3668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reproduction of ephemeral recordings 

by preexisting satellite digital audio 

radio services in 37 CFR part 382, 

subpart B of this chapter, for the license 

period 2007–2012. For purposes of this 

section, the term ‘‘Collective’’ refers to 

the collection and distribution 

organization that is designated by the 

Copyright Royalty Judges. For the 

License Period through 2015, the sole 

Collective is SoundExchange, Inc. 

(b) Reporting of performances. 

Without prejudice to any applicable 

notice and recordkeeping provisions, 

statements of account shall not require 

reports of performances. 

(c) Applicable regulations. To the 

extent not inconsistent with this part, 

all applicable regulations, including 

part 370 of this chapter, shall apply to 

activities subject to this part. 

Dated: January 15, 2010. 

James Scott Sledge, 

Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1172 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003; FRL– 

9105–7] 

Conditional Approval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plans; Ohio; Carbon Monoxide and 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a variety of 

actions regarding revisions to Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–21 

(Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically 

Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons, and 

related Materials Standards). EPA is 

proposing the following actions: To 

approve into the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) certain regulation revisions 

within OAC 3745–21 which have been 

adopted by the State; to disapprove a 

regulation revision pertaining to high 

performance architectural coatings; to 

conditionally approve a revision of 

paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–09, 

if the State gives EPA a letter that 

commits to address noted deficiencies 

no later than one year from the expected 

date of EPA’s conditional approval; to 

take no action on certain regulation 

revisions, and to provide notice that 

EPA and Ohio have created a path 

forward for facilities operating under 

previously issued alternate VOC limit 

and emission control exemptions for 

miscellaneous metal coating operations 

under OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f). This 

action addresses revisions to OAC 

3745–21 in a set of submittals dated 

October 9, 2000, February 6, 2000, and 

August 3, 2001; and also addresses 

revisions to OAC 3745–21, submitted on 

June 24, 2003, as part of Ohio’s five-year 

rule review process. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2005–OH–003, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005– 

OH–003. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Anthony Maietta, Life 

Scientist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony J. Maietta, Life Scientist, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division 

(AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

(312) 353–8777; 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. 2000/2001 Submittals 

A. Review of the State’s Submittals 

1. What rule revisions does the State want 

approved into the SIP, and are these rule 

revisions approvable? 

2. What is EPA’s view of the sourcespecific miscellaneous metal coating 

submittal currently before EPA? 

III. Five-Year Rule Review 

A. Background 

1. Why has the State requested revisions to 

this rule? 

2. When did the State submit the requested 

rule revisions to EPA? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3669 

1The State differentially defines ‘‘organic 

material’’ and ‘‘volatile organic compounds’’ in the 

State’s rules. Volatile organic compounds, as 

defined, are a subset of organic material. 

3. When did the State adopt these rule 

revisions and have they become 

effective? 

4. When were public hearings held? 

5. What issues were raised at the public 

hearings and how did the State respond? 

B. What are the revisions that the State 

requests be incorporated into the SIP? 

1. Grammar, Spelling, and Definitions 

2. Attainment Dates and Compliance 

Schedules 

3. Clarifications 

4. Revised State Rule Applicability 

5. Site-Specific Emissions Limit 

Amendments 

6. Site-Specific Source Removal 

C. What are the environmental effects of 

these actions? 

IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. 2000/2001 Submittals 

A. Review of the State’s Submittals 

1. What rule revisions does the State 

want approved into the SIP, and are 

these rule revisions approvable? 

The State of Ohio has adopted a 

number of revisions to the State’s 

organic material and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) 1 emission control 

regulations, and has requested EPA to 

approve these rule revisions for 

incorporation into Ohio’s SIP. Two 

separate State submittals for the 2000/ 

2001 period are addressed in this 

proposed rule. On October 9, 2000, Ohio 

submitted revisions to a number of 

Ohio’s VOC and organic material 

emission control regulations covering 

multiple source facilities. On February 

6, 2001, Ohio submitted a request for 

EPA to review a Permit-To-Install (PTI) 

for Adelphia, Incorporated. The sourcespecific PTI relies on certain VOC rule 

revisions documented in the State’s 

October 9, 2000 submittal, and, 

therefore, the concurrence by EPA 

depends on the approval and SIPincorporation of the specific State rule 

revisions. 

On August 3, 2001, Ohio submitted a 

request for EPA to review a PTI for 

Honda of America Manufacturing, 

Incorporated. However, on December 4, 

2002, Honda sent a letter to the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) acknowledging concerns about 

whether the company had adequately 

reviewed the option of add-on controls 

and whether the company had justified 

a long-term limit on coating usage. As 

a result, Honda formally withdrew its 

request to Ohio EPA. On June 12, 2008, 

Ohio EPA submitted a formal 

withdrawal of the PTI request, and so 

this rulemaking does not address such 

request. 

As noted below, the State’s June 24, 

2003 submittal includes rule paragraphs 

which have been amended and adopted 

by the State since the State’s October 9, 

2000 submittal. Because the June 24, 

2003 submittal reflects current versions 

of these particular rule paragraphs and 

because the versions of these rule 

paragraphs contained in the October 9, 

2000 submittal may now be outdated, 

we will address these rule paragraphs in 

the discussion of the 2003 submittal or 

in a separate rulemaking. 

In addition, the State submitted a new 

version of OAC 3745–21–07 on April 7, 

2008. This submittal is currently under 

review by EPA, so we are not taking 

action on these parts of the original 

submittal in this notice, and will instead 

address these rule paragraphs in a 

separate rulemaking. 

Revisions to Ohio’s VOC and Organic 

Material Rules Submitted on October 9, 

2000 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–01 

(Definitions): 

OAC 3745–21–01(B)(4): 

Ohio revised the definition of ‘‘organic 

compound’’ to match the definition of 

that term as used in paragraph (PP) of 

OAC 3745–31–01. Ohio now defines 

‘‘organic compound’’ to mean any 

chemical compound containing carbon, 

excluding: Carbon monoxide, carbon 

dioxide; carbonic acid; metallic 

carbides; metallic carbonates; 

ammonium carbonate; methane (except 

methane from landfill gases); and 

ethane. This rule revision is acceptable 

and we are proposing to approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–01(B)(6): 

Ohio revised the definition of 

‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds’’ to 

exclude additional compounds 

considered to be negligibly reactive in 

the chemical formation of ozone. Since 

this definition is further amended in the 

June 24, 2003, five-year rule review 

submittal, we will address all of the 

relevant changes in the definition in 

Section III of this proposed rule. 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–04 

(Attainment Dates and Compliance 

Time Schedules): 

All amended rule paragraphs in this 

section are also covered in Section III of 

this proposed rule. 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–09 

(Control of Emissions of Volatile 

Organic Compounds from Stationary 

Sources): 

OAC 3745–21–09(A)(4): 

Paragraph (A) addresses the 

applicability of the VOC emission 

control requirements contained in OAC 

3745–21–09. Paragraph (A)(4) has been 

revised to remove the applicability of 

paragraph (DDD) (Stage II vapor control 

system requirements for gasoline 

dispensing facilities) for gasoline 

dispensing facilities located in the 

Toledo, Ohio area (Lucas and Wood 

Counties). Ohio revised this rule 

because the Toledo area was 

redesignated to attainment of the onehour ozone standard before the Stage II 

vapor control requirements were 

required to be implemented in this area 

and because the need for Stage II vapor 

controls has been superseded by the 

implementation of vehicle onboard 

emission controls. Therefore, the 

revision to paragraph (A)(4) is 

acceptable and we are proposing to 

approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–09(B)(3): 

Paragraphs (B)(3)(d) and (B)(3)(e) 

address requirements for recordkeeping 

and notification of violation 

(exceedance of maximum daily coating 

usage limits) for coating lines exempted 

from the VOC emission limitations 

specified in OAC 3745–21–09(U)(1). 

Because, as discussed below, the 

addition of paragraph (U)(2)(e)(ii) to 

OAC 3745–21–09 is acceptable, it is 

appropriate to also incorporate 

paragraphs (B)(3)(d) and (B)(3)(e) into 

the SIP. Exempted sources must 

continue to monitor coating usage and 

VOC emissions and must notify the 

State of exceedances of maximum daily 

coating usage limits. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

OAC 3745–21–09(O)(1) and OAC 

3745–21–09(O)(6): 

Paragraph (O) addresses requirements 

for solvent metal cleaning sources. 

Paragraph (O)(1) has been modified to 

reference new paragraph (O)(6), which 

exempts specified types of sources from 

the requirements of paragraphs (O)(2) 

(cold cleaner requirements), (O)(3) 

(open top vapor degreaser 

requirements), and (O)(4) (conveyorized 

degreaser requirements). 

Paragraph (O)(6) is further revised in 

the June 24, 2003, submittal and is 

addressed in Section III of this proposed 

rule. Since Paragraph (O)(1) depends on 

paragraph (O)(6), we also propose action 

on the revision to paragraph (O)(1) in 

Section III of this proposed rule. 

OAC 3745–21–09(R)(4): 

Paragraph (R) contains VOC emission 

control requirements for filling of 

underground storage tanks at gasoline 

service stations. Paragraph (R)(4) 

specifies source exemption criteria for 

this State rule. Paragraph (R)(4)(a) has 

been modified to exempt two source 

types: (i) Any gasoline service station 

which has an annual gasoline 

throughput of less than 120,000 gallons; 

and (ii) gasoline transfers made to 

stationary storage tanks which are 

equipped with internal or external 

floating roofs. The uncorrected language 

of this paragraph would have exempted 

sources only if they met both of these 

conditions, which was not the intent of 

the State. We believe that the two 

exemptions are acceptable as 

independent exemptions. Therefore, the 

revision of paragraph (R)(4) is 

acceptable and we are proposing to 

approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h): 

OAC 3745–21–09(U) specifies VOC 

emission control requirements for 

sources conducting surface coating of 

miscellaneous metal parts and products. 

Paragraph (U)(1) specifies VOC content 

limits for various coating operations or 

coating types. The State-adopted rule, in 

paragraph (U)(1)(h), contains a VOC 

content limit of 6.2 pounds per gallon 

of coating, or, if an emissions control 

system is employed, 39.2 pounds of 

VOC per gallon of solids, for high 

performance architectural aluminum 

coatings. (As a result of the difference 

between VOC content limits expressed 

per gallon of coating versus per gallon 

of coating solids, these are comparable 

limits.) Although the State has 

previously requested that these VOC 

content limits be placed into the SIP, 

EPA has not approved these VOC 

content limits. In its October 9, 2000, 

SIP revision request, Ohio EPA is again 

requesting the approval of these VOC 

content limits for high performance 

architectural aluminum coatings as a 

SIP revision. 

The VOC content limit for high 

performance architectural aluminum 

coatings of 6.2 pounds per gallon of 

coating, or, if an emissions control 

system is employed, 39.2 pounds of 

VOC per gallon of solids, was 

incorporated into the Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings document in September, 2008. 

This limit is less stringent than the 

general limit that applied to this 

subcategory in previous guidance. For 

Ohio in particular, approval of OAC 

3745–21–09(U)(1)(h) would allow more 

emissions than the Ohio SIP currently 

allows. 

Under section 110(l) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), EPA ‘‘shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment [or 

other requirements].’’ The State has not 

demonstrated that the relaxation of the 

VOC content limit for high performance 

architectural aluminum coatings would 

not interfere with attainment of the 

ozone standard and other requirements. 

Therefore EPA believes it must continue 

to disapprove this requested relaxation. 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2): 

Paragraph (U)(2) specifies the types of 

sources that are exempted from the 

emission control requirements of 

paragraph (U)(1). 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(e): 

Paragraph (U)(2)(e), which exempts 

sources based on coating usage rate 

limits, has been amended to restrict the 

exemption of miscellaneous metal parts 

and products coating lines in Ashtabula, 

Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga, 

Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Medina, 

Portage, Summit, and Warren Counties 

to coating lines that apply no more than 

three (3) gallons of coating per day. 

Other exemption clauses in this 

paragraph remain essentially 

unchanged, but have been 

grammatically modified to 

accommodate the revised exemption 

limit for the applicable counties. 

Ohio EPA has submitted analyses for 

the Cincinnati and Cleveland areas 

assessing the allowable VOC emission 

rates for miscellaneous metal coating 

lines under the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) based VOC 

content limit and under various coating 

usage rate limits (gallons per day per 

coating line). The analysis considered 

VOC emissions for all miscellaneous 

metal coating facilities in each area as 

contained in Ohio EPA’s source permit 

files. The analysis determined daily 

allowable VOC emissions for each 

coating line at each facility. Based on 

the coatings in use at the facilities, the 

analysis concluded that, in both areas, 

an exemption of coating lines using no 

more than three gallons per day per 

coating line would allow total VOC 

emissions within five percent of the 

allowable VOC emissions expected 

without the exemption. 

Based on these results, we conclude 

that the State rule, as revised, will 

provide emission reductions that are 

suitably close to the emission control 

benefits that would be achieved with a 

regulation strictly following RACT 

requirements. Therefore, this rule 

revision is acceptable and we are 

proposing to approve it. 

Please note that paragraph (U)(2)(e) is 

further revised in the State’s June 24, 

2003, submittal; we discuss this 

paragraph in more detail below. This 

section discusses paragraph (U)(2)(e) 

only to the extent that it is revised in the 

October 9, 2000, submittal. 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f): 

Paragraph (U)(2)(f) authorizes the 

exemption of metal coating lines 

meeting certain criteria from the 

miscellaneous metal coating VOC 

content and emission control 

requirements of paragraph (U)(1). 

Effective January 24, 1983, Ohio EPA’s 

rule stated that in order to qualify for 

this emission control exemption, a 

coating line must be subject to a stateissued permit to install (PTI) that 

specifies alternate emission control 

requirements constituting ‘‘best 

available technology.’’ Sources qualify 

for an alternative to the limits of 

paragraph (U)(1) only if best available 

technology for the source is found to be 

less stringent than, or inconsistent with, 

the emission control requirements of 

paragraph (U)(1). The best available 

technology must provide, where an 

emission limitation is applicable, the 

lowest emission limitation that a subject 

emissions unit is capable of meeting by 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

On March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15235), 

EPA inadvertently approved a version of 

paragraph (U)(2)(f) which allowed the 

State to approve and issue PTIs for 

miscellaneous metal coating units 

without EPA review and concurrence, 

and without approval of source-specific 

SIP revisions for the applicable coating 

units. The particular version that EPA 

approved had a State effective date of 

January 17, 1995. Subsequently, EPA 

realized that it erred in approving this 

paragraph. In a September 24, 1999, 

letter to Ohio EPA, we informed the 

State of the erroneous approval of 

(U)(2)(f) and commented that, if the 

State did not adopt and submit an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3671 

acceptable revision to the paragraph, 

EPA intended to publish a correction 

rescinding the 1995 approval. 

In an attempt to rectify the 

deficiencies in the 1995 version, the 

State submitted an October 9, 2000, SIP 

revision request that provided a revised 

version of (U)(2)(f) (which became 

effective at the State on June, 15, 1999) 

that required EPA review of, and 

concurrence with, the PTIs prior to their 

finalization and issuance by the State. 

This revised version of paragraph 

(U)(2)(f), however, did not provide a 

suitable process involving formal EPA 

review of prospective exemptions for 

inclusion in the Ohio SIP. Section 110 

of the CAA dictates a process in which 

States adopt measures required under 

the CAA, States submit these measures 

to EPA, and then EPA conducts formal 

rulemaking to assess whether these 

measures are to be added to the SIP. 

From the State’s effective date of their 

rule change (June 15, 1999), paragraph 

(U)(2)(f) remained deficient because it 

did not contain the necessary language 

to require exemptions to be submitted to 

EPA as SIP revisions. 

On March 23, 2009, Ohio submitted a 

revised version of paragraph (U)(2)(f) 

which, upon review, was found to be 

approvable because it provides EPA its 

proper role in reviewing and 

incorporating exemption limits into 

Ohio’s SIP. EPA approved this version 

of paragraph (U)(2)(f) on July 28, 2009, 

at 74 FR 37171. Because this version 

supersedes previous versions, we 

propose to take no action on paragraph 

(U)(2)(f) from any submittal in this 

notice. 

EPA and Ohio EPA have held 

discussions on how to best address 

future requests for exemptions from the 

miscellaneous metal coating limits in 

paragraph (U)(1). These discussions 

have reflected several premises: 

1. Given the broad coverage of the 

miscellaneous metal coating rule, cases 

will arise where reasonably available 

control technology for a particular 

coating unit is less stringent or is 

inconsistent with the limits given in 

Ohio’s rule 3745–21–09(U)(1), such that 

an alternative emissions limit is 

necessary; 

2. Ohio has been applying exemption 

provisions of paragraph (U)(2)(f) in good 

faith. EPA does not intend to revisit the 

exemptions that Ohio granted during 

the time that Ohio had this unilateral 

authority. Discussions between EPA and 

Ohio EPA are intended instead to define 

a process for addressing future 

exemption requests; 

3. EPA and Ohio EPA will seek to 

define an exemption review process that 

accommodates requirements within the 

State of Ohio for prompt permit review; 

4. EPA and Ohio will seek to define 

an exemption review process that 

provides for joint review of exemption 

requests, that provides for Ohio to issue 

permits containing alternative emission 

limits after any EPA comments are taken 

into account, but that also reflects 

standard provisions that the Federally 

enforceable limitations in the SIP are 

revised only after EPA formally 

approves source-specific revisions 

through formal EPA SIP revision 

rulemaking. 

EPA and Ohio have taken steps to 

establish a process for review of 

alternate miscellaneous metal coating 

limits based on the above premises. As 

noted above, Ohio has adopted and 

submitted a rule which provides for 

formal EPA SIP review of such alternate 

limits, and EPA has approved this rule. 

EPA and Ohio have also prepared a 

MOU outlining a process for issuing 

those exemptions. 

The following table lists the facilities 

and source units that have been granted 

source permits by the State before June 

15, 1999, under paragraph (U)(2)(f), 

along with their associated emission/ 

VOC content limits. EPA proposes to 

retain the effectiveness of (U)(2)(f) 

exemptions issued between May 5, 

1995, and June, 15, 1999. The permits 

issued before that date are listed here 

but will be addressed in the near future 

in a separate rulemaking. This table 

does not list any permits issued after 

June 15, 1999, because State rules 

starting on that date did not authorize 

the State to issue permits exempting 

sources from limits under paragraph 

(U)(1) without EPA concurrence. 

Facility ID Facility name Short term limit 

(hr/day) TPY limit VOC content/other limit PTI# PTI issue date 

1409000714 .. Polymet Corporation.25 lbs VOC/month 0.15 tons VOC/yr .. None ..................... 14–4578 Wednesday, September 23, 

1992. 

1409000716 .. Chase-Durus Industries.55 lbs VOC/day; 

10 gal/day for 

both metal and 

non-metal.

5.72 tons OC/yr 

from coating 

metal and 5.72 

TPY from coating non-metal; 

PTO: 2.48 tons 

VOC/yr.

5.5 lbs OC/gal, as 

applied, including 

water and exempt solvents 

(PTO uses VOC/ 

gal).

14–04268 Wednesday, June 24, 

1998. 

1409000842 .. Ransoholff Inc ....... 75 lbs VOC/day 

from coatings; 

830 lbs VOC/mo 

from CU; 10 gal/ 

day of coating.

10.55 tons VOC/yr 7.5 lbs VOC/gal 

coating, as applied; 8.3 lbs 

VOC/gal CU, as 

applied.

14–04268 Wednesday, March 5, 

1997. 

1409000842 .. Ransoholff Inc ....... 75 lbs VOC/day 

from coatings; 

830 lbs VOC/mo 

from CU; 10 gal/ 

day of coating.

10.55 tons VOC/yr 7.5 lbs VOC/gal 

coating, as applied; 8.3 lbs 

VOC/gal CU, as 

applied.

14–04612 Wednesday, March 5, 

1997. 

1409000892 .. Phoenix Presentations Inc.56.1 lbs OC/day .... 4.5 tons OC/yr ...... None ..................... 14–04612 Thursday, January 21, 

1999. 

1409000892 .. Phoenix Presentations Inc.56.1 lbs OC/day .... 4.5 tons OC/yr ...... None ..................... 14–04612 Thursday, January 21, 

1999. 

1409000892 .. Phoenix Presentations Inc.56.1 lbs OC/day .... 4.5 tons OC/yr ...... None ..................... 14–04014 Thursday, January 21, 

1999. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Facility ID Facility name Short term limit 

(hr/day) TPY limit VOC content/other limit PTI# PTI issue date 

1413080305 .. Lt. Moses Willard 

Inc.

49.6 lbs/day w/ 

metal parts.

4.75 tons OC/yr 

from metal parts; 

10.7 tons OC/yr 

from wood and 

metal and all CU.

7.3 lbs OC/gal, including water 

and exempt solvents for all coatings and all CU 

materials.

14–4220 Tuesday, December 23, 

1997. 

1413080305 .. Lt. Moses Willard 

Inc.

49.6 lbs/day w/ 

metal parts.

4.75 tons OC/yr 

from metal parts; 

10.7 tons OC/yr 

from wood and 

metal and all CU.

7.3 lbs OC/gal, including water 

and exempt solvents for all coatings and all CU 

materials.

14–4348 Tuesday, December 23, 

1997. 

1431072466 .. Air Placement 

Equipment Co.

5.27 lbs VOC/hr; 1 

gal/hr topcoat; 1 

gal/hr primer.

1.36 TPY: PTO 

and a Summary 

limit in PTI.

5.27 lbs VOC/gal 

topcoat as an 

average; 5.22 lbs 

VOC/gal primer; 

6.47 lbs VOC/gal 

CU.

14–4027 Wednesday, September 27, 

1989. 

1431403268 .. Cincinnati SubZero Products.5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as 

a monthly volume weighted 

average.

6.46 tons VOC/yr .. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as 

a monthly volume weighted 

average.

14–1750 Wednesday, December 7, 

1988. 

1431403268 .. Cincinnati SubZero Products.5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as 

a monthly volume weighted 

average.

1.28 tons VOC/yr .. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal, as 

a monthly volume weighted 

average.

14–1750 Wednesday, December 7, 

1988. 

1431403974 .. WHM Equipment 

Co.

46.15 lbs VOC/day; 

8 gals coating/ 

day and 1 gal/ 

day CU.

4.03 tons VOC/yr .. 5.0 lbs VOC/gal 

coatings; 6.15 

lbs VOC/gal CU.

14–4610 Wednesday, May 28, 1997. 

1431483908 .. Panel Fab, Inc ...... 56.05 lbs VOC/day; 

8 gal/day coating; 1 gal/day 

CU.

5.56 tons VOC/yr .. 6.1 lbs VOC/gal of 

coating, as applied; 7.25 lbs/ 

gal of CU.

01–6635 Wednesday, March 6, 

1996. 

1483060233 .. Fujitec America, 

Inc.

2.89 lbs VOC/gal 

of prime coat.

11.7 tons/yr ........... 2.89 lbs VOC/gal 

of prime coat.

01–08869 December 8, 1983. 

1483060233 .. Fujitec America, 

Inc.

5.383 lbs VOC/day; 

0.801 gal coating/day.

0.864 ton VOC/yr 

including CU.

6.72 lbs VOC/gal 

coating, minus 

water (PTO: Excluding water 

and exempt solvents).; 7.2 lbs 

VOC/gal CU 

minus water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents).

01–6743 October 15, 1990. 

1483090326 .. Cincinnati Fan & 

Ventilator.

102.4 lbs VOC/day Summary limit: 

16.54 tons VOC/ 

yr.

5.7 lbs VOC/gal 

coating, excluding water and 

exempt solvents; 

7.3 lbs VOC/gal 

for CU.

01–6743 Wednesday, April 26, 1995. 

0180000130 .. Honda MAP .......... 6.5 lbs VOC/gal, as 

applied, when 

coating metal 

motorcycle parts 

and non-metal.

81.7 tons/rolling 

12-mo.

6.5 lbs VOC/gal as 

applied, when 

coating metal 

auto parts; 4.3 

lbs VOC/gal of 

clear coat, excluding water 

and exempt solvents, or if a 

control system is 

used 10.3 lbs 

VOC/gal of solids on metal 

non-motorcycle 

parts; 3.5 lbs 

VOC/gal coating, 

excluding water.

03–10256 01–2675, issued 9/18/90; 

01–6642 mod 8/7/01; 01– 

8869 mod 12/02/04; mod 

1/13/05, mod 9/20/07. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3673 

Facility ID Facility name Short term limit 

(hr/day) TPY limit VOC content/other limit PTI# PTI issue date 

0180000130 .. Honda MAP .......... 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 

a daily volumeweighted average.

55.3 tons/rolling 12 

mo. from coatings.

4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 

a daily volumeweighted average.

03–10256 December 24, 1997. 

0180000130 .. Honda MAP .......... 4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 

a daily volumeweighted average.

43.7 tons/rolling 12 

mo. from coatings.

4.7 lbs VOC/gal as 

a daily volumeweighted average.

03–10256 December 24, 1997. 

0278080612 .. Ohio Trailer ........... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluing 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal 

coating/day for 

R001, R002, and 

R003 together.

None ..................... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluding 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average).

03–10256 October 11, 1984. 

0278080612 .. Ohio Trailer ........... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluing 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal 

coating/day for 

R001, R002, and 

R003 together.

None ..................... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluing 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average).

03–10256 October 11, 1984. 

0278080612 .. Ohio Trailer ........... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluding 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average); 60 gal 

coating/day for 

R001, R002, and 

R003 together.

None ..................... 4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn 

primer, excluding 

water; 4.5 lbs 

VOC/gal topcoat, 

excluding water 

(PTO: Excluding 

water and exempt solvents, 

as applied on a 

daily volumeweighted average).

03–0257 October 11, 1984. 

0306010138 .. Goodyear Tire and 

Rubber, St. 

Marys.

202 lbs VOC/day .. None ..................... None, 202 lbs 

VOC/day; 416 

gal primer/mo 

and 520 gal top 

coat/mo.

14–04268 October 2, 1991. 

0306020025 .. American Trim (Superior Metal 

Products: Plant 

#4).

basecoat: 1.53 lbs 

OC/hr; topcoat 

1.72 lbs OC/hr; 

ink: 0.07 lb OC/ 

hr.

basecoat: 6.69 

tons OC/yr; topcoat 7.57 tons 

OC/yr; ink: 0.31 

tons OC/yr; CU 

6.00 tons/yr and 

986 lbs OC/mo.

basecoat: 4.64 lbs 

VOC/gal; topcoat 

4.92 lbs VOC/ 

gal; ink: 3.43 lbs 

VOC/gal, all excluding water 

and exempt solvents.

14–04268 October 29, 1997. 

0306020025 .. American Trim (Superior Metal 

Products: Plant 

#4).

basecoat: 1.96 lbs 

OC/hr; topcoat: 

1.96 lbs OC/hr.

basecoat: 8.56 

tons OC/yr; topcoat 8.56 tons 

OC/yr; CU 6.00 

tons/yr and 986 

lbs OC/mo.

basecoat and topcoat: 3.00 lbs 

VOC/gal excluding water and 

exempt solvents.

14–04612 October 29, 1997. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Facility ID Facility name Short term limit 

(hr/day) TPY limit VOC content/other limit PTI# PTI issue date 

0387020354 .. Henry Filters ......... 35.0 lbs OC/hrK001.19.0 ton OC/yr & 

1.6 tons/mo from 

K001, K002, 

K003 together 

(K002 and K003 

in different permit).

7.0 lbs VOC/gal, 

excluding H20 & 

exempt solvents, 

as applied.

14–04612 June 26, 1996; last as a 

modification on 8/22/ 

2002. 

0546000117 .. Honda East Liberty 87.2 lbs VOC/hr .... EU Group Limits: 

11 EUs: 

1,268.65 tons 

VOC/rolling 12- 

mo coating; 18 

EUs: 103.3 tons 

per rolling 12 

mo. and 38.44 

tons/mo from CU.

5.32 lbs VOC/gal, 

excluding water 

and exempt solvents, as a 

monthly volumeweighted average.

14–04612 April 17, 1996. 

0546000117 .. Honda East Liberty 19.6 lbs VOC/hr 

from coatings; 

5.8 lbs/hr from 

non-PRM solvents.

29.2 tons VOC per 

rolling 12-mo. 

from coatings; 

9.98 tons VOC 

per rolling 12-mo 

for non-PRM solvents.

6.54 lbs VOC/gal, 

excluding water 

and exempt solvents, as a 

monthly volumeweighted average.

14–04014 April 17, 1996. 

0575010106 .. American Trim ...... 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings.

18.895 tons VOC/ 

rolling 12.

5.36 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings.

14–4822 June 30, 1994. 

0575010106 .. American Trim LLC 5.21 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs 

VOC/gal cleanup.

18.874 tons VOC/ 

rolling 12.

5.21 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs 

VOC/gal cleanup.

14–4822 January 5, 1994. 

0575010106 .. American Trim ...... 5.36 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs 

VOC/gal cleanup.

22.8 tons VOC/rolling 12.5.36 lbs VOC/gal 

coating as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents, 

for extreme performance coatings; 7.76 lbs 

VOC/gal cleanup.

14–4220 September 13, 1995. 

0575010106 .. American Trim ...... 5.21 lbs VOC/gal, 

as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents for 

extreme performance coatings; 

7.76 lbs VOC/gal 

CU.

27.8 tons VOC/rolling 12 mo.5.21 lbs VOC/gal, 

as applied minus 

water and exempt solvents for 

extreme performance coatings; 

7.76 lbs VOC/gal 

CU.

14–4220 December 3, 1998 (05– 

9516); 05–12030 mod 

issued final 7/30/02 and 

new mod draft issued 9/ 

9/04. 

0708000017 .. Hawkline, LLC (formerly Trinity Industries).2007.87 lbs VOC/ 

day.

204.4 tons VOC/ 

rolling 12.

3.5 lbs VOC/gal, 

excluding water 

as a monthly volume-weighted 

average.

14–4348 February 28,1996. 

As noted below, Ohio submitted 

requests for two source facilities, i.e., 

Honda of America Manufacturing, 

Incorporated and Adelphia, 

Incorporated, for exemptions from 

RACT requirements through source 

permits based on paragraph (U)(2)(f), as 

revised in 1999. These permits were 

issued at a time when the state’s rules 

required EPA concurrence on the 

permit, and EPA intends to grant 

concurrence only through rulemaking 

on a formal SIP submittal. Ohio has not 

formally requested SIP approval of these 

permits, and, in fact Ohio has 

withdrawn the submittal for Honda. 

Nevertheless, in this proposed 

rulemaking, we are providing a partial 

review of these permits to facilitate 

future review, presumably to occur if 

and when Ohio submits the provisions 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3675 

of these permits as a formal SIP revision 

request. 

OAC 3745–21–09(Y): 

This paragraph addresses the VOC 

emissions control requirements for 

flexographic, packaging rotogravure, 

and publication rotogravure printing 

lines. Paragraph (Y)(1)(a) specifies the 

VOC content limits for coatings and inks 

used in these printing lines. The VOC 

content limit contained in paragraph 

(Y)(1)(a)(i) has been revised to add the 

exclusion of ‘‘exempt solvents.’’ The 

revised VOC content limit becomes: 

Forty (40) percent VOC by volume of the 

coating/ink, excluding water and 

exempt solvents. This revision to 

Paragraph (Y) is acceptable and we are 

proposing to approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–09(KK): 

This paragraph contains sourcespecific non-control technique guideline 

(non-CTG) RACT requirements for the 

Morton Thiokol facility located at 2000 

West Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. Paragraph 

(KK)(1) has been revised to change the 

method of calculating the emissions 

control efficiency of the vapor recovery 

system for this facility. The revised 

method requires the owner/operator to 

determine the amount of VOC vented to 

the vapor recovery system and the 

percentage of vented VOC captured by 

the vapor recovery system. The revised 

emissions monitoring requirement 

provides a more accurate determination 

of the emissions control efficiency of the 

vapor recovery system than the prior 

use of the assumption that all VOC used 

in the processes are emitted. 

This revision to the rule is a technical 

improvement. Since the rule depends 

on the determination of the emission 

control efficiency of the VOC recovery 

system, this rule revision will allow a 

more accurate determination of 

compliance with the VOC emission 

control requirements. This rule revision 

is acceptable and we are proposing to 

approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–09(BBB): 

This paragraph contains sourcespecific non-CTG RACT requirements 

for the BF Goodrich Company Akron 

Chemical Plant located at 240 West 

Emerling Avenue, Akron, Ohio. 

Paragraph (BBB)(1) has been amended 

to delete a requirement that, for the 

agerite resin D process, the VOC 

emissions from the vapor recovery 

system vents and neutralization and 

distillation system vents (except wash 

kettle or still feed condenser vents, stills 

vacuum jet tailpipe vents, and process 

emergency safety relief devices) be 

vented to an emissions control device 

that is designed and operated to achieve 

an emissions control efficiency of at 

least 90 percent, by weight. In place of 

this deleted emissions control efficiency 

requirement, the revised paragraph now 

specifies a total annual VOC emissions 

limit of 1.0 ton from the recovery system 

and neutralization and distillation 

system vents. 

A 1994 compliance test showed that 

the facility’s agerite resin D process unit 

emits a maximum of 0.146 pounds VOC 

per hour. In-process VOC reductions 

help to keep the annual VOC emissions 

from the agerite resin D process to under 

1.0 ton per year. Because the BF 

Goodrich Company has claimed that a 

90 percent VOC control efficiency 

requirement is not reasonable, the 

Company has sought an alternate 

emission requirement based on an 

annual emission limit. 

Although EPA can approve alternative 

site-specific source emission 

requirements where warranted and this 

emission source is relatively small, 

constrained to VOC emissions of 1.0 ton 

per year or less, this revised rule is 

deficient from the standpoint that the 

revised rule does not specify or identify 

test procedures and recordkeeping 

requirements compatible with the 

revised emission limit. Therefore, this 

revised rule is not enforceable and is not 

approvable in its current form. EPA 

assumes that the State can correct this 

rule deficiency and submit a revision to 

the rule in a reasonable time of less than 

one year following final rulemaking on 

this rule revision. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conditionally approve this 

rule. EPA may approve the requested 

revision based on a commitment of the 

State to correct the erroneous content by 

a date certain, but not later than one 

year after the date of conditional 

approval of the plan revision. The State 

must submit such a commitment to EPA 

before EPA completes final rulemaking 

on this conditional approval. Any such 

conditional approval will be treated as 

a disapproval if the State fails to comply 

with such commitment. EPA is not 

required to propose the finding of 

disapproval. If Ohio submits revisions 

correcting the deficiencies, as discussed 

above, within one year from this 

conditional approval becoming final 

and effective, EPA will publish a 

subsequent notice in the Federal 

Register to acknowledge conversion of 

the conditional approval to a full 

approval. 

OAC 3745–21–09(DDD): 

This rule paragraph is further revised 

in the June 24, 2003 submittal. All 

revisions to this paragraph, including 

those in the October 9, 2000 submittal, 

are addressed in the discussion of the 

2003 submittal. 

Summarized Revisions to OAC 3745– 

21–10 (Compliance Test Methods and 

Procedures): 

OAC 3745–21–10(C): 

Paragraph (C)(3)(c) refers to the 

determination of the emissions capture 

efficiency of any vapor collection 

system used to collect and transport 

VOC from the point of origin to an 

emissions control system. This 

paragraph has been amended to require 

that capture efficiencies be determined 

in accordance with Methods 204 

through 204F, as specified in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix M or in accordance 

with the alternative capture efficiency 

testing protocols specified in the EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards document titled ‘‘Guidelines 

for Determining Capture Efficiency,’’ 

dated January 9, 1995. This revised 

capture efficiency test method 

requirement replaces a requirement that 

the capture efficiency be computed or 

measured in a manner based on 

accepted engineering practices and in a 

manner acceptable to Ohio EPA. 

Ohio’s requested SIP revision seeks to 

require that capture efficiency 

determinations either comply with the 

test procedures specified in the CFR or 

comply with alternative test procedures 

outlined in EPA’s January 9, 1995, 

‘‘Guideline for Determining Capture 

Efficiency.’’ This requirement is 

acceptable and we are proposing to 

approve it. 

OAC 3745–21–10(O): 

Paragraph (O)(2)(c) allows the owner/ 

operator of equipment at a petroleum 

refinery subject to paragraphs (T) or 

(DD) of OAC 3745–21–09 to use 

engineering judgment rather than more 

specific quantitative procedures 

specified in paragraph (O)(2)(b) to 

demonstrate that the VOC content of a 

process fluid does not exceed 10 percent 

by weight. In the event that Ohio EPA 

or EPA disagree with an engineering 

judgment, the specific quantitative 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(O)(2)(b) must be used to resolve the 

disagreement. 

Paragraph (O)(2)(c) has been revised 

to correct prior typographical errors in 

this portion of the rule. These 

typographical error corrections do not 

significantly change this rule from the 

previously approved version contained 

in the SIP. Therefore, these error 

corrections are acceptable and we are 

proposing to approve them. 

2. What is EPA’s view of the sourcespecific miscellaneous metal coating 

submittal currently before EPA? 

A February 6, 2001 state specific 

submittal from Ohio EPA with a VOC 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

emissions control exemption for 

Adelphia, Incorporated (Adelphia) in 

Cleveland, Ohio involves the source 

seeking alternative VOC emission limits 

through a State PTI under the provisions 

of revised OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f). As 

noted above, this revised rule allows a 

miscellaneous metal coating source to 

seek a State PTI which would establish 

emission control requirements that are 

less stringent than, or are otherwise 

inconsistent with, RACT requirements 

without obtaining EPA approval of a 

source-specific SIP revision, but 

requiring EPA concurrence with the 

PTI. 

As noted above, under the version of 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f) applicable at 

the time this PTI was issued, this permit 

may only be issued after EPA 

concurrence, but EPA intends to 

provide concurrence only if Ohio 

satisfies the applicable public hearing 

requirements so we can process this PTI 

as a possible source-specific SIP 

revision. EPA does not have a formal 

SIP revision request, and so we are not 

proposing to act on the PTI in the 

context of this rule. Nevertheless, we 

interpret Ohio’s submittal for Adelphia 

as a possible future source-specific SIP 

revision request. Although the PTI 

inherently depends on the approval of 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f), which we are 

proposing to take no action on, the State 

could revert the PTI submittal to a SIP 

revision request, which is an acceptable 

approach under the CAA. To avoid 

further delay in addressing the possible 

needs of this source for special 

consideration under existing RACT 

requirements, we are addressing the 

merits of the submittal here as if the 

State had submitted it as a sourcespecific SIP revision request. Before any 

approval of this submittal as a sourcespecific SIP revision request could 

occur, the State would need to issue the 

PTI or otherwise adopt the limits and 

then formally request its approval by 

EPA as a SIP revision. The State would 

also have to address SIP procedure 

requirements, including addressing the 

public hearing requirement. The PTI 

submittal is addressed below. 

Adelphia, Incorporated 

Adelphia owns and operates a facility 

in Cleveland, Ohio that coats threads of 

metal fasteners used by several 

customers in the manufacture of 

automobiles. This facility has been in 

operation since 1974, and is located in 

the Cleveland ozone maintenance area, 

where miscellaneous metal parts and 

products coating facilities have been 

required to comply with RACT 

requirements. 

Prior to submitting its request for a 

source control variance PTI under OAC 

3745–21–09(U)(2)(f), Adelphia operated 

five coating lines at the Cleveland 

facility. These coating lines typically 

operated at rates below maximum 

capacities. Adelphia, however, realized 

that it would have to increase 

production rates to meet customer 

demands. This observation was coupled 

with the realization that Adelphia uses 

coatings with VOC contents exceeding 

the limits contained in OAC 3745–21– 

09(U)(1) and that compliant coatings 

were not currently available. These 

observations were the basis for Adelphia 

seeking the PTI. The requested PTI 

would provide for the use of six coating 

lines with limitations on coating usage 

rates and for increased VOC content 

limits. 

To meet anticipated coating demands 

and to possibly comply with Ohio VOC 

control requirements, Adelphia 

considered a number of options, 

including: (1) Adding coating lines to 

keep per line coating usages rates below 

3 gallons per day, in compliance with 

Ohio’s VOC control requirements for the 

Cleveland area; (2) use of new VOCcompliant coatings; and (3) use of addon VOC emission control systems. 

Adelphia anticipated that coating 

usage rates in the near future would 

approach 40 gallons per day. To achieve 

a per line coating usage rate limit of 3 

gallons per day, as allowed under OAC 

3745–21–09(U)(2)(e)(ii), as amended in 

1999 and as reviewed elsewhere in this 

proposed rule, Adelphia would have to 

add a significant number of coating 

lines. Adelphia determined that the 

economics of its coating operations 

would not support the use of so many 

coating lines applying limited amounts 

of coatings each day (no more than 3 

gallons of coating per line per day). 

Adelphia has documented that it has 

made serious attempts to obtain 

compliant coatings from a number of 

coating suppliers. Prior to requesting the 

PTI, Adelphia was able to obtain 

acceptable coatings (those coatings that 

meet customer specifications) from only 

one supplier. That coating supplier only 

provides acceptable coatings with VOC 

contents of 5.7 pounds per gallon of 

coating as applied, well above the VOC 

content limits of 3.5 and 3.0 pounds per 

gallon of coating, excluding water and 

exempt compounds, as applicable to 

Adelphia’s operations as specified in 

OAC 3745–21–09(U)(1)(c) and (i). 

Adelphia is currently only licensed to 

apply the coatings from this single 

supplier. Adelphia’s attempts to expand 

its license to additional suppliers with 

compliant coatings have been refused by 

those coating suppliers. 

Adelphia documented its assessment 

of the technical and economic feasibility 

of using add-on VOC emission controls. 

Following Ohio’s Guideline #46 to 

determine cost-effectiveness of 

alternative emission control systems, 

Adelphia investigated the use of add-on 

controls for each coating line singly and 

for all lines vented to a single add-on 

emissions control system. Adelphia 

investigated both regenerative VOC 

capture systems and thermal destruction 

systems. Adelphia determined that the 

most cost-effective VOC control systems 

would involve the use of a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer system. Use of such an 

emissions control system with 

appropriate VOC capture and ducting 

systems resulted in cost-effectiveness 

estimates ranging from $18,868 per ton 

of VOC controlled for a single control 

system for all lines combined to $21,642 

per ton of VOC controlled for separate 

emission control systems on each 

coating line. Adelphia notes that the 

lowest cost-effectiveness estimate is 

double the highest value that Ohio has 

previously found to be cost-effective for 

miscellaneous metal coating operations. 

Adelphia also notes that such emission 

control costs would be a high 

percentage of Adelphia’s annual 

operating costs, jeopardizing the 

continued existence of its coating 

operations. 

Considering Adelphia’s supporting 

documentation and best available 

technology determination, Ohio EPA 

issued a draft PTI to Adelphia on 

February 6, 2001. Besides standard PTI 

requirements, the PTI included the 

following source-specific VOC control 

requirements: 

(1) The VOC emissions from the 

coatings facility-wide are limited to 

29.64 tons per rolling twelve month 

period, and the VOC emissions from 

each coating line are limited to 10.4 tons 

for each rolling twelve month period; 

(2) The application of coatings for 

each coating line is limited to 10 gallons 

per day, and all six permitted coating 

lines are limited to the application of no 

more than 40 gallons of coatings in total 

per day; and, 

(3) The VOC content of the coatings 

applied cannot exceed 5.7 pounds per 

gallon, excluding water and exempt 

solvents. 

The PTI also specifies the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements needed 

to track and enforce these VOC emission 

control requirements for each coating 

line. The PTI specifies reporting 

requirements, which include 

requirements for notification of Ohio 

EPA in the event that monthly records 

show a violation of the VOC emission 

control requirements. Finally, the PTI 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3677 

requires Adelphia to continue the 

pursuit to find suppliers of coatings 

meeting the requirements of OAC 3745– 

21–09(U)(1) and to periodically inform 

Ohio EPA of its progress in this effort. 

We have determined that Adelphia 

has made reasonable efforts to comply 

with the requirements of OAC 3745–21– 

09(U)(1) and (U)(2)(e) and has 

successfully documented the need for a 

source-specific rule revision. The only 

issue of concern that we have found in 

the PTI is that the source-specific rule 

would provide for annual limits on VOC 

emissions, which deviate from shortterm emission limits preferred by EPA. 

This problem, however, is mitigated by 

the inclusion of daily coating usage 

limits and a VOC content limit that 

together will constrain daily peak VOC 

emissions. We conclude that, if Ohio 

satisfies the applicable public hearing 

requirements to process this PTI as a 

possible source-specific SIP revision, we 

would expect that this SIP revision 

would be approvable. 

III. Five-Year Rule Review 

A. Background 

1. Why has the State requested revisions 

to this rule? 

Every five years, Ohio EPA is required 

to review and revise its rules as 

necessary. Changes are generally minor, 

and clarification language is added to 

address rule comprehension problems. 

2. When did the State submit the 

requested rule revisions to EPA? 

On June 24, 2003, the Director of Ohio 

EPA submitted a request to approve the 

incorporated revisions to OAC 3745–21: 

Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically 

Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons, and 

Related Materials Standards into the 

SIP. 

On October 9, 2000, Ohio submitted 

prior revisions to OAC 3745–21. The 

previous section of this notice addresses 

revisions to OAC 3745–21 which were 

requested prior to the State’s June 24, 

2003, submittal. Some of the rule 

paragraphs with revisions contained in 

the State’s October 9, 2000, submittal, 

however, include rule paragraphs 

further amended and adopted by the 

State and covered by the State’s June 24, 

2003, submittal. These paragraphs 

include: (1) 3745–21–01: (B)(6); (2) 

3745–20–04: (B)(1), (B)(1)(a), (B)(5), 

(C)(16)(b), and (C)(27)(c); and, (3) 3745– 

21–09: (O)(1), (O)(6), and (DDD). 

The June 24, 2003, submittal reflects 

current versions of these particular rule 

paragraphs, and since the versions of 

these rule paragraphs contained in the 

October 9, 2000, submittal may now be 

outdated, we are also addressing those 

older rule paragraphs in this section. 

3. When did the State adopt these rule 

revisions and have they become 

effective? 

Ohio EPA adopted the revisions on 

October 25, 2002, and the revisions 

became effective on November 5, 2002. 

4. When were public hearings held? 

Ohio EPA held a public hearing on 

March 14, 2002, in Columbus, Ohio. 

Ohio EPA also submitted the draft rules 

to a list of interested parties. 

5. What issues were raised at the public 

hearings and how did the State 

respond? 

No comments were received 

concerning OAC 3745–21–02, 3745–21– 

03, 3745–21–04, 3745–21–06, 3745–21– 

08, and 3745–21–11. One comment was 

received for OAC 3745–21–01, in which 

the interested party requested the 

addition of a definition for ‘‘CARB 

certification’’. Ohio EPA added the 

requested definition to the rule. 

Ohio received multiple comments for 

OAC 3745–21–09. Honda of America 

requested clarification language for 

portions of this rule. In response to 

Honda of America’s requests, Ohio EPA 

revised the portions of the rules which 

would not affect the rule’s scope or 

definition. Ohio EPA denied revision 

requests that, in its opinion, did not 

provide further clarification. Ohio EPA 

also denied revision requests which 

would have changed the scope or 

definition of the rule. 

One comment was received for OAC 

3745–21–10, in which the interested 

parties requested revising the rule 

language to reflect the addition of the 

‘‘CARB certification’’ definition to OAC 

3745–21–01. Ohio EPA revised the rule. 

B. What are the revisions that the State 

requests be incorporated into the SIP? 

The State requests changes to OAC 

3745–21–01 Definitions; 3745–21–02 

Ambient air quality standards and 

guidelines; 3745–21–03 Methods of 

ambient air quality measurement; 3745– 

21–04 Attainment dates and compliance 

schedules; 3745–21–06 Classification of 

regions; 3745–21–08 Control of carbon 

monoxide emissions from stationary 

sources; 3745–21–09 Control of 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds from stationary sources and 

perchloroethylene from dry cleaning 

facilities; and, 3745–21–10 Compliance 

test methods and procedures. The 

revisions are of the following nature: 

1. Grammar, Spelling, and Definitions 

A number of the revisions to OAC 

3745–21 correct improper grammar and 

spelling. Revisions of this nature have 

been made to the following: (1) OAC 

3745–21–01: Paragraphs (B)(6), (M)(17); 

and, (2) OAC 3745–21–09: Paragraphs 

(O)(5)(b), (O)(6)(a), (FF)(1), (II)(3), (II)(4), 

(PP)(2), (UU)(3), Appendix A. 

The phrases ‘‘CARB certified’’ and 

‘‘CARB certification’’ have been added to 

OAC 3745–21–01(H)(4) which applies to 

rules that govern vapor recovery 

systems. Paragraphs (H)(4) to (H)(19) 

have been renumbered to allow for the 

addition of the new definition. Further 

additions of ‘‘CARB certification’’ 

references have been added to OAC 

3745–21–09(DDD) and OAC 3745–21– 

10 Appendix A and Appendix B. 

A definition which does not have a 

corresponding rule attached to it has 

been removed. The rule that referenced 

the definition for ‘‘Architectural 

coatings’’ in 3745–21–01(C)(1) was 

amended in a previous revision, and the 

definition is no longer necessary. 

Spelling and grammar revisions to 

OAC 3745–21–01, 3745–21–02, 3745– 

21–09, and 3745–21–10 do not affect the 

scope or enforceability of these rules. 

The revisions have been made to make 

the rules easier to read and understand. 

2. Attainment Dates and Compliance 

Schedules 

Because so many changes were made 

to OAC 3745–21–04, the entire rule was 

rescinded and rewritten. OAC 3745–21– 

04(A) defines attainment dates for 

counties that do not meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO) and 

ozone. The dates of attainment for these 

counties have been revised to be 

consistent with the CAA, as amended. 

OAC 3745–21–04(C) contains a 

lengthy list of interim and final 

compliance dates for categorized and 

site specific CO and VOC sources. All of 

the interim and final compliance dates 

for these sources passed prior to the 

November 5, 2002, adoption of these 

revisions into Ohio law. Ohio EPA 

removed the now defunct interim 

compliance dates and rewrote the 

following paragraphs of OAC 3745–21– 

04(C) to reflect only the final 

compliance dates: (C)(2), (C)(3)(c), 

(C)(4)(a), (C)(4)(b), (C)(5)(a), (C)(5)(b), 

(C)(6)(a), (C)(6)(b), (C)(7), (C)(8)(a), 

(C)(8)(b), (C)(8)(c), (C)(9)(a), (C)(9)(b), 

(C)(10)(a), (C)(10)(b), (C)(11), (C)(12), 

(C)(13), (C)(14), (C)(16)(a), (C)(17), 

(C)(18), (C)(19)(a), (C)(20), (C)(21), 

(C)(22), (C)(23), (C)(24), (C)(25), (C)(26), 

(C)(27), (C)(28)(a), (C)(28)(b), (C)(30), 

(C)(31), (C)(33), (C)(35), (C)(36), (C)(37), 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(40), (C)(41), (C)(46), 

(C)(48)(a), (C)(48)(b), (C)(51), (C)(54), 

(C)(55), (C)(58), (C)(59), (C)(60), (C)(62), 

(C)(65), and (C)(66). 

The final compliance dates remain 

federally enforceable. Because the 

interim compliance dates have long 

passed, and because the final 

compliance dates are the only ones 

necessary for enforcement of the rule, 

removing the interim compliance dates 

is acceptable and we are proposing to 

approve it. It should be noted that we 

are taking no action on paragraph 

(C)(3)(a) because the paragraph has 

subsequently been amended by the State 

in a March 23, 2009, submittal and will 

be addressed in a separate rulemaking. 

OAC 3745–21–04 contains two 

paragraphs which offer alternative 

compliance timelines for can coating 

lines and printing lines. These 

alternative compliance timelines were 

originally offered so that affected 

sources could take advantage of extra 

time for complying with the regulations, 

if necessary. Paragraphs (C)(3)(b) and 

(C)(32)(b) have been removed in the 

revision because the alternative dates 

(December 31, 1985, and December 31, 

1987) have long since passed, and there 

is no longer any need to offer these 

alternative dates. Removal of these 

paragraphs is acceptable and we are 

proposing to approve it. 

3. Clarifications 

Many revisions to OAC 3745–21 have 

been made to make the rule easier to 

understand. These revisions resulted in 

part because of comments received from 

interested parties. The revisions allow 

the rules to be brief and clear as to what 

necessary steps should be taken to 

comply with the law. 

Ohio EPA revised paragraphs (A) and 

(B) of OAC 3745–21–02 so that the 

concentration of CO and ozone will be 

measured solely in parts per million by 

volume (ppmv). The measurement 

definition of CO and ozone in 

milligrams per cubic meter was 

removed. This change is acceptable 

because the ppmv measurement already 

existed in the rule, because ppmv are 

the official units of these standards, and 

removal of the alternative measurement 

simplifies the sampling process. We are 

proposing to approve these revisions. 

Paragraphs (B), (B)(1), and (B)(2) of 

OAC 3745–21–03 have been revised so 

that the reader gains a better 

understanding of what is considered 

valid equipment for monitoring CO and 

ozone. References to the CFR have been 

added to OAC 3745–21–03(C) which the 

reader can reference to determine the 

Federal standards for continuous ozone 

sampling equipment. Ohio EPA clarified 

the language of final compliance dates 

for gasoline dispensing facilities and 

gasoline tank trucks in the following 

paragraphs of OAC 3745–21–04: 

(C)(19)(b), (C)(19)(c), (C)(19)(d), 

(C)(28)(e), (C)(29), (C)(64)(a)(i), 

(C)(64)(a)(ii), (C)(64)(a)(iii), (C)(64)(b)(i), 

(C)(64)(b)(ii), and (C)(64)(b)(iii). 

The original compliance dates were 

stated in relation to a period of time 

after a specified date. The revised 

compliance dates now state the final 

date possible for compliance (for 

example, ‘‘by not later than six months 

after March 31, 1993’’ becomes, 

‘‘September 30, 1993’’). 

OAC 3745–21–08(A) states which 

areas in Ohio are subject to controls and 

measures contained in OAC 3745–21– 

08. Paragraph (A) states that only 

counties classified as ‘‘Priority I’’ are 

subject to this rule. This paragraph has 

been rescinded. 

OAC 3745–21–08(B), which concerns 

best available control techniques 

(BACT) applicability to new sources of 

CO, has been rescinded. OAC 3745–31– 

05(A)(3) is now the rule that covers new 

source BACT. 

OAC 3745–21–08(C), which allows 

the use of alternative means of emission 

control, has been rescinded. This does 

not decrease the effectiveness of OAC 

3745–21–08, because with the revision, 

a new source must use federally 

enforceable, State-mandated control 

technology. 

OAC 3745–21–08(D) has been 

reworded to apply the CO controls 

described within this paragraph to new 

sources of CO that are emitted during 

the operation of grey iron cupolas, blast 

furnaces, or basic oxygen steel furnaces. 

The additions clarify the fact that the 

paragraph applies to new sources of CO 

of the type described in this paragraph. 

OAC 3745–21–08(E) has been 

reworded to apply described CO 

controls to new sources of CO emitted 

through the waste gas stream during the 

operation of petroleum cracking 

systems, petroleum fluid cokers, or 

other petroleum processes. The 

additions clarify the fact that the 

paragraph applies to new sources of CO 

of these types. 

Various paragraphs in OAC 3745–21– 

09 have been revised to let the reader 

understand which specific rules apply. 

The revised paragraphs state various 

recordkeeping, recording, applicability, 

emissions, and emissions exceedances 

reports requirements for sources in Ohio 

in a clearer way. Revisions of this nature 

were made to the following paragraphs: 

(B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(f), (B)(3)(h), (B)(3)(j), 

(B)(3)(l), (B)(4)(a), (B)(4)(b), (C)(4), 

(H)(1)(a), (H)(1)(b), (H)(3), (O)(6)(b), 

(U)(1), (U)(2)(e), and (U)(2)(h). 

Ohio EPA added references to the 

CFR in paragraphs (NN) and (VV) of 

OAC 3745–21–09. These revisions 

clarify the specifications for a 

continuous VOC emission control 

system (paragraph (NN)) and methods 

for continuous emissions monitoring 

(Paragraph (VV)). 

The last type of clarification revisions 

deal with perchloroethylene’s non-VOC 

status. Perchloroethylene is a widely 

used dry cleaning chemical which EPA 

removed from the list of VOC’s (see 40 

CFR 51.100(s)). As a result, portions of 

OAC 3745–21 were revised to clarify the 

status of perchloroethylene. The 

following paragraphs have been revised 

in this manner: OAC 3745–21– 

01(C)(5)(a); OAC 3745–21–09(AA)(1)(b) 

and (AA)(1)(c); and OAC 3745–21–10(J). 

These clarification revisions were 

made in part because of comments 

received from interested parties. They 

allow the rules to be brief and clear as 

to what steps are necessary to comply 

with the law. The revisions do not 

change the scope or enforceability of the 

rule, and, therefore, are acceptable. We 

are proposing to approve these 

revisions. 

4. Revised State Rule Applicability 

OAC 3745–21–06, which classifies 

regions of the State for determining 

applicability to CO and VOC 

regulations, has been revised by 

eliminating an exemption for CO 

regulations. This revision does not 

reduce the scope or enforceability of CO 

regulations, and therefore, it is 

acceptable. We are proposing to approve 

this revision. 

5. Site-Specific Emissions Limit 

Amendments 

OAC 3745–21–09(II), which deals 

with site-specific non-CTG RACT 

emissions limits for the ‘‘International 

Paper Company’’ in Springdale, Ohio, 

has been revised to lower the acceptable 

amount of VOC in the fountain solution 

employed in any sheet-fed offset 

lithographic printing process while 

refrigerated in a cooling unit. The 

acceptable amount of VOC in the 

solution has been lowered from 10 

percent to 8.5 percent. This revision 

increases the stringency of the rule, 

which is acceptable. We are proposing 

to approve this revision. 

OAC 3745–21–09 paragraph (OO) was 

revised. This paragraph determines the 

allowable VOC content of materials 

used in the processes at ‘‘Armco Steel 

Company, L.P.’’ located in Middletown, 

Ohio. 

Paragraph (OO)(1) has been changed 

so that the maximum allowable VOC 

content of any rolling oil employed in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 3679 

the temper mills of ‘‘Armco Steel 

Company, L.P.’’ or any subsequent 

owner of the facility at 1801 Crawford 

Street, Middletown, Ohio, is 6.9 pounds 

of VOC per gallon of oil, excluding 

water and exempt solvents. The 

previously allowed amount was 2.9 

pounds of VOC per gallon of oil, 

excluding water and exempt solvents. 

Paragraph (OO)(2) has been changed 

so that the maximum allowable VOC 

content of any rust preventive oil 

employed in the temper mills, shears, 

corrective rewinds, slitters, coating 

lines, and pickle lines of ‘‘Armco Steel 

Company, L.P.’’ or any subsequent 

owner of the facility at 1801 Crawford 

Street, Middletown, Ohio, is 3.3 pounds 

of VOC per gallon of oil, excluding 

water and exempt solvents. The 

previously allowed amount of VOC was 

1.1 pounds per gallon of oil, excluding 

water and exempt solvents. 

Paragraph (OO)(3) has been changed 

so that the maximum allowable VOC 

content of an anti-galling material 

employed in the aluminum coating 

operation of ‘‘Armco Steel Company, 

L.P.’’ or any subsequent owner of the 

facility at 1801 Crawford Street, 

Middletown, Ohio, is 1.2 pounds per 

gallon of oil, excluding water and 

exempt solvents. The previously 

allowed amount of VOC was 6.4 pounds 

per gallon of oil, excluding water and 

exempt solvents. 

Paragraph (OO)(4) was added to OAC 

3745–21–09(OO). This paragraph states 

that the VOC content of any prelube oil 

employed at the facility [‘‘Armco Steel 

Company, L.P.’’ or any subsequent 

owner of the facility at 1801 Crawford 

Street, Middletown, Ohio] shall not 

exceed 0.8 pound of VOC per gallon of 

oil, excluding water and exempt 

solvents. 

The revisions to the previously cited 

four paragraphs of 3745–21–09(OO) are 

acceptable because they are 

substantively equivalent to the Final 

Findings and Orders issues by the 

Director of Ohio EPA on August 21, 

1995, which EPA approved on April 24, 

1996, (81 FR 18257). The August 21, 

1995, Director’s Final Findings and 

Orders state that the aforementioned 

four paragraphs of 3745–21–09(OO) 

constitute RACT for the ‘‘Armco Steel, 

L.P.’’ facility in Middletown, Ohio. 

These revisions are acceptable, and we 

are proposing to approve them. 

6. Site-Specific Source Removal 

OAC 3745–21–04(C)(61) and 3745– 

21–09(AAA) have been reserved 

because of the closure of the facility 

‘‘Reilly Industries, Inc.’’ located at 3201 

Independence Road, Cleveland, Ohio. 

The facility closed on December 31, 

2000, and its permit to emit was 

withdrawn. Any future owner or 

operator of this facility will have to 

apply for a new source permit to emit. 

Such permit would control future 

emissions from the facility. Information 

about the facility’s closure was received 

from the Cleveland Local Air Agency on 

November 4, 2003, and is available in 

the docket. 

C. What are the environmental effects of 

these actions? 

There are no adverse environmental 

results expected from any approval of 

these revisions. The majority of these 

rule revisions are editorial in nature. 

Such changes increase understanding 

of, and compliance with, the rules. 

Since a number of the rules require 

emissions reductions, approval of these 

revisions will improve air quality. 

The revisions to OAC 3745–21– 

09(OO) relax some of these rules but do 

not relax the requirements applicable to 

the Armco Steel Company. This is 

because Ohio has simply revised these 

rules to match the limits already 

contained in a federally approved set of 

findings and orders. No other rule 

revisions in Ohio’s submittal increase 

any limits in these rules. Therefore, 

none of the revisions contained in 

today’s proposed rulemaking will allow 

for increases in air pollution within the 

state of Ohio. 

IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action 

Proposed rulemaking action on Ohio’s 

various submittals is described below. 

A. 2000/2001 Submittals 

Based on the rule-by-rule review, we 

propose to approve and to incorporate 

into the Ohio SIP the following revised 

rule paragraphs as adopted by the State 

of Ohio and as defined in Ohio’s 

October 9, 2000, submittal: 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–01 

Paragraph (B)(4) 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–09 

Paragraph (A)(4) 

Paragraph (B)(3)(d) 

Paragraph (B)(3)(e) 

Paragraph (R)(4) 

Paragraph (U)(2)(e) 

Paragraph (Y)(1)(a)(i) 

Paragraph (KK)(1) 

Revisions to OAC 3745–21–10 

Paragraph (C)(3)(c) 

Paragraph (O)(2)(c) 

We propose to conditionally approve 

a revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 

3745–21–09, provided that, during the 

comment period of this proposed rule, 

the State commits to correct this rule 

within one year of the conditional 

approval. If the State fails to correct this 

rule and confirm this correction within 

the allowed one year period, this 

conditional approval will revert to a 

disapproval. 

We propose to disapprove the coating 

VOC content limit for high performance 

architectural aluminum coatings 

contained in paragraph (U)(1)(h) of OAC 

3745–21–09. 

Finally, we are taking no action on 

revisions to 3745–21–09(U)(2)(f), from 

both the October 9, 2000, and June 7, 

1993, submittals, because EPA approved 

a later version of this paragraph on July 

28, 2009 (74 FR 37171). EPA will 

continue to honor exemptions granted 

by Ohio under this rule after May 5, 

1995, but prior to June 15, 1999. EPA 

will address exemptions granted prior to 

May 5, 1995, in a separate rulemaking 

after we work with Ohio EPA to 

determine the proper course of action 

for dealing with these sources. Sources 

seeking alternate limits under this 

paragraph after June 15, 1999, will be 

subject to limits which result from the 

ongoing EPA and Ohio EPA resolution 

of this matter. 

B. 2003 Submittal 

We are proposing to approve certain 

portions of the June 24, 2003, submittal. 

These proposed rulemakings are listed 

below. 

Proposed approval. 

EPA proposes to approve all of the 

following sections of OAC 3745–21 as 

amended: 

3745–21–01 Definitions: 

Paragraphs (B)(6), (C)(1), (C)(5)(a), 

(H)(4), (H)(4) to (H)(19), (M)(17). 

3745–21–02 Ambient air quality 

standards and guidelines: 

Paragraphs (A) and (B). 

3745–21–03 Methods of ambient air 

quality measurement: 

Paragraphs (B) and (C). 

3745–21–04 Attainment dates and 

compliance schedules: 

Paragraphs: (A), (B), (B)(1), (B)(1)(a), 

(B)(1)(b), (B)(2), (B)(3), (B)(4), (B)(5), 

(B)(6), (B)(7), (C), (C)(1), (C)(2), (C)(2)(a), 

(C)(2)(b), (C)(2)(c), (C)(2)(e), (C)(3), 

(C)(3)(b), (C)(3)(c), (C)(3)(d), (C)(4), 

(C)(4)(a), (C)(4)(b), (C)(5), (C)(5)(a), 

(C)(5)(b), (C)(6), (C)(6)(a), (C)(6)(b), 

(C)(7), (C)(8), (C)(8)(a), (C)(8)(b), 

(C)(8)(c), (C)(9), (C)(9)(a), (C)(9)(b), 

(C)(10), (C)(10)(a), (C)(10)(b), (C)(11), 

(C)(12), (C)(13), (C)(14), (C)(15), 

(C)(15)(a), (C)(15)(b), (C)(16), (C)(16)(a), 

(C)(16)(b), (C)(17), (C)(18), (C)(19), 

(C)(19)(a), (C)(19)(b), (C)(19)(c), 

(C)(19)(d), (c)(20), (C)(20)(a), (C)(20)(b), 

(C)(21), (C)(21), (C)(22), (C)(23), (C)(24), 

(C)(25), (C)(26), (C)(27), (C)(28), 

(C)(28)(a), (C)(28)(b), (C)(28)(c), 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
3680 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 14 / Friday, January 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(C)(28)(d), (C)(28)(e), (C)(29), (C)(30), 

(C)(31), (C)(32), (C)(33), (C)(34), (C)(35), 

(C)(36), (C)(37), (C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(40), 

(C)(41), (C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44), (C)(45), 

(C)(46), (C)(47), (C)(48), (C)(48)(a), 

(C)(48)(b), (C)(49), (C)(50), (C)(51), 

(C)(52), (C)(53), (C)(54), (C)(55), (C)(56), 

(C)(57), (C)(58), (C)(59), (C)(60), (C)(61), 

(C)(62), (C)(63), (C)(64), (C)(64)(a), 

(C)(64)(a)(i), (C)(64)(a)(ii), (C)(64)(a)(iii), 

(C)(64)(b), (C)(64)(b)(i), (C)(64)(b)(ii), 

(C)(64)(b)(iii), (C)(65), (C)(66). 

3745–21–06 Classification of 

Regions: 

Entire rule as revised including 

removal of paragraphs (A) and (B). 

3745–21–08 Control of carbon 

monoxide from stationary sources: 

Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E). 

3745–21–09 Control of emissions of 

volatile organic compounds from 

stationary sources and 

perchloroethylene from dry cleaning 

facilities: 

Title, Paragraphs (B)(3)(a), (B)(3)(f), 

(B)(3)(h), (B)(3)(j), (B)(3)(l), (B)(4)(a), 

(B)(4)(b), (C)(4), (H)(1)(a), (H)(1)(b), 

(H)(3), (O)(5)(b), (O)(6)(a), (O)(6)(b), the 

portion of paragraph (U)(1) which states, 

‘‘If a miscellaneous metal parts or 

products coating is subject to two or 

more limits as listed in (U)(1)(a) through 

(U)(1)(i) above, the limit which is least 

restrictive shall apply’’, the portion of 

paragraph (U)(2)(e) which states, ‘‘Daily 

usage limitations included in (U)(2)(e)(i) 

through (U)(2)(e)(iii) above shall not 

apply to coatings employed by the metal 

parts or products coating line on parts 

or products which are not metal’’, 

(U)(2)(h), (AA)(1)(b), (AA)(1)(c), (FF)(1), 

(II)(2), (II)(3), (II)(4), (NN)(1), (NN)(2), 

(NN)(3), (NN)(4), (NN)(5), (OO), (OO)(1), 

(OO)(2), (OO)(3), (OO)(4), (PP)(2), 

(UU)(3), (AAA), (DDD), and Appendix 

A. EPA approved more recent versions 

of paragraphs (O)(6)(b) and (VV)(1)(e) on 

March 30, 2007, at 72 FR 15045, and so 

no rulemaking on the versions of these 

paragraphs submitted in 2003 is 

necessary. 

3745–21–10 Compliance test 

methods and procedures: 

Title, Paragraphs (J), (J)(1), (J)(2), (J)(4), 

Appendix A, and Appendix B. 

We are taking no action on revisions 

to 3745–21–04 (C)(3)(a) because the 

paragraph was subsequently revised in 

a March 23, 2009, submittal. EPA has 

approved this revision in separate 

rulemake published July 28, 2009, at 74 

FR 37171. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 13, 2010. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1223 Filed 1–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0960; FRL–9105–8] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) from residential water heaters. 

We are approving local rules that 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0960, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1