Conditional Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Ohio; Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds, 3668-3680 [2010-1223]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3668
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
reproduction of ephemeral recordings
by preexisting satellite digital audio
radio services in 37 CFR part 382,
subpart B of this chapter, for the license
period 2007–2012. For purposes of this
section, the term ‘‘Collective’’ refers to
the collection and distribution
organization that is designated by the
Copyright Royalty Judges. For the
License Period through 2015, the sole
Collective is SoundExchange, Inc.
(b) Reporting of performances.
Without prejudice to any applicable
notice and recordkeeping provisions,
statements of account shall not require
reports of performances.
(c) Applicable regulations. To the
extent not inconsistent with this part,
all applicable regulations, including
part 370 of this chapter, shall apply to
activities subject to this part.
Dated: January 15, 2010.
James Scott Sledge,
Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2010–1172 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
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
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
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
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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 https://
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;
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
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 sourcespecific 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?
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 sourcespecific 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 SIPincorporation of the specific State rule
revisions.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3669
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 onehour 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.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3670
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 stateissued 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
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
3671
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
(hr/day)
TPY limit
VOC content/other
limit
PTI#
PTI issue date
25 lbs VOC/month
0.15 tons VOC/yr ..
None .....................
14–4578
1409000716 ..
Polymet Corporation.
Chase-Durus Industries.
55 lbs VOC/day;
10 gal/day for
both metal and
non-metal.
5.5 lbs OC/gal, as
applied, including
water and exempt solvents
(PTO uses VOC/
gal).
14–04268
1409000842 ..
Ransoholff Inc .......
Wednesday, March 5,
1997.
Ransoholff Inc .......
14–04612
Wednesday, March 5,
1997.
1409000892 ..
Phoenix Presentations Inc.
Phoenix Presentations Inc.
Phoenix Presentations Inc.
4.5 tons OC/yr ......
7.5 lbs VOC/gal
coating, as applied; 8.3 lbs
VOC/gal CU, as
applied.
7.5 lbs VOC/gal
coating, as applied; 8.3 lbs
VOC/gal CU, as
applied.
None .....................
14–04268
1409000842 ..
75 lbs VOC/day
from coatings;
830 lbs VOC/mo
from CU; 10 gal/
day of coating.
75 lbs VOC/day
from coatings;
830 lbs VOC/mo
from CU; 10 gal/
day of coating.
56.1 lbs OC/day ....
5.72 tons OC/yr
from coating
metal and 5.72
TPY from coating non-metal;
PTO: 2.48 tons
VOC/yr.
10.55 tons VOC/yr
Wednesday, September 23,
1992.
Wednesday, June 24,
1998.
14–04612
56.1 lbs OC/day ....
4.5 tons OC/yr ......
None .....................
14–04612
56.1 lbs OC/day ....
4.5 tons OC/yr ......
None .....................
14–04014
Thursday, January 21,
1999.
Thursday, January 21,
1999.
Thursday, January 21,
1999.
Facility ID
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1409000714 ..
1409000892 ..
1409000892 ..
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Facility name
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
10.55 tons VOC/yr
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3672
Facility ID
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Facility name
Short term limit
(hr/day)
TPY limit
VOC content/other
limit
PTI#
7.3 lbs OC/gal, including water
and exempt solvents for all coatings and all CU
materials.
7.3 lbs OC/gal, including water
and exempt solvents for all coatings and all CU
materials.
5.27 lbs VOC/gal
topcoat as an
average; 5.22 lbs
VOC/gal primer;
6.47 lbs VOC/gal
CU.
5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as
a monthly volume weighted
average.
5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as
a monthly volume weighted
average.
5.0 lbs VOC/gal
coatings; 6.15
lbs VOC/gal CU.
14–4220
Tuesday, December 23,
1997.
14–4348
Tuesday, December 23,
1997.
14–4027
Wednesday, September 27,
1989.
14–1750
Wednesday, December 7,
1988.
14–1750
Wednesday, December 7,
1988.
14–4610
Wednesday, May 28, 1997.
6.1 lbs VOC/gal of
coating, as applied; 7.25 lbs/
gal of CU.
2.89 lbs VOC/gal
of prime coat.
6.72 lbs VOC/gal
coating, minus
water (PTO: Excluding water
and exempt solvents).; 7.2 lbs
VOC/gal CU
minus water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents).
5.7 lbs VOC/gal
coating, excluding water and
exempt solvents;
7.3 lbs VOC/gal
for CU.
6.5 lbs VOC/gal as
applied, when
coating metal
auto parts; 4.3
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.
01–6635
Wednesday, March 6,
1996.
Lt. Moses Willard
Inc.
49.6 lbs/day w/
metal parts.
4.75 tons OC/yr
from metal parts;
10.7 tons OC/yr
from wood and
metal and all CU.
1413080305 ..
Lt. Moses Willard
Inc.
49.6 lbs/day w/
metal parts.
4.75 tons OC/yr
from metal parts;
10.7 tons OC/yr
from wood and
metal and all CU.
1431072466 ..
Air Placement
Equipment Co.
5.27 lbs VOC/hr; 1
gal/hr topcoat; 1
gal/hr primer.
1.36 TPY: PTO
and a Summary
limit in PTI.
1431403268 ..
Cincinnati SubZero Products.
Cincinnati SubZero Products.
1431403974 ..
WHM Equipment
Co.
1431483908 ..
Panel Fab, Inc ......
1483060233 ..
1483060233 ..
Fujitec America,
Inc.
Fujitec America,
Inc.
5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as
a monthly volume weighted
average.
5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as
a monthly volume weighted
average.
46.15 lbs VOC/day;
8 gals coating/
day and 1 gal/
day CU.
56.05 lbs VOC/day;
8 gal/day coating; 1 gal/day
CU.
2.89 lbs VOC/gal
of prime coat.
5.383 lbs VOC/day;
0.801 gal coating/day.
6.46 tons VOC/yr ..
1431403268 ..
1483090326 ..
Cincinnati Fan &
Ventilator.
102.4 lbs VOC/day
Summary limit:
16.54 tons VOC/
yr.
0180000130 ..
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1413080305 ..
Honda MAP ..........
6.5 lbs VOC/gal, as
applied, when
coating metal
motorcycle parts
and non-metal.
81.7 tons/rolling
12-mo.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
1.28 tons VOC/yr ..
4.03 tons VOC/yr ..
5.56 tons VOC/yr ..
11.7 tons/yr ...........
0.864 ton VOC/yr
including CU.
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
PTI issue date
01–08869
December 8, 1983.
01–6743
October 15, 1990.
01–6743
Wednesday, April 26, 1995.
03–10256
01–2675, issued 9/18/90;
01–6642 mod 8/7/01; 01–
8869 mod 12/02/04; mod
1/13/05, mod 9/20/07.
22JAP1
3673
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Facility name
Short term limit
(hr/day)
TPY limit
VOC content/other
limit
PTI#
0180000130 ..
Honda MAP ..........
December 24, 1997.
03–10256
December 24, 1997.
0278080612 ..
Ohio Trailer ...........
4.7 lbs VOC/gal as
a daily volumeweighted average.
4.7 lbs VOC/gal as
a daily volumeweighted average.
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluding
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average).
03–10256
Honda MAP ..........
03–10256
October 11, 1984.
0278080612 ..
Ohio Trailer ...........
None .....................
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluing
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average).
03–10256
October 11, 1984.
0278080612 ..
Ohio Trailer ...........
None .....................
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluding
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average).
03–0257
October 11, 1984.
0306010138 ..
Goodyear Tire and
Rubber, St.
Marys.
4.7 lbs VOC/gal as
a daily volumeweighted average.
4.7 lbs VOC/gal as
a daily volumeweighted average.
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluing
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluing
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn
primer, excluding
water; 4.5 lbs
VOC/gal topcoat,
excluding water
(PTO: Excluding
water and exempt solvents,
as applied on a
daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal
coating/day for
R001, R002, and
R003 together.
202 lbs VOC/day ..
55.3 tons/rolling 12
mo. from coatings.
0180000130 ..
None .....................
October 2, 1991.
American Trim (Superior Metal
Products: Plant
#4).
basecoat: 1.53 lbs
OC/hr; topcoat
1.72 lbs OC/hr;
ink: 0.07 lb OC/
hr.
basecoat: 6.69
tons OC/yr; topcoat 7.57 tons
OC/yr; ink: 0.31
tons OC/yr; CU
6.00 tons/yr and
986 lbs OC/mo.
14–04268
October 29, 1997.
0306020025 ..
American Trim (Superior Metal
Products: Plant
#4).
basecoat: 1.96 lbs
OC/hr; topcoat:
1.96 lbs OC/hr.
basecoat: 8.56
tons OC/yr; topcoat 8.56 tons
OC/yr; CU 6.00
tons/yr and 986
lbs OC/mo.
None, 202 lbs
VOC/day; 416
gal primer/mo
and 520 gal top
coat/mo.
basecoat: 4.64 lbs
VOC/gal; topcoat
4.92 lbs VOC/
gal; ink: 3.43 lbs
VOC/gal, all excluding water
and exempt solvents.
basecoat and topcoat: 3.00 lbs
VOC/gal excluding water and
exempt solvents.
14–04268
0306020025 ..
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Facility ID
14–04612
October 29, 1997.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
43.7 tons/rolling 12
mo. from coatings.
None .....................
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
PTI issue date
3674
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Short term limit
(hr/day)
Facility name
0387020354 ..
Henry Filters .........
35.0 lbs OC/hrK001.
0546000117 ..
Honda East Liberty
87.2 lbs VOC/hr ....
0546000117 ..
Honda East Liberty
19.6 lbs VOC/hr
from coatings;
5.8 lbs/hr from
non-PRM solvents.
0575010106 ..
American Trim ......
0575010106 ..
American Trim LLC
0575010106 ..
American Trim ......
0575010106 ..
American Trim ......
0708000017 ..
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Facility ID
Hawkline, LLC (formerly Trinity Industries).
5.36 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings.
5.21 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs
VOC/gal cleanup.
5.36 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs
VOC/gal cleanup.
5.21 lbs VOC/gal,
as applied minus
water and exempt solvents for
extreme performance coatings;
7.76 lbs VOC/gal
CU.
2007.87 lbs VOC/
day.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
TPY limit
VOC content/other
limit
PTI#
19.0 ton OC/yr &
1.6 tons/mo from
K001, K002,
K003 together
(K002 and K003
in different permit).
EU Group Limits:
11 EUs:
1,268.65 tons
VOC/rolling 12mo coating; 18
EUs: 103.3 tons
per rolling 12
mo. and 38.44
tons/mo from CU.
29.2 tons VOC per
rolling 12-mo.
from coatings;
9.98 tons VOC
per rolling 12-mo
for non-PRM solvents.
18.895 tons VOC/
rolling 12.
7.0 lbs VOC/gal,
excluding H20 &
exempt solvents,
as applied.
14–04612
June 26, 1996; last as a
modification on 8/22/
2002.
5.32 lbs VOC/gal,
excluding water
and exempt solvents, as a
monthly volumeweighted average.
14–04612
April 17, 1996.
6.54 lbs VOC/gal,
excluding water
and exempt solvents, as a
monthly volumeweighted average.
5.36 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings.
5.21 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs
VOC/gal cleanup.
5.36 lbs VOC/gal
coating as applied minus
water and exempt solvents,
for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs
VOC/gal cleanup.
5.21 lbs VOC/gal,
as applied minus
water and exempt solvents for
extreme performance coatings;
7.76 lbs VOC/gal
CU.
3.5 lbs VOC/gal,
excluding water
as a monthly volume-weighted
average.
14–04014
April 17, 1996.
14–4822
June 30, 1994.
14–4822
January 5, 1994.
14–4220
September 13, 1995.
14–4220
December 3, 1998 (05–
9516); 05–12030 mod
issued final 7/30/02 and
new mod draft issued 9/
9/04.
14–4348
February 28,1996.
18.874 tons VOC/
rolling 12.
22.8 tons VOC/rolling 12.
27.8 tons VOC/rolling 12 mo.
204.4 tons VOC/
rolling 12.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PTI issue date
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
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 sourcespecific 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 sourcespecific 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3675
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 sourcespecific miscellaneous metal coating
submittal currently before EPA?
A February 6, 2001 state specific
submittal from Ohio EPA with a VOC
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3676
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 sourcespecific SIP revision request. Before any
approval of this submittal as a sourcespecific 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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 VOCcompliant coatings; and (3) use of addon 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 shortterm 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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
outdated, we are also addressing those
older rule paragraphs in this section.
3677
1. Grammar, Spelling, and Definitions
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.
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
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.
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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),
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3678
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
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,
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3679
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),
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3680
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:42 Jan 21, 2010
Jkt 220001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0960; FRL–9105–8]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from residential water heaters.
We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
February 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2009–0960, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3668-3680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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;
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
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 successfull
