Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Volatile Organic Compound Control Rules, 21960-21966 [2017-09506]
Download as PDF
21960
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
involves an intermittently enforced
safety zone lasting 6.5 hours per day
that would prohibit entry into the
boundaries created by points starting at
position 42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W.
then West to 42°52′15″ N. and
078°53′32″ W. then South to 42°51′41″
N. and 078°53′02″ W. then East to
42°51′46″ N. and 078°52′45″ W. (NAD
83) then returning to the point of origin.
Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A
preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
14:38 May 10, 2017
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
VerDate Sep<11>2014
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
Jkt 241001
Authority: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6,
and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0331 to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 165.T09–0331 Safety Zone; Thunder on
the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor,
Buffalo, NY.
(a) Location. The safety zone will
encompass all waters of the Outer
Harbor, Buffalo, NY starting at position
42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W. then
West to 42°52′15″ N. and 078°53′32″ W.
then South to 42°51′41″ N. and
078°53′02″ W. then East to 42°51′46″ N.
and 078°52′45″ W. (NAD 83) then
returning to the point of origin.
(b) Enforcement Period. This rule is
effective from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m.
on July 22, 2017, and from 9:45 a.m.
until 4:15 p.m. on July 23, 2017.
(c) Regulations.
(1) In accordance with the general
regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his designated on-scene
representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his designated on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been designated
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act
on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.
Dated: May 2, 2017.
J.S. DuFresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017–09563 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0802; FRL–9962–07–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Volatile
Organic Compound Control Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a
November 18, 2015, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency consisting of adjustments and
additions to volatile organic compound
(VOC) rules in the Ohio Administrative
Code (OAC). The changes to these rules
are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year
periodic review of its VOC rules and a
new rule to update the VOC reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
requirements for the miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings source
category for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
area (‘‘Cleveland area’’) consisting of
Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake,
Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit
counties. Additionally, EPA proposes to
approve into the Ohio SIP an oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emission limit for
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland that Ohio is
using as an offset in its CAA section
110(l) anti-backsliding demonstration
for architectural aluminum coatings.
SUMMARY:
Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832,
liljegren.jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s
submitted VOC rules?
A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements
B. References to Operating Permits
C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements
D. Solvent Cleaning Operations
E. OAC Rule 3745–21–24 Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings
F. OAC Rule 3745–21–26 Surface Coating
of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
G. OAC Rule 3745–21–28 Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives and Sealants
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Comments must be received on
or before June 12, 2017.
I. What is the purpose of this action?
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0802 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (e.g.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
EPA proposes to approve a November
18, 2015, Ohio SIP submittal consisting
of adjustments and additions to OAC
Chapter 3745–21. Specifically, this
includes amended OAC rules 3745–21–
01, 3745–21–03, 3745–21–04, 3745–21–
08, 3745–21–09, 3745–21–10, 3745–21–
12, 3745–21–13, 3745–21–14, 3745–21–
15, 3745–21–16, 3745–21–17, 3745–21–
18, 3745–21–19, 3745–21–20, 3745–21–
21, 3745–21–22, 3745–21–23, 3745–21–
25, 3745–21–27, 3745–21–28, 3745–21–
29; rescission of existing OAC rule
3745–21–24, and adoption of new OAC
rules 3745–21–24 and 3745–21–26.
Except for OAC rule 3745–21–26, the
changes to the Chapter 3745–21 rules
are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year
periodic review of its VOC rules. When
Ohio reviews a rule and amends greater
than fifty percent of that rule, Ohio
issues the entire rule as a new
replacement rule. This is the case with
OAC 3745–21–24. OAC rule 3745–21–
26 is an entirely new rule, the purpose
of which is to update the VOC RACT
requirements for the Cleveland area for
the miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings source category.
Additionally, EPA proposes to approve
OAC 3745–110–03(N) into the Ohio SIP;
this rule includes an emission limit that
Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA
110(l) demonstration for architectural
coatings, which is discussed in detail
later in this proposed rulemaking.
DATES:
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21961
II. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s
submitted VOC rules?
Many of Ohio’s amendments to the
rules in Chapter 3745–21 are not
significant. These amendments include:
Updates to items incorporated by
reference; minor typographical changes
to conform to new state preferences on
style and formatting; updates to correct
typographical and format errors;
updates to reflect source name and/or
address changes; the removal of
references to sources which have been
permanently shut down; updates to
replace deadlines associated with
previous rule effective dates with actual
dates (e.g. ‘‘sixty days from the effective
date of this rule’’ replaced with an
actual date); and language updates to
provide clarification and to avoid
confusion. EPA reviewed these and
other non-significant and/or nonsubstantive amendments and proposes
to approve them since they do not
constitute significant and/or substantive
changes to Ohio’s rules. More
significant amendments, those
amendments requiring more
explanation, and the addition of OAC
rule 3745–21–26 are discussed below.
A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements
Ohio amended catalytic incinerator
requirements where rules require
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting of both the catalytic
incinerator inlet temperature and the
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed. Ohio updated these
requirements for catalytic incinerators
to include catalytic incinerator
inspection and maintenance
requirements in addition to monitoring
the temperature at the inlet to the
catalyst bed as an alternative to
monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed. Monitoring of
the temperature difference across the
catalyst bed may not necessarily be a
useful indicator of destruction
efficiency when there is a low
concentration of VOC at the inlet to the
catalyst bed. In these cases, Ohio
recommends implementing a catalytic
incinerator inspection and maintenance
program as a compliance alternative to
using catalyst bed temperature
difference data. Ohio made catalytic
incinerator requirement amendments to
rules 3745–21–09, 3745–21–10, 3745–
21–12, 3745–21–13, 3745–21–14, 3745–
21–15, 3745–21–16, 3745–21–23, 3745–
21–27, 3745–21–28. Ohio has similar
provisions that are already included in
OAC rules 3745–21–22 and 3745–21–
24.
EPA has implemented a similar
alternative for a site-specific inspection
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
21962
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
and maintenance plan to be
implemented as an alternative to
monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed under the
following rules: 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ (Paper and Other Web Coating) at
63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(C); 40 CFR part 63,
subpart OOOO (Printing, Coating, and
Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles) at
63.4363(b)(3); 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS (Surface Coating of Metal Coil) at
63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C); and 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP (Engine Test Cells/
Stands) at 63.9324(b)(3). Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve these catalytic
incinerator requirement amendments to
Ohio’s rules 3745–21–09, 3745–21–10,
3745–21–12, 3745–21–13, 3745–21–14,
3745–21–15, 3745–21–16, 3745–21–23,
3745–21–27, 3745–21–28.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. References to Operating Permits
Ohio replaced references to
‘‘operating permits’’ and ‘‘permits-tooperate’’ with ‘‘permits-to-install and
operate’’ for Chapter 3745–3l sources
(non-Title V sources), since ‘‘operating
permits’’ under Chapter 3745–35 have
been replaced with ‘‘permits-to-install
and operate’’ under Chapter 3745–31 for
non-Title V sources. Ohio made this
amendment for the following rules
3745–21–12, 3745–21–13, 3745–21–14,
3745–21–15, 3745–21–16, 3745–21–19,
3745–21–20, 3745–21–21, 3745–21–22,
3745–21–23, 3745–21–24, 3745–21–25,
3745–21–27, 3745–21–28, and 3745–21–
29. EPA proposes to approve this
amendment in each instance since it
results in increased clarity and
consistency in the Ohio rules.
C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements
Ohio amended VOC recordkeeping
language as it relates to source
applicability. Ohio changed the
requirement to maintain records of VOC
content in percent by weight and
pounds per gallon to percent by weight
or pounds per gallon depending upon
whether total pounds or total gallons of
each adhesive or solvent is recorded.
Ohio no longer requires records in both
units of measurement as long as the
units of measurement chosen to be
recorded match and can be used to
establish whether monthly or daily
applicability cutoffs are exceeded. Ohio
made these VOC recordkeeping
amendments for rules 3745–21–23 and
3745–21–28. Similarly, for rule 3745–
21–29, Ohio added the option to record
VOC content in pounds per gallon (or
percent by weight) and the option to
record coating and cleaning solvent
usage in pounds (or gallons) as long as
the units of measurement for these two
parameters match and can be used to
establish whether monthly or daily
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
applicability cutoffs are exceeded. EPA
proposes to approve these amendments
to rules 3745–21–23, 3745–21–28, and
3745–21–29, since compliance can be
determined with either VOC content
record as long as the units of
measurement are consistent with the
associated coating and/or solvent usage
records.
D. Solvent Cleaning Operations
Ohio amended rule 3745–21–23
paragraph (C)(6)(b) to allow resin
manufacturers to use the alternative
cleaning operations compliance option.
Prior to this revision, the rule only
allowed manufacturers of coatings, inks,
or adhesives to use the alternative
cleaning operations compliance option.
The alternative solvent cleaning and
storage option in (C)(6)(b) is based on
the California Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s rules which are
referenced in EPA’s solvent cleaning
CTG and have been established by EPA
as RACT for cleaning coatings, inks, and
resins from storage tanks and grinding
mills. EPA, therefore, proposes to
approve this amendment.
E. OAC Rule 3745–21–24 Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings
When Ohio reviews a rule and
amends greater than fifty percent of that
rule, Ohio issues the entire rule as a
new replacement rule. This is the case
with OAC 3745–21–24. EPA proposes to
approve the revisions to OAC rule
3745–21–24, since they provide
increased clarity and consistency.
F. OAC Rule 3745–21–26 Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts
OAC rule 3745–21–26 is a new rule
updating the VOC RACT requirements
for the Cleveland area for the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings source category as outlined in
EPA’s September 2008, ‘‘Control
Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings.’’ 1 Pursuant to CAA section
182(b)(2), the Cleveland area was
subject to VOC RACT requirements
since it was classified as moderate
nonattainment under the 1997 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Section 182(b)(2) requires
states with moderate nonattainment
areas to implement RACT under section
172(c)(1) with respect to each of the
1 Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EPA–453/R–08–003. September
2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
following: (1) All sources covered by a
Control Technology Guideline (CTG)
document issued between November 15,
1990, and the date of attainment; (2) all
sources covered by a CTG issued prior
to November 15, 1990; and, (3) all other
major non-CTG stationary sources.
EPA’s 2008 CTG is a revised CTG that
is a strengthening of previous CTGs
covering these categories that were
addressed by rules adopted and updated
by Ohio during previous rulemakings
(61 FR 18255; 74 FR 37171) prior to the
Cleveland area being redesignated to
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
September 2009 (74 FR 47414).
Prior to Ohio’s adoption of OAC rule
3745–21–26, OAC rule 3745–21–09(U)
regulated the surface coating of
miscellaneous metal parts and OAC rule
3745–21–09(HH) regulated the surface
coating of automotive/transportation
plastic parts and business machine
plastic parts. OAC rule 3745–21–26
applies to such sources located in the
Cleveland area. The requirements of
paragraphs (U) and (HH) of OAC rule
3745–21–09 will no longer apply to
these sources after the compliance date
for facilities subject to the requirements
of OAC rule 3745–21–26. Prior to this
action, EPA has not approved into the
Ohio SIP 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h)
pertaining to VOC content limits for
architectural coatings. In this
rulemaking, however, EPA proposes to
approve 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h) into the
Ohio SIP, since Ohio’s anti-backsliding
demonstration for architectural coatings
shows, as discussed below, that our
approval of this rule in conjunction
with our approval of 3745–110–03(N)
into the Ohio SIP will not interfere with
CAA section 110(l).
i. Ohio’s CAA Section 110(l)
Demonstration Regarding Architectural
Aluminum Coatings
Ohio established a 6.2 pounds per
gallon (lbs/gal) VOC content limit for
high-performance architectural
aluminum coatings effective May 9,
1986, at OAC rule 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h).
Prior to this, high-performance
architectural aluminum coatings in
Ohio were subject to a VOC content
limit of 3.5 lbs/gal under a general SIPapproved coating category of extreme
performance coatings. EPA disapproved
Ohio’s 1986 rule, since Ohio did not
demonstrate that the relaxation from 3.5
lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal represented RACT
and would not interfere with attainment
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (75 FR
50711). Since EPA’s CTG, updated in
2008, recommends a VOC content limit
of 6.2 lbs/gal for high performance
architectural coatings and Ohio has
adopted OAC rule 3745–21–26 to
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
supersede OAC rule 3745–21–09(U) for
sources in the Cleveland area, Ohio, as
part of this submittal, requested that
EPA approve into the Ohio SIP OAC
rule 3745–21–26 including the
relaxation of the high-performance
architectural aluminum coatings VOC
content limit.
Ohio also requested that EPA approve
a NOX emission limit contained in
paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745–110–03
for unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal
Cleveland. EPA’s approval of the
emission limit for unit P046 into the
Ohio SIP will make this emission limit
federally enforceable and available to
use as an emission offset for the
purposes of Ohio’s demonstration to
show that the relaxation of the highperformance architectural coatings VOC
content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/
gal will not result in a net increase in
ozone precursor emissions in the
Cleveland area.
Section 110(l), known as the antibacksliding provision of the CAA,
states:
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this Act.
Ohio performed a CAA section 110(l)
demonstration for the VOC content
limits in paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and
6 of OAC rule 3745–21–26 for high
performance architectural coatings.
In the absence of an attainment
demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable
NAAQS or requirement of the CAA
under section 110(l), states may
substitute equivalent emissions
reductions to compensate for any
change to a SIP-approved program, as
long as actual emissions are not
increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions
reductions mean reductions which are
equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure
approved in the SIP. To show that
compensating emissions reductions are
equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The
compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions
reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the
change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status
quo level of emissions in the air. As
described in EPA’s memorandum
‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic
Incentive Programs’’ published in
January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001), the
equivalent emissions reductions must
also be permanent, enforceable,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
quantifiable, and surplus to be approved
into the SIP.
Ohio completed a demonstration that
indicates that the prerequisite for
approval under section 110(l) of the
CAA will be satisfied despite the VOC
content limit relaxation for highperformance architectural coatings.
Ohio’s methodology involved
identifying actual emissions from all
operating permitted architectural
aluminum coating processes in the state,
of which there are five emission units
among three permitted facilities. This
includes one emission unit at the
American Warming and Ventilation
facility, one unit at the Thermo Fisher
Scientific facility, and three units at the
American Japanning facility, which is
the only facility of the three operating
permitted facilities that is located in the
Cleveland area.
For the five emission units with
architectural aluminum coating
processes, Ohio converted the unitspecific facility-reported actual VOC
emissions in tons per year (TPY) to
gallons per year assuming an average
solvent density of 7.36 lbs VOC/gal
VOC. Then, using the full VOC content
limit of 6.2 lbs/gal under OAC rule
3745–21–09(U)(1)(h) as listed in each
facility’s permit, Ohio estimated actual
gallons of coating utilized per year at
each unit at each facility for the 2010–
2012 time period. Next, Ohio used the
gallons of coating per year to estimate
the 2010–2012 emissions from each unit
using a VOC content limit of 3.5 lbs/gal
rather than 6.2 lbs/gal. Ohio’s
calculations show that, in going from
3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal, the estimated
VOC emissions increase averaged over
the 2010–2012 time period is 2.02 TPY
in the Cleveland area and 10.5 TPY
statewide. Ohio’s calculations are
provided in its SIP submittal, which is
included in the docket to this proposed
rulemaking.
In order to make a satisfactory 110(l)
demonstration and render this SIP
revision approvable by EPA under the
requirements of the CAA, Ohio needs a
comparable emission reduction to offset
this estimated VOC emissions increase.
VOCs and NOX contribute to the
formation of ground-level ozone. Thus,
the potential increase in VOC needs to
be offset with equivalent (or greater)
emissions reductions from another VOC
control measure or proportionally
equivalent (or greater) emissions
reductions from a NOX control measure
in order to demonstrate antibacksliding.
For its offset, Ohio requested to use a
NOX emission limit contained in
paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745–110–03
for unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21963
Cleveland. Since only a portion of this
emission limit has been used for a
previous 110(l) demonstration, the
remaining portion is available for use as
an offset for the purposes of this
demonstration. In December 2007, Ohio
promulgated OAC Chapter 3745–110,
‘‘Nitrogen Oxides—Reasonably
Available Control Technology’’ to
address NOX emissions from stationary
combustion sources as a potential
attainment strategy in the Cleveland
area. In September 2009 (74 FR 47414),
EPA redesignated the Cleveland area to
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and approved a waiver for the Cleveland
area from the NOX RACT requirements
of section 182(f). Ohio’s NOX RACT
rules are therefore surplus and are
available to be used to offset the
potential increase in emissions from a
higher VOC content limit for high
performance architectural aluminum
coatings in Ohio. For the purposes of
this 110(l) demonstration, Ohio is
requesting to use an emission limit on
one specific emission unit at one
specific facility for its offset.
Prior to Ohio’s promulgation of OAC
Chapter 3745–110, Arcelor-Mittal
Cleveland operated with an emission
factor of 0.55 lbs NOX/million British
thermal units (MMBTU) established via
a stack test in 2003. To meet the
requirements of OAC Chapter 3745–110,
Arcelor-Mittal installed low-NOX
burners in the facility’s three reheat
furnaces (Ohio emission unit IDs P046,
P047, and P048) and reduced its
emission factor to 0.29 lbs NOX/
MMBTU established via a stack test in
2010 to comply with the OAC 3745–
110–03(N) NOX emission limit of 0.35
lbs/MMBTU. Based on actual natural
gas usage reported for 2010–2012 and
going from an emission factor of 0.55 lbs
NOX/MMBTU to an emission factor of
0.29 lbs NOX/MMBTU, Ohio calculated
an average NOX emission reduction for
this facility of 571.6 TPY and an average
NOX emission reduction specifically
from unit P046 of 193.8 TPY.
Using the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), Ohio calculated the
ratio of NOX emissions to VOC
emissions in the Cleveland area at
approximately 1.30 lbs NOX per lb of
VOC. Ohio applied this factor to the
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland NOX
reductions to show that the average
VOC emissions offset theoretically
available for the time period of 2010–
2012 is 438.2 TPY of VOC for the
facility and 148.6 TPY of VOC from unit
P046.
Not all emission reductions from
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland are available
for use as offsets. On October 25, 2010,
Ohio submitted a similar 110(l)
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
21964
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
demonstration for emissions from sheet
molding compound (SMC) machines in
Ohio regulated by OAC rule 3745–21–
07. Ohio used the same reductions from
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland to demonstrate
sufficient offsets to justify an emissions
increase for SMC machines. The offset
needed for SMC machines was 7.1 TPY
of VOC, meaning the quantity of VOC
offsets available for this 110(l)
demonstration is 431.1 TPY of VOC
from Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland and 141.5
TPY of VOC from EU P046. Therefore,
there is enough of an emission offset
remaining from EU P046 for Ohio to
offset the estimated increase in VOC
emissions (10.5 TPY for all five units
and 2.02 TPY for the three Cleveland
area units) as a result of relaxing its
high-performance architectural coatings
VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2
lbs/gal in the Ohio SIP.
EPA proposes to approve into the
Ohio SIP the NOX limit on emission
unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland,
which will make this emissions limit
federally enforceable. In combination
with Ohio’s use of an offset in the form
of a permanent, enforceable,
contemporaneous, surplus emission
reduction achieved through the NOX
limit on unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal
Cleveland, EPA proposes that our SIP
approval of Ohio’s relaxation of the
high-performance architectural coatings
VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2
lbs/gal would not interfere with section
110(l) of the CAA. Furthermore, this
VOC content limit satisfies RACT for
high-performance architectural coatings
as recommended in EPA’s 2008 CTG.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve into
the Ohio SIP, OAC rule 3745–21–26
including the VOC content limits in
paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and 6 for high
performance architectural coatings.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
ii. Ohio’s 5% VOC RACT Equivalency
Analysis for a 3-Gallon per Day Coating
Usage Exemption
Ohio performed a 5% RACT
equivalency analysis to justify the OAC
rule 3745–21–26 paragraph (A)(3)(f)(i)
exemption from the VOC content limits
of metal coating lines that use less than
three gallons per day. Ohio
demonstrated that the increase in
emissions from this exemption would
be no more than 5% compared to
adopting the CTG exactly as EPA issued
it. EPA guidance entitled ‘‘Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ also
referred to as ‘‘the Bluebook’’ 2 contains
2 Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies, and Deviations Clarification to
Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register. Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
an example 5% equivalency analysis
calculation.
Ohio performed its 5% RACT
equivalency analysis consistent with
EPA’s Bluebook and determined that the
increase in emissions resulting from a
three gallons per day exemption would
be approximately 4%. Since the
emissions increase is less than 5%, Ohio
may incorporate this exemption into its
VOC RACT rule for the control of
emissions from surface coating of
miscellaneous metal parts and products
for the Cleveland area.
To conduct its 5% RACT equivalency
analysis, Ohio listed all of the current
metal parts and products surface coating
sources in the Cleveland area and each
source’s actual 2008 VOC emissions or,
where 2008 actual emissions data were
unavailable, used information based on
current operation to determine
representative 2008 actual emissions
from metal coating lines. Ohio
identified each emission unit at each
facility that would be subject to the new
OAC rule 3745–21–26 and converted
TPY of VOC to gallons per year of VOC
using an average solvent density of 7.36
lbs VOC/gal VOC. Ohio used sourcespecific information to obtain gallons of
coating used in 2008 or, where such
data were unavailable, used an average
mix density of 10.0 lbs VOC/gal coating.
Ohio also subtracted gallons of VOC per
year from total gallons of coating used
per year to obtain gallons of solids per
year, since some limits in the 2008 CTG
are expressed in lbs of VOC per gallon
of coating and some are expressed in lbs
of VOC per gallon of solids. Ohio used
these 2008 baseline data to find the
difference in the two options: The
option to include a three gallons per
line per day exemption and the option
that specifies an applicability cutoff of
15 lbs of VOC per day across all lines
as specified in EPA’s 2008 CTG. Ohio’s
analysis shows that the difference
between allowing and disallowing the
three gallons per day exemption is less
than 5%. Ohio’s analysis is provided in
its SIP submittal, which is included in
the docket to this proposed rulemaking.
Since the result of Ohio’s RACT
equivalency analysis to support the
exemption in its rule is less than 5%,
and since Ohio’s general methodology
for conducting the equivalency analysis
is consistent with EPA’s Bluebook,
which indicates that for the purposes of
VOC RACT regulation a difference of no
more than 5% between EPA’s CTG and
the state’s rules is not a significant
emissions differential, EPA proposes to
approve into the Ohio SIP the OAC rule
Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. May 25, 1988.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3745–21–26 exemption from the VOC
content limits of metal coating lines that
use less than three gallons per day.
iii. EPA’s Evaluation of Ohio’s VOC
RACT Requirements for Pleasure Craft
Coatings
EPA’s 2008 CTG includes VOC
content limits for pleasure craft
coatings, which Ohio has not
historically regulated. Ohio
systematically analyzed existing
permitted facilities which may become
subject to its new pleasure craft coating
rules. Ohio’s analysis is important,
because, theoretically, a facility could
go from being subject to an existing VOC
content limit under a different coating
category to being subject to a less
stringent VOC content limit under
Ohio’s new pleasure craft coating rules.
If that were the case, the potential for
interference with CAA section 110(l)
would need to be addressed. Ohio’s
analysis indicates that there are 12
sources in the state with the potential to
be subject to the new OAC rule 3745–
21–26. Ohio determined six of these
sources are not subject to OAC rule
3745–21–26, because they are not
located in the Cleveland area, and four
of the remaining sources are not subject
to OAC rule 3745–21–26, since they are
marinas that only contain gasoline
dispensing facilities. The remaining two
sources are the Duramax Marine facility
in Geauga County and the Hanover
Marine facility in Lake County. The
Duramax facility operates spray booths
that only apply adhesives and are
therefore exempt from OAC rule 3745–
21–26. Rather, this facility may be
subject to the OAC rule 3745–21–28;
‘‘Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives’’
requirements. The Hanover facility
builds fiberglass boats. It operates one
small spray booth for painting stripes
only and historically has had emissions
under the applicability levels. Mostly
this facility performs resin/gel work and
may be subject to New Source Review
requirements and the requirements of
OAC rule 3745–21–27; ‘‘Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing.’’ Ohio’s analysis shows
that our approval into the Ohio SIP of
these pleasure craft coating VOC content
limits will have no or minimal effect to
reduce emissions, but, of course, the
adoption of these limits will not cause
any increase in emissions and,
therefore, not interfere with section
110(l) of the CAA.
Table 1, below, shows a comparison
of the differences between EPA’s 2008
CTG and Ohio’s OAC rule 3745–21–26
VOC content limits for pleasure craft
coatings. The portion of Ohio’s OAC
rule 3745–21–26 pertaining to pleasure
craft coatings differs from EPA’s 2008
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
21965
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
CTG in several ways. Ohio’s VOC
content limits for the ‘‘extreme high
gloss topcoat’’ and ‘‘other substrate
antifoulant’’ coating categories are
greater than those recommended in
EPA’s 2008 CTG, and Ohio’s rule
contains a ‘‘antifouling sealer/tie coat’’
coating category that is not included in
EPA’s 2008 CTG. Additionally, Ohio’s
OAC rule 3745–21–26 defines extreme
high gloss coating for the pleasure craft
coating industry as that which achieves
greater than 90% reflectance, as
opposed to greater than 95% reflectance
recommended in EPA’s 2008 CTG.
TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EPA’S 2008 CTG AND OHIO’S OAC RULE 3745–21–26 VOC CONTENT LIMITS FOR
PLEASURE CRAFT COATINGS
Pound VOC per gallon coating
Coating category
2008 CTG
Extreme High Gloss Topcoat ......................................................................................................................
Ohio’s rule
4.1
High Gloss Topcoat .....................................................................................................................................
Pretreatment Wash Primer ..........................................................................................................................
Finish Primer/Surfacer .................................................................................................................................
High-Build Primer/Surfacer ..........................................................................................................................
Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat ..........................................................................................................................
3.5
6.5
3.5
2.8
Not a category in
the 2008 CTG
Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant ..................................................................................................................
2.8
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
All Other Pleasure Craft Surface Coatings for Metal or Plastic ..................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
through state rules, or to issue state
rules that adopt different approaches,
states must submit their RACT rules to
EPA for review and approval as part of
the SIP process. In the June 1, 2010,
memo, EPA stated its intent to evaluate
the state’s RACT rules and determine,
through notice and comment
rulemaking in the SIP approval process,
whether the submitted rules meet the
RACT requirements of the CAA and
EPA’s regulations.
EPA proposes to approve into the
Ohio SIP these OAC rule 3745–21–26
VOC content limits for pleasure craft
coatings as RACT since this rule, in
most respects, is consistent with EPA’s
2008 CTG, and, where it differs from
EPA’s 2008 CTG as explained above,
EPA proposes to find these differences
to be reasonable in terms of available
control technology for the pleasure craft
coating industry.
G. OAC Rule 3745–21–28 Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives and Sealants
Ohio made two amendments to Table
1 of OAC rule 3745–21–28; the first
amendment was to indicate that the
VOC content limit excludes water and
exempt solvents, and the second
amendment was to change the category
‘‘tire retread’’ to ‘‘tire repair.’’ EPA
proposes to approve these amendments,
since these changes result in language
that is consistent with EPA’s CTG for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives,
which is the basis for OAC rule 3745–
21–28.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3.5
4.7
Other Substrate Antifoulant .........................................................................................................................
The differences shown in Table 1,
above, between EPA’s original
recommendations in the 2008 CTG and
Ohio’s VOC content limits for pleasure
craft coatings in OAC rule 3745–21–26
are consistent with those requested by
the pleasure craft coating industry.
When EPA released the 2008 CTG, the
pleasure craft coating industry
requested that EPA reconsider the 2008
CTG recommended VOC content limits
for extreme high gloss, high gloss, and
antifoulant coatings citing what the
industry deemed to be technological
and feasibility challenges to meeting the
VOC content limits recommended in the
CTG. EPA responded in a June 1, 2010,
memorandum entitled ‘‘Control
Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous
Metal and Plastic Part Coatings—
Industry Request for Reconsideration.’’
While EPA did not formally revise the
2008 CTG to reflect the changes
requested by the pleasure craft coating
industry, in the June 1, 2010, memo,
EPA encouraged the pleasure craft
industry to work together with state
agencies in the RACT rule development
process to assess what is reasonable for
the specific sources regulated under
each state’s rules. EPA’s CTGs are
intended to provide state and local air
pollution control authorities with
information to assist them in
determining RACT for VOC, but CTGs
impose no legally binding requirements
on any entity, including pleasure craft
coating facilities. Regardless of whether
a state chooses to implement the
recommendations contained in the CTG
5.0
3.3
3.5
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA proposes to approve into the
Ohio SIP adjustments and additions to
VOC RACT rules in OAC Chapter 3745–
21. Additionally, EPA proposes to
incorporate OAC 3745–110–03(N) into
the Ohio SIP; this rule includes an
emission limit that Ohio is using as an
offset in its CAA 110(l) demonstration
for the OAC rule 3745–21–26 VOC
content limit for architectural coatings.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA proposes to include
in a final EPA rule regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference Ohio’s updated VOC rules
including 3745–21–01, 3745–21–03,
3745–21–04, 3745–21–08, 3745–21–09,
3745–21–10, 3745–21–12, 3745–21–13,
3745–21–14, 3745–21–15, 3745–21–16,
3745–21–17, 3745–21–18, 3745–21–19,
3745–21–20, 3745–21–21, 3745–21–22,
3745–21–23, 3745–21–24, 3745–21–25,
3745–21–26, 3745–21–27, 3745–21–28,
3745–21–29, effective October 15, 2015,
and the NOX emission limit on unit
P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland
contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule
3745–110–03. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
generally available through
www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA
Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section of this
preamble for more information).
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
21966
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
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
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 21, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017–09506 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0585; FRL–9960–21–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to Emissions Banking and
Trading Programs and Compliance
Flexibility
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adina Wiley, 214–665–2115,
wiley.adina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the
State’s SIP submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action
no further activity is contemplated. If
the EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: April 27, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017–09471 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Emissions Banking and Trading
Programs submitted on July 15, 2002;
December 22, 2008; April 6, 2010; May
14, 2013; and August 14, 2015.
Specifically, we are proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas Emission
Credit, Mass Emissions Cap and Trade,
Discrete Emission Credit, and Highly
Reactive Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions Cap and Trade Programs such
that the Texas SIP will include the
current state program regulations
promulgated and implemented in Texas.
We are also proposing to approve
compliance flexibility provisions for
stationary sources using the Texas
Emission Reduction Plan submitted on
July 15, 2002; May 30, 2007; and July
10, 2015.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before June 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by EPA–R06–OAR–2015–
0585, at https://www.regulations.gov or
via email to wiley.adina@epa.gov. For
additional information on how to
submit comments see the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0136; FRL–9961–88–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; TN: NonInterference Demonstration for Federal
Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement
in Shelby County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
noninterference demonstration that
evaluates whether the change for the
Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
requirements in Shelby County
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Area’’)
would interfere with the Area’s ability
to meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). Tennessee
submitted through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), on April 12, 2017,
a noninterference demonstration on
behalf of the Shelby County Health
Department requesting that EPA change
the RVP requirements for Shelby
County. Specifically, Tennessee’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MYP1.SGM
11MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21960-21966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09506]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0802; FRL-9962-07-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Volatile Organic Compound Control Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 21961]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a November 18, 2015, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency consisting of adjustments and additions to volatile
organic compound (VOC) rules in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The
changes to these rules are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year
periodic review of its VOC rules and a new rule to update the VOC
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings source category for the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area (``Cleveland area'') consisting of
Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit
counties. Additionally, EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP an
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emission limit for Arcelor-Mittal
Cleveland that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA section 110(l)
anti-backsliding demonstration for architectural aluminum coatings.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0802 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832,
liljegren.jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?
A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements
B. References to Operating Permits
C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements
D. Solvent Cleaning Operations
E. OAC Rule 3745-21-24 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
F. OAC Rule 3745-21-26 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
and Plastic Parts
G. OAC Rule 3745-21-28 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and
Sealants
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the purpose of this action?
EPA proposes to approve a November 18, 2015, Ohio SIP submittal
consisting of adjustments and additions to OAC Chapter 3745-21.
Specifically, this includes amended OAC rules 3745-21-01, 3745-21-03,
3745-21-04, 3745-21-08, 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13,
3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-17, 3745-21-18, 3745-21-19,
3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-25, 3745-21-27,
3745-21-28, 3745-21-29; rescission of existing OAC rule 3745-21-24, and
adoption of new OAC rules 3745-21-24 and 3745-21-26.
Except for OAC rule 3745-21-26, the changes to the Chapter 3745-21
rules are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year periodic review of its
VOC rules. When Ohio reviews a rule and amends greater than fifty
percent of that rule, Ohio issues the entire rule as a new replacement
rule. This is the case with OAC 3745-21-24. OAC rule 3745-21-26 is an
entirely new rule, the purpose of which is to update the VOC RACT
requirements for the Cleveland area for the miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings source category. Additionally, EPA proposes to
approve OAC 3745-110-03(N) into the Ohio SIP; this rule includes an
emission limit that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA 110(l)
demonstration for architectural coatings, which is discussed in detail
later in this proposed rulemaking.
II. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?
Many of Ohio's amendments to the rules in Chapter 3745-21 are not
significant. These amendments include: Updates to items incorporated by
reference; minor typographical changes to conform to new state
preferences on style and formatting; updates to correct typographical
and format errors; updates to reflect source name and/or address
changes; the removal of references to sources which have been
permanently shut down; updates to replace deadlines associated with
previous rule effective dates with actual dates (e.g. ``sixty days from
the effective date of this rule'' replaced with an actual date); and
language updates to provide clarification and to avoid confusion. EPA
reviewed these and other non-significant and/or non-substantive
amendments and proposes to approve them since they do not constitute
significant and/or substantive changes to Ohio's rules. More
significant amendments, those amendments requiring more explanation,
and the addition of OAC rule 3745-21-26 are discussed below.
A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements
Ohio amended catalytic incinerator requirements where rules require
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of both the catalytic
incinerator inlet temperature and the temperature difference across the
catalyst bed. Ohio updated these requirements for catalytic
incinerators to include catalytic incinerator inspection and
maintenance requirements in addition to monitoring the temperature at
the inlet to the catalyst bed as an alternative to monitoring the
temperature difference across the catalyst bed. Monitoring of the
temperature difference across the catalyst bed may not necessarily be a
useful indicator of destruction efficiency when there is a low
concentration of VOC at the inlet to the catalyst bed. In these cases,
Ohio recommends implementing a catalytic incinerator inspection and
maintenance program as a compliance alternative to using catalyst bed
temperature difference data. Ohio made catalytic incinerator
requirement amendments to rules 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12,
3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-27,
3745-21-28. Ohio has similar provisions that are already included in
OAC rules 3745-21-22 and 3745-21-24.
EPA has implemented a similar alternative for a site-specific
inspection
[[Page 21962]]
and maintenance plan to be implemented as an alternative to monitoring
the temperature difference across the catalyst bed under the following
rules: 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (Paper and Other Web Coating) at
63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(C); 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO (Printing, Coating,
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles) at 63.4363(b)(3); 40 CFR part
63, subpart SSSS (Surface Coating of Metal Coil) at
63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C); and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP (Engine Test
Cells/Stands) at 63.9324(b)(3). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
these catalytic incinerator requirement amendments to Ohio's rules
3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15,
3745-21-16, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28.
B. References to Operating Permits
Ohio replaced references to ``operating permits'' and ``permits-to-
operate'' with ``permits-to-install and operate'' for Chapter 3745-3l
sources (non-Title V sources), since ``operating permits'' under
Chapter 3745-35 have been replaced with ``permits-to-install and
operate'' under Chapter 3745-31 for non-Title V sources. Ohio made this
amendment for the following rules 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14,
3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-19, 3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22,
3745-21-23, 3745-21-24, 3745-21-25, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28, and 3745-
21-29. EPA proposes to approve this amendment in each instance since it
results in increased clarity and consistency in the Ohio rules.
C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements
Ohio amended VOC recordkeeping language as it relates to source
applicability. Ohio changed the requirement to maintain records of VOC
content in percent by weight and pounds per gallon to percent by weight
or pounds per gallon depending upon whether total pounds or total
gallons of each adhesive or solvent is recorded. Ohio no longer
requires records in both units of measurement as long as the units of
measurement chosen to be recorded match and can be used to establish
whether monthly or daily applicability cutoffs are exceeded. Ohio made
these VOC recordkeeping amendments for rules 3745-21-23 and 3745-21-28.
Similarly, for rule 3745-21-29, Ohio added the option to record VOC
content in pounds per gallon (or percent by weight) and the option to
record coating and cleaning solvent usage in pounds (or gallons) as
long as the units of measurement for these two parameters match and can
be used to establish whether monthly or daily applicability cutoffs are
exceeded. EPA proposes to approve these amendments to rules 3745-21-23,
3745-21-28, and 3745-21-29, since compliance can be determined with
either VOC content record as long as the units of measurement are
consistent with the associated coating and/or solvent usage records.
D. Solvent Cleaning Operations
Ohio amended rule 3745-21-23 paragraph (C)(6)(b) to allow resin
manufacturers to use the alternative cleaning operations compliance
option. Prior to this revision, the rule only allowed manufacturers of
coatings, inks, or adhesives to use the alternative cleaning operations
compliance option. The alternative solvent cleaning and storage option
in (C)(6)(b) is based on the California Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's rules which are referenced in EPA's solvent cleaning CTG and
have been established by EPA as RACT for cleaning coatings, inks, and
resins from storage tanks and grinding mills. EPA, therefore, proposes
to approve this amendment.
E. OAC Rule 3745-21-24 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
When Ohio reviews a rule and amends greater than fifty percent of
that rule, Ohio issues the entire rule as a new replacement rule. This
is the case with OAC 3745-21-24. EPA proposes to approve the revisions
to OAC rule 3745-21-24, since they provide increased clarity and
consistency.
F. OAC Rule 3745-21-26 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts
OAC rule 3745-21-26 is a new rule updating the VOC RACT
requirements for the Cleveland area for the miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings source category as outlined in EPA's September
2008, ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings.'' \1\ Pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2), the
Cleveland area was subject to VOC RACT requirements since it was
classified as moderate nonattainment under the 1997 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 182(b)(2) requires states
with moderate nonattainment areas to implement RACT under section
172(c)(1) with respect to each of the following: (1) All sources
covered by a Control Technology Guideline (CTG) document issued between
November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered
by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and, (3) all other major
non-CTG stationary sources. EPA's 2008 CTG is a revised CTG that is a
strengthening of previous CTGs covering these categories that were
addressed by rules adopted and updated by Ohio during previous
rulemakings (61 FR 18255; 74 FR 37171) prior to the Cleveland area
being redesignated to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in September
2009 (74 FR 47414).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-453/R-08-003.
September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Ohio's adoption of OAC rule 3745-21-26, OAC rule 3745-21-
09(U) regulated the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and
OAC rule 3745-21-09(HH) regulated the surface coating of automotive/
transportation plastic parts and business machine plastic parts. OAC
rule 3745-21-26 applies to such sources located in the Cleveland area.
The requirements of paragraphs (U) and (HH) of OAC rule 3745-21-09 will
no longer apply to these sources after the compliance date for
facilities subject to the requirements of OAC rule 3745-21-26. Prior to
this action, EPA has not approved into the Ohio SIP 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h)
pertaining to VOC content limits for architectural coatings. In this
rulemaking, however, EPA proposes to approve 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) into
the Ohio SIP, since Ohio's anti-backsliding demonstration for
architectural coatings shows, as discussed below, that our approval of
this rule in conjunction with our approval of 3745-110-03(N) into the
Ohio SIP will not interfere with CAA section 110(l).
i. Ohio's CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration Regarding Architectural
Aluminum Coatings
Ohio established a 6.2 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal) VOC content
limit for high-performance architectural aluminum coatings effective
May 9, 1986, at OAC rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h). Prior to this, high-
performance architectural aluminum coatings in Ohio were subject to a
VOC content limit of 3.5 lbs/gal under a general SIP-approved coating
category of extreme performance coatings. EPA disapproved Ohio's 1986
rule, since Ohio did not demonstrate that the relaxation from 3.5 lbs/
gal to 6.2 lbs/gal represented RACT and would not interfere with
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (75 FR 50711). Since EPA's CTG,
updated in 2008, recommends a VOC content limit of 6.2 lbs/gal for high
performance architectural coatings and Ohio has adopted OAC rule 3745-
21-26 to
[[Page 21963]]
supersede OAC rule 3745-21-09(U) for sources in the Cleveland area,
Ohio, as part of this submittal, requested that EPA approve into the
Ohio SIP OAC rule 3745-21-26 including the relaxation of the high-
performance architectural aluminum coatings VOC content limit.
Ohio also requested that EPA approve a NOX emission
limit contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03 for unit P046
at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland. EPA's approval of the emission limit for
unit P046 into the Ohio SIP will make this emission limit federally
enforceable and available to use as an emission offset for the purposes
of Ohio's demonstration to show that the relaxation of the high-
performance architectural coatings VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal
to 6.2 lbs/gal will not result in a net increase in ozone precursor
emissions in the Cleveland area.
Section 110(l), known as the anti-backsliding provision of the CAA,
states:
The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section
171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
Ohio performed a CAA section 110(l) demonstration for the VOC
content limits in paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and 6 of OAC rule 3745-21-
26 for high performance architectural coatings.
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), states may substitute equivalent emissions reductions
to compensate for any change to a SIP-approved program, as long as
actual emissions are not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions
mean reductions which are equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emissions in the
air. As described in EPA's memorandum ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs'' published in January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-
001), the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into the SIP.
Ohio completed a demonstration that indicates that the prerequisite
for approval under section 110(l) of the CAA will be satisfied despite
the VOC content limit relaxation for high-performance architectural
coatings. Ohio's methodology involved identifying actual emissions from
all operating permitted architectural aluminum coating processes in the
state, of which there are five emission units among three permitted
facilities. This includes one emission unit at the American Warming and
Ventilation facility, one unit at the Thermo Fisher Scientific
facility, and three units at the American Japanning facility, which is
the only facility of the three operating permitted facilities that is
located in the Cleveland area.
For the five emission units with architectural aluminum coating
processes, Ohio converted the unit-specific facility-reported actual
VOC emissions in tons per year (TPY) to gallons per year assuming an
average solvent density of 7.36 lbs VOC/gal VOC. Then, using the full
VOC content limit of 6.2 lbs/gal under OAC rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) as
listed in each facility's permit, Ohio estimated actual gallons of
coating utilized per year at each unit at each facility for the 2010-
2012 time period. Next, Ohio used the gallons of coating per year to
estimate the 2010-2012 emissions from each unit using a VOC content
limit of 3.5 lbs/gal rather than 6.2 lbs/gal. Ohio's calculations show
that, in going from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal, the estimated VOC
emissions increase averaged over the 2010-2012 time period is 2.02 TPY
in the Cleveland area and 10.5 TPY statewide. Ohio's calculations are
provided in its SIP submittal, which is included in the docket to this
proposed rulemaking.
In order to make a satisfactory 110(l) demonstration and render
this SIP revision approvable by EPA under the requirements of the CAA,
Ohio needs a comparable emission reduction to offset this estimated VOC
emissions increase. VOCs and NOX contribute to the formation
of ground-level ozone. Thus, the potential increase in VOC needs to be
offset with equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions from another
VOC control measure or proportionally equivalent (or greater) emissions
reductions from a NOX control measure in order to
demonstrate anti-backsliding.
For its offset, Ohio requested to use a NOX emission
limit contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03 for unit P046
at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland. Since only a portion of this emission
limit has been used for a previous 110(l) demonstration, the remaining
portion is available for use as an offset for the purposes of this
demonstration. In December 2007, Ohio promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-110,
``Nitrogen Oxides--Reasonably Available Control Technology'' to address
NOX emissions from stationary combustion sources as a
potential attainment strategy in the Cleveland area. In September 2009
(74 FR 47414), EPA redesignated the Cleveland area to attainment of the
1997 ozone NAAQS and approved a waiver for the Cleveland area from the
NOX RACT requirements of section 182(f). Ohio's
NOX RACT rules are therefore surplus and are available to be
used to offset the potential increase in emissions from a higher VOC
content limit for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in
Ohio. For the purposes of this 110(l) demonstration, Ohio is requesting
to use an emission limit on one specific emission unit at one specific
facility for its offset.
Prior to Ohio's promulgation of OAC Chapter 3745-110, Arcelor-
Mittal Cleveland operated with an emission factor of 0.55 lbs
NOX/million British thermal units (MMBTU) established via a
stack test in 2003. To meet the requirements of OAC Chapter 3745-110,
Arcelor-Mittal installed low-NOX burners in the facility's
three reheat furnaces (Ohio emission unit IDs P046, P047, and P048) and
reduced its emission factor to 0.29 lbs NOX/MMBTU
established via a stack test in 2010 to comply with the OAC 3745-110-
03(N) NOX emission limit of 0.35 lbs/MMBTU. Based on actual
natural gas usage reported for 2010-2012 and going from an emission
factor of 0.55 lbs NOX/MMBTU to an emission factor of 0.29
lbs NOX/MMBTU, Ohio calculated an average NOX
emission reduction for this facility of 571.6 TPY and an average
NOX emission reduction specifically from unit P046 of 193.8
TPY.
Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), Ohio calculated
the ratio of NOX emissions to VOC emissions in the Cleveland
area at approximately 1.30 lbs NOX per lb of VOC. Ohio
applied this factor to the Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland NOX
reductions to show that the average VOC emissions offset theoretically
available for the time period of 2010-2012 is 438.2 TPY of VOC for the
facility and 148.6 TPY of VOC from unit P046.
Not all emission reductions from Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland are
available for use as offsets. On October 25, 2010, Ohio submitted a
similar 110(l)
[[Page 21964]]
demonstration for emissions from sheet molding compound (SMC) machines
in Ohio regulated by OAC rule 3745-21-07. Ohio used the same reductions
from Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland to demonstrate sufficient offsets to
justify an emissions increase for SMC machines. The offset needed for
SMC machines was 7.1 TPY of VOC, meaning the quantity of VOC offsets
available for this 110(l) demonstration is 431.1 TPY of VOC from
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland and 141.5 TPY of VOC from EU P046. Therefore,
there is enough of an emission offset remaining from EU P046 for Ohio
to offset the estimated increase in VOC emissions (10.5 TPY for all
five units and 2.02 TPY for the three Cleveland area units) as a result
of relaxing its high-performance architectural coatings VOC content
limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal in the Ohio SIP.
EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP the NOX limit
on emission unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland, which will make this
emissions limit federally enforceable. In combination with Ohio's use
of an offset in the form of a permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous,
surplus emission reduction achieved through the NOX limit on
unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland, EPA proposes that our SIP
approval of Ohio's relaxation of the high-performance architectural
coatings VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal would not
interfere with section 110(l) of the CAA. Furthermore, this VOC content
limit satisfies RACT for high-performance architectural coatings as
recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve into
the Ohio SIP, OAC rule 3745-21-26 including the VOC content limits in
paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and 6 for high performance architectural
coatings.
ii. Ohio's 5% VOC RACT Equivalency Analysis for a 3-Gallon per Day
Coating Usage Exemption
Ohio performed a 5% RACT equivalency analysis to justify the OAC
rule 3745-21-26 paragraph (A)(3)(f)(i) exemption from the VOC content
limits of metal coating lines that use less than three gallons per day.
Ohio demonstrated that the increase in emissions from this exemption
would be no more than 5% compared to adopting the CTG exactly as EPA
issued it. EPA guidance entitled ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations'' also referred to as ``the
Bluebook'' \2\ contains an example 5% equivalency analysis calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register. Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch, Air Quality
Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
May 25, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio performed its 5% RACT equivalency analysis consistent with
EPA's Bluebook and determined that the increase in emissions resulting
from a three gallons per day exemption would be approximately 4%. Since
the emissions increase is less than 5%, Ohio may incorporate this
exemption into its VOC RACT rule for the control of emissions from
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products for the
Cleveland area.
To conduct its 5% RACT equivalency analysis, Ohio listed all of the
current metal parts and products surface coating sources in the
Cleveland area and each source's actual 2008 VOC emissions or, where
2008 actual emissions data were unavailable, used information based on
current operation to determine representative 2008 actual emissions
from metal coating lines. Ohio identified each emission unit at each
facility that would be subject to the new OAC rule 3745-21-26 and
converted TPY of VOC to gallons per year of VOC using an average
solvent density of 7.36 lbs VOC/gal VOC. Ohio used source-specific
information to obtain gallons of coating used in 2008 or, where such
data were unavailable, used an average mix density of 10.0 lbs VOC/gal
coating. Ohio also subtracted gallons of VOC per year from total
gallons of coating used per year to obtain gallons of solids per year,
since some limits in the 2008 CTG are expressed in lbs of VOC per
gallon of coating and some are expressed in lbs of VOC per gallon of
solids. Ohio used these 2008 baseline data to find the difference in
the two options: The option to include a three gallons per line per day
exemption and the option that specifies an applicability cutoff of 15
lbs of VOC per day across all lines as specified in EPA's 2008 CTG.
Ohio's analysis shows that the difference between allowing and
disallowing the three gallons per day exemption is less than 5%. Ohio's
analysis is provided in its SIP submittal, which is included in the
docket to this proposed rulemaking. Since the result of Ohio's RACT
equivalency analysis to support the exemption in its rule is less than
5%, and since Ohio's general methodology for conducting the equivalency
analysis is consistent with EPA's Bluebook, which indicates that for
the purposes of VOC RACT regulation a difference of no more than 5%
between EPA's CTG and the state's rules is not a significant emissions
differential, EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP the OAC rule
3745-21-26 exemption from the VOC content limits of metal coating lines
that use less than three gallons per day.
iii. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's VOC RACT Requirements for Pleasure
Craft Coatings
EPA's 2008 CTG includes VOC content limits for pleasure craft
coatings, which Ohio has not historically regulated. Ohio
systematically analyzed existing permitted facilities which may become
subject to its new pleasure craft coating rules. Ohio's analysis is
important, because, theoretically, a facility could go from being
subject to an existing VOC content limit under a different coating
category to being subject to a less stringent VOC content limit under
Ohio's new pleasure craft coating rules. If that were the case, the
potential for interference with CAA section 110(l) would need to be
addressed. Ohio's analysis indicates that there are 12 sources in the
state with the potential to be subject to the new OAC rule 3745-21-26.
Ohio determined six of these sources are not subject to OAC rule 3745-
21-26, because they are not located in the Cleveland area, and four of
the remaining sources are not subject to OAC rule 3745-21-26, since
they are marinas that only contain gasoline dispensing facilities. The
remaining two sources are the Duramax Marine facility in Geauga County
and the Hanover Marine facility in Lake County. The Duramax facility
operates spray booths that only apply adhesives and are therefore
exempt from OAC rule 3745-21-26. Rather, this facility may be subject
to the OAC rule 3745-21-28; ``Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives''
requirements. The Hanover facility builds fiberglass boats. It operates
one small spray booth for painting stripes only and historically has
had emissions under the applicability levels. Mostly this facility
performs resin/gel work and may be subject to New Source Review
requirements and the requirements of OAC rule 3745-21-27; ``Fiberglass
Boat Manufacturing.'' Ohio's analysis shows that our approval into the
Ohio SIP of these pleasure craft coating VOC content limits will have
no or minimal effect to reduce emissions, but, of course, the adoption
of these limits will not cause any increase in emissions and,
therefore, not interfere with section 110(l) of the CAA.
Table 1, below, shows a comparison of the differences between EPA's
2008 CTG and Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26 VOC content limits for pleasure
craft coatings. The portion of Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26 pertaining to
pleasure craft coatings differs from EPA's 2008
[[Page 21965]]
CTG in several ways. Ohio's VOC content limits for the ``extreme high
gloss topcoat'' and ``other substrate antifoulant'' coating categories
are greater than those recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG, and Ohio's rule
contains a ``antifouling sealer/tie coat'' coating category that is not
included in EPA's 2008 CTG. Additionally, Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26
defines extreme high gloss coating for the pleasure craft coating
industry as that which achieves greater than 90% reflectance, as
opposed to greater than 95% reflectance recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG.
Table 1--Differences Between EPA's 2008 CTG and Ohio's OAC Rule 3745-21-
26 VOC Content Limits for Pleasure Craft Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pound VOC per gallon coating
Coating category -------------------------------------
2008 CTG Ohio's rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme High Gloss Topcoat........ 4.1 5.0
-------------------------------------
High Gloss Topcoat................ 3.5
Pretreatment Wash Primer.......... 6.5
Finish Primer/Surfacer............ 3.5
High-Build Primer/Surfacer........ 2.8
-------------------------------------
Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat....... Not a category in 3.5
the 2008 CTG
-------------------------------------
Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant.... 4.7
-------------------------------------
Other Substrate Antifoulant....... 2.8 3.3
-------------------------------------
All Other Pleasure Craft Surface
Coatings for Metal or Plastic.... 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The differences shown in Table 1, above, between EPA's original
recommendations in the 2008 CTG and Ohio's VOC content limits for
pleasure craft coatings in OAC rule 3745-21-26 are consistent with
those requested by the pleasure craft coating industry. When EPA
released the 2008 CTG, the pleasure craft coating industry requested
that EPA reconsider the 2008 CTG recommended VOC content limits for
extreme high gloss, high gloss, and antifoulant coatings citing what
the industry deemed to be technological and feasibility challenges to
meeting the VOC content limits recommended in the CTG. EPA responded in
a June 1, 2010, memorandum entitled ``Control Technique Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for
Reconsideration.'' While EPA did not formally revise the 2008 CTG to
reflect the changes requested by the pleasure craft coating industry,
in the June 1, 2010, memo, EPA encouraged the pleasure craft industry
to work together with state agencies in the RACT rule development
process to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated
under each state's rules. EPA's CTGs are intended to provide state and
local air pollution control authorities with information to assist them
in determining RACT for VOC, but CTGs impose no legally binding
requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating
facilities. Regardless of whether a state chooses to implement the
recommendations contained in the CTG through state rules, or to issue
state rules that adopt different approaches, states must submit their
RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.
In the June 1, 2010, memo, EPA stated its intent to evaluate the
state's RACT rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking
in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations.
EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP these OAC rule 3745-21-26
VOC content limits for pleasure craft coatings as RACT since this rule,
in most respects, is consistent with EPA's 2008 CTG, and, where it
differs from EPA's 2008 CTG as explained above, EPA proposes to find
these differences to be reasonable in terms of available control
technology for the pleasure craft coating industry.
G. OAC Rule 3745-21-28 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Sealants
Ohio made two amendments to Table 1 of OAC rule 3745-21-28; the
first amendment was to indicate that the VOC content limit excludes
water and exempt solvents, and the second amendment was to change the
category ``tire retread'' to ``tire repair.'' EPA proposes to approve
these amendments, since these changes result in language that is
consistent with EPA's CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives, which
is the basis for OAC rule 3745-21-28.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP adjustments and additions
to VOC RACT rules in OAC Chapter 3745-21. Additionally, EPA proposes to
incorporate OAC 3745-110-03(N) into the Ohio SIP; this rule includes an
emission limit that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA 110(l)
demonstration for the OAC rule 3745-21-26 VOC content limit for
architectural coatings.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference Ohio's updated VOC rules including 3745-21-01, 3745-21-03,
3745-21-04, 3745-21-08, 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13,
3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-17, 3745-21-18, 3745-21-19,
3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-24, 3745-21-25,
3745-21-26, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28, 3745-21-29, effective October 15,
2015, and the NOX emission limit on unit P046 at Arcelor-
Mittal Cleveland contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 5
Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).
[[Page 21966]]
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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 21, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-09506 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P