41086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued 

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approved date Comments 

*******

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 6. Section 52.1891 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements. 

(a) Approval. In a December 5, 2007 

submittal, supplemented on April 7, 

2011, Ohio certified that the State has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and 

(J) through (M) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

(b) Approval. In a December 5, 2007 

submittal, supplemented on April 7, 

2011, Ohio certified that the State has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and 

(J) through (M) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Subpart YY—Wisconsin 

■ 7. Section 52.2591 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements. 

(a) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 

submittal, supplemented on January 24, 

2011 and March 28, 2011, Wisconsin 

certified that the State has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), 

(E) through (H), and (J) through (M) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

not finalizing its proposed approval of 

the submission from the State of 

Wisconsin with respect to two narrow 

issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): 

The requirement for consideration of 

NOx as a precursor to ozone; and (ii) the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ 

related to fuel changes for certain 

sources. EPA will address these issues 

in a later action. 

(b) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 

submittal, supplemented on January 24, 

2011 and March 28, 2011, Wisconsin 

certified that the State has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), 

(E) through (H), and (J) through (M) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not 

finalizing its proposed approval of the 

submission from the State of Wisconsin 

with respect to two narrow issues that 

relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): The 

requirement for consideration of NOx as 

a precursor to ozone; and the definition 

of ‘‘major modification’’ related to fuel 

changes for certain sources. EPA will 

address these issues in a later action. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17463 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0036; FRL–9430–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Volatile Organic Compound Reinforced 

Plastic Composites Production 

Operations Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the 

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) a 

new rule for the control of volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from reinforced plastic composites 

production operations. This rule applies 

to any facility that has reinforced plastic 

composites production operations. This 

rule is approvable because it satisfies 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). EPA proposed this rule for 

approval on January 27, 2011, and 

received three sets of comments. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0036. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Steven Rosenthal, 

Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886– 

6052 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What public comments were received on 

the proposed approval and what is EPA’s 

response? 

II. What action is EPA taking today and what 

is the basis of this action? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What public comments were received 

on the proposed approval and what is 

EPA’s response? 

EPA received three comments. A 

discussion of each follows: 

(A) An anonymous comment was in 

support of EPA’s approval of Ohio’s 

rule. 

(B) The Aquatic Company commented 

that it is concerned that the maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

limits in subpart WWWW of 40 CFR 

part 63, for Reinforced Plastic 

Composites Production, underestimate 

emissions generated by tub/shower 

manufacturers and notes that EPA is 

currently working to correct these and 

other issues with subpart WWWW. The 

Aquatic Company opposes any rule 

which is tied to the subpart WWWW 

regulations. This comment is not 

directly relevant to this rulemaking 

because it is mainly a complaint against 

the MACT and provides no suggested 

revisions to Ohio’s rule. 

(C) Premix, Inc. commented that it 

objects to the 25 tons VOC per year 

applicability cutoff for sheet mold 

compound (SMC) machines. Premix has 

successfully, and cost-effectively, 

controlled VOCs from its SMC machines 

using its Tight Wet Area Enclosures and 

a small Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 41087 

This control system has reduced VOC 

emissions from its two SMC machines at 

its facility in North Kingsville, Ohio by 

more than 95 percent for a period of 18 

months. Premix submits that this new 

VOC control system can be costeffectively implemented on a single, 

stand-alone SMC machine, and that 

therefore EPA should not approve the 

25 tons VOC per year applicability 

cutoff in Ohio’s rule. 

EPA agrees that the Premix control 

system represents a technically and 

economically feasible control system 

that should be considered to represent 

reasonably available control (RACT), 

which is the level of control required by 

VOC sources in ozone nonattainment 

areas. However, all of Ohio is 

designated as attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and therefore 

RACT is not required. EPA notes that if 

and when portions of Ohio are 

designated to nonattainment of a new 

ozone standard, it is unlikely that 

Ohio’s reinforced plastic composites 

rule will be considered to satisfy RACT 

for SMC machines. 

II. What action is EPA taking today and 

what is the basis of this action? 

EPA is approving into Ohio’s SIP new 

rule Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 

3745–21–25 ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions 

from Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production Operations.’’ This rule was 

submitted by the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to EPA 

on November 10, 2010, and contains 

enforceable requirements for VOC 

emissions from reinforced plastic 

composites production operations. This 

rule was adopted to establish VOC 

requirements for such operations to 

replace the requirements contained in 

OAC rule 3745–21–07 ‘‘Control of 

emissions of organic materials from 

stationary sources.’’ 3745–21–07 is 

Ohio’s general rule for the control of 

organic materials from stationary 

sources that are not controlled by a 

specific VOC RACT rule. 3745–21–07 

has been revised by Ohio, and the 

revised rule (which is the subject of a 

separate Federal Register action) 

excludes reinforced plastic composites 

production operations. 

In EPA’s January 27, 2011 proposal 

(76 FR 4835), we present a detailed 

analysis of the State’s submission. The 

reader is referred to that notice for 

additional background on the 

submission. 

As discussed in the proposal, upon 

achieving compliance with this rule, the 

reinforced plastic composites 

production operations at a facility are 

not required to meet the requirements of 

3745–21–07. This exemption from OAC 

3745–21–07 is appropriate because OAC 

3745–21–25 contains VOC requirements 

specific to reinforced plastic composites 

production operations, whereas OAC 

3745–21–07 is a general rule that covers 

a number of source categories. 

For facilities subject to OAC 3745–21– 

25, the control requirements are more 

stringent than the requirements for these 

facilities under OAC 3745–21–07. 

However, the applicability cutoff of 

OAC 3745–21–07 is 8 pounds/hour, or 

40 pounds/day, as compared to a less 

stringent 25 tons VOC/year cutoff for the 

control requirements of OAC 3745–21– 

25 for SMC manufacturing operations. 

The main purpose of this rule is the 

control of such SMC operations because 

SMC machines were previously covered 

by OAC 3745–21–07. Because overall, 

considering both applicability and the 

control requirements for subject sources, 

OAC 3745–21–07 is more stringent than 

OAC 3745–21–25 for SMC machines, 

EPA must evaluate, according to section 

110(l) of the CAA, whether the revision 

might interfere with attainment, 

maintenance, or any other CAA 

requirements. 

Ohio EPA submitted an October 25, 

2010 demonstration under section 110(l) 

of the CAA that the less stringent 

applicability cutoff in OAC 3745–21–25 

does not interfere with attainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), nor interfere with any other 

requirement of the CAA. Ohio 

documented that the actual emission 

increase from this change in 

applicability cutoffs would be 7.1 tons 

of VOC/year, and that the worst case 

maximum theoretical increase in 

uncontrolled emissions is 159 tons of 

VOC/year. 

Most of the SMC production in Ohio 

is in the Cleveland area. In December 

2007 Ohio EPA promulgated rules 

reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) in the Cleveland area. These 

rules, in OAC Chapter 3745–110, 

entitled ‘‘NOX RACT,’’ addressed NOX

emissions from stationary sources such 

as boilers, combustion turbines, and 

stationary internal combustion engines. 

The rules were made applicable as an 

attainment strategy in the ClevelandAkron-Lorain ozone moderate 

nonattainment area. On September 15, 

2009, EPA redesignated the ClevelandAkron-Lorain metropolitan area as 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. At the same time, EPA 

approved a waiver for this area from the 

NOX RACT requirements of section 

182(f) of the CAA, based on the area 

attaining the standard. Ohio’s 

NOXRACT rules are, therefore, surplus 

and can be used to offset any increase 

in emissions from SMC machines in 

Ohio. Ohio obtained 538 tons NOx/year 

actual (and surplus) emission 

reductions from the Arcelor-Mittal 

facility as a result of the installation of 

low NOX burners in its three reheat 

furnaces. The requirement for these low 

NOX burners is permanent and 

enforceable because they are needed to 

comply with OAC 3745–110, Ohio’s 

NOX RACT rule. In the ClevelandAkron-Lorain area, the ratio of NOX

emissions to VOC emissions is 

approximately 1.36 pounds NOx/pound 

VOC. Applying this factor, the VOC 

offset potential for the Arcelor-Mittal 

facility NOX reductions is 396 tons 

VOC/year. Consequently, EPA 

concludes that the net effect of the 

relaxation of the applicability criterion 

plus the compensation from requiring 

NOX emission reductions at ArcelorMittal will be an environmental 

improvement in the Cleveland area and 

will not interfere with attainment, 

maintenance, or other CAA 

requirements. 

In addition, two uncontrolled SMC 

machines are located at Continental 

Structural Plastics in Van Wert County, 

which are outside of the former 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone 

moderate nonattainment area. This rule 

relaxation is not contrary to the 

requirements of section 110(l) because 

the most recent three years of data 

(2008–2010) indicates that the nearest 

monitor, which is in Lima (in the Lima– 

Van Wert–Wapakoneta, Ohio Combined 

Statistical Area), has a 3-year ozone 

design value which is well under the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard (70.0 parts 

per billion vs. the 75.0 parts per billion 

standard), such that removal of a 

requirement for controlling these SMC 

machines may be judged not to have the 

potential to cause violations of the 

standard. Furthermore, if any of its SMC 

machines exceeds 25 tons VOC per year, 

the facility is required to reduce their 

emissions by 95 percent. 

In conclusion, OAC 3745–21–25 is 

approvable because all of Ohio is in 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and therefore a RACT level of 

control is not required and Ohio 

demonstrated that a relaxation of the 

applicability cutoff for SMC machines, 

from 8 pounds VOC per hour to 25 tons 

VOC per year, per machine, does not 

interfere with attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, or 

interfere with any other requirement of 

the CAA, as required by section 110(l) 

of the CAA. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

41088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 Act; 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 12, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 24, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(153) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(153) On November 10, 2010, the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

(Ohio EPA) submitted new rule OAC 

3745–21–25 ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions 

from Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production Operations’’ for approval 

into its state implementation plan. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–21–25 ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions 

from Reinforced Plastic Composites 

Production Operations,’’ effective 

November 11, 2010. 

(B) November 1, 2010, ‘‘Director’s 

Final Findings and Orders,’’ signed by 

Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(ii) Additional material. (A) An 

October 25, 2010, letter from Robert F. 

Hodanbosi, Chief Division of Air 

Pollution Control of the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency to 

Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, 

containing documentation of 

noninterference, under section 110(l) of 

the Clean Air Act, of the less stringent 

applicability cutoff for sheet mold 

compound machines. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17471 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0426–201124 FRL– 

9436–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve the December 13, 2007, 

submission by the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, through the Kentucky 

Division of Air Quality (KDAQ) as 

demonstrating that the Commonwealth 

meets the state implementation plan 

(SIP) requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that 

each state adopt and submit a SIP for 

the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Kentucky certified 

that the Kentucky SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Kentucky 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). Kentucky’s infrastructure 

submission, provided to EPA on 

December 13, 2007, addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, EPA is responding to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES