed in any sheet-fed offset lithographic
printing process while refrigerated in a cooling unit. The acceptable
amount of VOC in the solution has been lowered from 10 percent to 8.5
percent. This revision increases the stringency of the rule, which is
acceptable. We are proposing to approve this revision.
OAC 3745-21-09 paragraph (OO) was revised. This paragraph
determines the allowable VOC content of materials used in the processes
at ``Armco Steel Company, L.P.'' located in Middletown, Ohio.
Paragraph (OO)(1) has been changed so that the maximum allowable
VOC content of any rolling oil employed in
[[Page 3679]]
the temper mills of ``Armco Steel Company, L.P.'' or any subsequent
owner of the facility at 1801 Crawford Street, Middletown, Ohio, is 6.9
pounds of VOC per gallon of oil, excluding water and exempt solvents.
The previously allowed amount was 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of oil,
excluding water and exempt solvents.
Paragraph (OO)(2) has been changed so that the maximum allowable
VOC content of any rust preventive oil employed in the temper mills,
shears, corrective rewinds, slitters, coating lines, and pickle lines
of ``Armco Steel Company, L.P.'' or any subsequent owner of the
facility at 1801 Crawford Street, Middletown, Ohio, is 3.3 pounds of
VOC per gallon of oil, excluding water and exempt solvents. The
previously allowed amount of VOC was 1.1 pounds per gallon of oil,
excluding water and exempt solvents.
Paragraph (OO)(3) has been changed so that the maximum allowable
VOC content of an anti-galling material employed in the aluminum
coating operation of ``Armco Steel Company, L.P.'' or any subsequent
owner of the facility at 1801 Crawford Street, Middletown, Ohio, is 1.2
pounds per gallon of oil, excluding water and exempt solvents. The
previously allowed amount of VOC was 6.4 pounds per gallon of oil,
excluding water and exempt solvents.
Paragraph (OO)(4) was added to OAC 3745-21-09(OO). This paragraph
states that the VOC content of any prelube oil employed at the facility
[``Armco Steel Company, L.P.'' or any subsequent owner of the facility
at 1801 Crawford Street, Middletown, Ohio] shall not exceed 0.8 pound
of VOC per gallon of oil, excluding water and exempt solvents.
The revisions to the previously cited four paragraphs of 3745-21-
09(OO) are acceptable because they are substantively equivalent to the
Final Findings and Orders issues by the Director of Ohio EPA on August
21, 1995, which EPA approved on April 24, 1996, (81 FR 18257). The
August 21, 1995, Director's Final Findings and Orders state that the
aforementioned four paragraphs of 3745-21-09(OO) constitute RACT for
the ``Armco Steel, L.P.'' facility in Middletown, Ohio. These revisions
are acceptable, and we are proposing to approve them.
6. Site-Specific Source Removal
OAC 3745-21-04(C)(61) and 3745-21-09(AAA) have been reserved
because of the closure of the facility ``Reilly Industries, Inc.''
located at 3201 Independence Road, Cleveland, Ohio. The facility closed
on December 31, 2000, and its permit to emit was withdrawn. Any future
owner or operator of this facility will have to apply for a new source
permit to emit. Such permit would control future emissions from the
facility. Information about the facility's closure was received from
the Cleveland Local Air Agency on November 4, 2003, and is available in
the docket.
C. What are the environmental effects of these actions?
There are no adverse environmental results expected from any
approval of these revisions. The majority of these rule revisions are
editorial in nature. Such changes increase understanding of, and
compliance with, the rules. Since a number of the rules require
emissions reductions, approval of these revisions will improve air
quality.
The revisions to OAC 3745-21-09(OO) relax some of these rules but
do not relax the requirements applicable to the Armco Steel Company.
This is because Ohio has simply revised these rules to match the limits
already contained in a federally approved set of findings and orders.
No other rule revisions in Ohio's submittal increase any limits in
these rules. Therefore, none of the revisions contained in today's
proposed rulemaking will allow for increases in air pollution within
the state of Ohio.
IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action
Proposed rulemaking action on Ohio's various submittals is
described below.
A. 2000/2001 Submittals
Based on the rule-by-rule review, we propose to approve and to
incorporate into the Ohio SIP the following revised rule paragraphs as
adopted by the State of Ohio and as defined in Ohio's October 9, 2000,
submittal:
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-01
Paragraph (B)(4)
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-09
Paragraph (A)(4)
Paragraph (B)(3)(d)
Paragraph (B)(3)(e)
Paragraph (R)(4)
Paragraph (U)(2)(e)
Paragraph (Y)(1)(a)(i)
Paragraph (KK)(1)
Revisions to OAC 3745-21-10
Paragraph (C)(3)(c)
Paragraph (O)(2)(c)
We propose to conditionally approve a revision of paragraph
(BBB)(1) of OAC 3745-21-09, provided that, during the comment period of
this proposed rule, the State commits to correct this rule within one
year of the conditional approval. If the State fails to correct this
rule and confirm this correction within the allowed one year period,
this conditional approval will revert to a disapproval.
We propose to disapprove the coating VOC content limit for high
performance architectural aluminum coatings contained in paragraph
(U)(1)(h) of OAC 3745-21-09.
Finally, we are taking no action on revisions to 3745-21-
09(U)(2)(f), from both the October 9, 2000, and June 7, 1993,
submittals, because EPA approved a later version of this paragraph on
July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37171). EPA will continue to honor exemptions
granted by Ohio under this rule after May 5, 1995, but prior to June
15, 1999. EPA will address exemptions granted prior to May 5, 1995, in
a separate rulemaking after we work with Ohio EPA to determine the
proper course of action for dealing with these sources. Sources seeking
alternate limits under this paragraph after June 15, 1999, will be
subject to limits which result from the ongoing EPA and Ohio EPA
resolution of this matter.
B. 2003 Submittal
We are proposing to approve certain portions of the June 24, 2003,
submittal. These proposed rulemakings are listed below.
Proposed approval.
EPA proposes to approve all of the following sections of OAC 3745-
21 as amended:
3745-21-01 Definitions:
Paragraphs (B)(6), (C)(1), (C)(5)(a), (H)(4), (H)(4) to (H)(19),
(M)(17).
3745-21-02 Ambient air quality standards and guidelines:
Paragraphs (A) and (B).
3745-21-03 Methods of ambient air quality measurement:
Paragraphs (B) and (C).
3745-21-04 Attainment dates and compliance schedules:
Paragraphs: (A), (B), (B)(1), (B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(b), (B)(2), (B)(3),
(B)(4), (B)(5), (B)(6), (B)(7), (C), (C)(1), (C)(2), (C)(2)(a),
(C)(2)(b), (C)(2)(c), (C)(2)(e), (C)(3), (C)(3)(b), (C)(3)(c),
(C)(3)(d), (C)(4), (C)(4)(a), (C)(4)(b), (C)(5), (C)(5)(a), (C)(5)(b),
(C)(6), (C)(6)(a), (C)(6)(b), (C)(7), (C)(8), (C)(8)(a), (C)(8)(b),
(C)(8)(c), (C)(9), (C)(9)(a), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10), (C)(10)(a),
(C)(10)(b), (C)(11), (C)(12), (C)(13), (C)(14), (C)(15), (C)(15)(a),
(C)(15)(b), (C)(16), (C)(16)(a), (C)(16)(b), (C)(17), (C)(18), (C)(19),
(C)(19)(a), (C)(19)(b), (C)(19)(c), (C)(19)(d), (c)(20), (C)(20)(a),
(C)(20)(b), (C)(21), (C)(21), (C)(22), (C)(23), (C)(24), (C)(25),
(C)(26), (C)(27), (C)(28), (C)(28)(a), (C)(28)(b), (C)(28)(c),
[[Page 3680]]
(C)(28)(d), (C)(28)(e), (C)(29), (C)(30), (C)(31), (C)(32), (C)(33),
(C)(34), (C)(35), (C)(36), (C)(37), (C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(40), (C)(41),
(C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44), (C)(45), (C)(46), (C)(47), (C)(48),
(C)(48)(a), (C)(48)(b), (C)(49), (C)(50), (C)(51), (C)(52), (C)(53),
(C)(54), (C)(55), (C)(56), (C)(57), (C)(58), (C)(59), (C)(60), (C)(61),
(C)(62), (C)(63), (C)(64), (C)(64)(a), (C)(64)(a)(i), (C)(64)(a)(ii),
(C)(64)(a)(iii), (C)(64)(b), (C)(64)(b)(i), (C)(64)(b)(ii),
(C)(64)(b)(iii), (C)(65), (C)(66).
3745-21-06 Classification of Regions:
Entire rule as revised including removal of paragraphs (A) and (B).
3745-21-08 Control of carbon monoxide from stationary sources:
Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E).
3745-21-09 Control of emissions of volatile organic compounds from
stationary sources and perchloroethylene from dry cleaning facilities:
Title, Paragraphs (B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(f), (B)(3)(h), (B)(3)(j),
(B)(3)(l), (B)(4)(a), (B)(4)(b), (C)(4), (H)(1)(a), (H)(1)(b), (H)(3),
(O)(5)(b), (O)(6)(a), (O)(6)(b), the portion of paragraph (U)(1) which
states, ``If a miscellaneous metal parts or products coating is subject
to two or more limits as listed in (U)(1)(a) through (U)(1)(i) above,
the limit which is least restrictive shall apply'', the portion of
paragraph (U)(2)(e) which states, ``Daily usage limitations included in
(U)(2)(e)(i) through (U)(2)(e)(iii) above shall not apply to coatings
employed by the metal parts or products coating line on parts or
products which are not metal'', (U)(2)(h), (AA)(1)(b), (AA)(1)(c),
(FF)(1), (II)(2), (II)(3), (II)(4), (NN)(1), (NN)(2), (NN)(3), (NN)(4),
(NN)(5), (OO), (OO)(1), (OO)(2), (OO)(3), (OO)(4), (PP)(2), (UU)(3),
(AAA), (DDD), and Appendix A. EPA approved more recent versions of
paragraphs (O)(6)(b) and (VV)(1)(e) on March 30, 2007, at 72 FR 15045,
and so no rulemaking on the versions of these paragraphs submitted in
2003 is necessary.
3745-21-10 Compliance test methods and procedures:
Title, Paragraphs (J), (J)(1), (J)(2), (J)(4), Appendix A, and
Appendix B.
We are taking no action on revisions to 3745-21-04 (C)(3)(a)
because the paragraph was subsequently revised in a March 23, 2009,
submittal. EPA has approved this revision in separate rulemake
published July 28, 2009, at 74 FR 37171.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 13, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-1223 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P