p.1 

OAR Box 1145 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

9) F. R. June 

Docket Number: 

A-87-15 

Printed 4/23/2008 8:55:55 AM 

27, 1989 

Sheet 9 of 88 
P.2 

A •ii-i* 

Federal Register / Vol: 54, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 27015 

existing SIP limit is not feasible and also 

that there ra no other feasible limit more 

stringent that what is contained in GM's 

variance. This claim of infeasibility has 

not been adequately documented 

particularly in light of the fact that 

complying-coating'systems are 

available, booth incineration is in use by 

GM (including at its Arlington, Texas, 

plant), and spray booth recirculation is 

being used by automotive manufacturers 

outside the United States and is planned 

for use within the United States. 

5. USEPA disagrees with the use of 27 

percent DL as the baseline for 

evaluating cost-effectiveness. GM 

Lordstown was using 17 percent DL as 

of thedate of GM's Yellow Book and 

adoption of Ohio's autocoating rule. The 

level of control during this period is, 

therefore, die appropriate baseline for 

evaluating cost-effectiveness: The 

subsequent implementation of any 

partial control measures (e;g., 

conversion to 27 percent DL) does not 

constitute a valid argument for the 

economic infeasibility of achieving 

compliance with an emission limit 

previously established as RACT. As 

stated by Ohio in its August 13,1986, 

letter to GM, "[t]he use of incremental 

cost-effectiveness would promote 

variances by allowing.entities to employ 

marginally unacceptable control 

technology or only go partway in 

achieving compliance with an 

applicable emission limitation and then 

argue that to achieve full compliance is 

not cost-effective." 

Final Action 

Based upon a review of the SIP 

revision request and the public 

comments raised on behalf of General 

Motors' Lordstown auto assembly plant 

in Warren, Ohio, USEPA is taking final 

action to disapprove this SIP revision as 

not constituting RACT; as required by 

the CAA. USEPA is not evaluating the 

merits of this proposal as a temporary 

relaxation, because it was submitted as 

a permanent relaxation. However, 

USEPA wUl evaluate any compliance 

date extension which is submitted for 

approval. 

Under Executive Order 12291, today's 

action is not "Major". This action is not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of'Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 28,1989. This action 

may not be challenged' later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See § 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection,. Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Hydrocarbons. 

Dated )une 14,1989. 

Valdas V. Adamkus, 

Regional Administrator. 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter I, Part 52, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

Subpart KK—Ohio 

1. This notice is issued under 

authority of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7642. 

2. Section 52.1885 is revised by adding 

new paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone. 

**** * 

(l) Disapproval. On October 21,1986, 

the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency submitted a revision to the 

ozone portion of the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC). This 

revision request is for a relaxation of 

emission limitation for topcoat and final 

repair coatings operations for General 

Motors Lordstown auto assembly 

facility in Warren (Trumbull County). 

Ohio. As a result of USEPA's 

disapproval, the source remains subject 

to the control requirements of the Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-

09(C). ' 

[FR Doc. 89-14913 Filed 6-26-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

40 CFR Part 60 

[AD-FRL-3605-51 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; Amendment to 

Test Methods and Procedures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Technical Amendment. 

SUMMARY: On October 6,1988, a notice 

entitled "Sewage Treatment Plants" was 

published in theFederal Register (53 FR 

39412). This rule added § 60.154(d). A 

notice entitled "Amendments to Test 

Methods and Procedures" was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 14,1989 (54 FR 6660). This rule 

consolidated all test methods and 

procedures necessary to determine 

compliance with the applicable 

standards or related monitoring 

requirements and clarified certain 

procedures. The rule revised § 60.154 (a), 

(b) and (c) into § 60:154 (a) and (b) and 

appears to delete § 60;l54(d). The 

purpose of this action, is to reserve 

§ 60.154(c), state that § 60.154(d) 

remains unchanged from the October 6, 

1988, rule, and will make minor 

corrections. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27,1989. 

FOR: FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Shigehara, Emission Measurement 

Branch (MD-19), Technical Support 

Division, U.S. Environmental' Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541-1058. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control. 

Date: June 15,1989. 

Don R. Clay, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 101, 111, 114,116, and 

301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601). 

2. In § 60.154, paragraphs (c) and (d) 

are added to read as follows: 

§ 60.154 Test methods and procedures. 

* • + * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) The owner or operator of any 

sludge incinerator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall conduct 

a performance test during which the 

monitoring and recording devices 

required under § 60:153(a)(l), (b)(1), 

(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) are installed and 

operating and for which the sampling 

and analysis procedures required under 

§ 60.153(b)(5) are performed..The owner 

or operator shall provide the 

Administrator at least 30 days priornotice of the performance-test to afford 

the Administrator the opportunity tohave an observer present. 

(1) For incinerators that commenced 

construction or modification on or 

before April 18; 1986, the performance 

test shall be conducted', within 360 days 

of the effective date of these regulations 

unless the monitoring and recording 

devices required under § 60.153(a)(l):, 

(b)(1). (b)(2). (b)(3),.and (b)(4); were 

installed and operating and the sampling 

and analysis procedures required under 

§ 60.153(b)(5) were performed during the 
P.3 

27016 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 

most recent performance test and a 

record of the measurements taken 

during the performance test is available. 

(2) For incinerators (hat commence 

construction or modification after April 

13,1986, the date of the performance test 

shall be determined by die requirements 

in § 60.8. 

(3) For the initial performance test 

required by paragraph (d) of this 

section, the three samples collected by 

Test Method 5 shall be analyzed first for 

particulate mass and then in one of the 

following two ways: 

(i) Two samples shall be analyzed by 

neutron activation for arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, and 

zinc; and one sample shall be analyzed 

by atomic absorption for beryllium and 

lead. The sample analyzed for beryllium 

and lead shall be analyzed according to 

Method 104 and Method 12, respectively. 

(ii) Three samples shall be analyzed 

by atomic absorption for arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc. The 

samples shall be analyzed for arsenic, 

beryllium, and lead according to Method 

108, Method 104, and Method 12, 

respectively. The samples shall be 

analyzed for cadmium, chromium, 

copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc 

according to standard analytical 

procedures as recommended by atomic 

absorption equipment manufacturers. 

(4) During the initial performance test 

required by paragraph (d) of this 

section, sludge samples shall be 

collected for the purpose of determining 

the metals content of the sludge. 

Samples shall be collected from the 

sludge charged to the incinerator at the 

beginning of each run and at 

approximately 30 minute intervals 

thereafter until the test run ends. The 

sludge samples collected during each 

test run shall be combined into a single 

composite sample. During the 

performance test, three composite 

samples shall be generated. The 

composite samples shall be analyzed in 

one of the following two ways: 

(i) The composite samples shall be 

analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, nickel, selenium, and 

zinc by neutron activation procedures, 

and for beryllium and lead by atomic 

absorption according to Method 104 and 

Method 12, respectively. 

(ii) The composite samples shall be 

analyzed by atomic absorption for 

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc. 

The samples shall be analyzed for 

arsenic, beryllium, and lead according to 

Method 108, Method 104, and Method 12, 

respectively. The samples shall be 

analyzed for cadmium, chromium, 

copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc 

according to standard analytical 

procedures as recommended by atomic 

absorption equipment manufacturers. 

(5) The requirements of paragraphs 

(d)(3) and (d)(4) of tiiis section shall 

apply only during the first performance 

test required pursuant to these 

regulations. 

§60.335 [Amended] 

3. In § 60.335(c)(1), the first equation is 

revised to read as follows: 

NO,=[NOIO) (Pr/P„) "e"""-110118"! (288°K/ 

T.) *•» 

§60.474 [Amended] 

4. In § 60.474(c)(4) introductory text 

"200 lb/ton" is revised to read "2000 lb/ 

ton". 

§60.485 [Amended] 

5. In § 60.485(g)(4), the equation is 

revised to read as follows: 

H T = K 2 C, 

i=1 ' 

H: 

[FR Doc. 89-14680 Filed 6-26-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

40 CFR Part 80 

[AMS-FRL-3607-t] V .0 -^ 

Volatility Regulations for Gasoline and 

Alcohol Blends Sold In Calendar Years 

1989 and Beyond; Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice corrects minor 

errors in a notice of final rulemaking 

promulgating volatility regulations for 

gasoline and alcohol blends, which was 

published on March 22,1989 (54 FR 

11868). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert E. Kenney, Senior Staff Attorney, 

Field Operations and Support Division 

(EN-397F), EPA, 401 M Street SW:, 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 

382-2633. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice corrects minor errors in a notice 

of final rulemaking promulgating 

volatility regulations for gasoline and 

alcohol blends, which was published on 

March 22,1989 (54 FR 11868). The 

reasons for these corrections are set 

forth below. 

(1) In the final rulemaking, the Agency 

added a new definition of "ethanol 

blender" at 40 CFR 80.2(v). This 

definition created a special subcategory 

of refiner for persons who produce 

gasoline solely through the addition of 

ethanol to finished gasoline, with 

separate liability and defense provisions 

from other refiners. When the final 

regulations were drafted, these parties 

were inadvertendy omitted from certain 

provisions which should have applied to 

them, specifically 40 CFR 80.27(a), 

80.27(d)(3)(ii), and 80.28(g)(4)(iii)(F). This 

notice corrects these inadvertent 

omissions. 

(2) Section 4.1 of 40 CFR Part 80, 

Appendix D, describes the types of 

sampling containers that can be used as 

part of the promulgated sampling 

procedures. As published, this section 

provides that the only cans that can be 

used for this purpose are "those with the 

seams soldered on the exterior surface 

with a flux of rosin in a suitable 

solvent." Since publication, EPA has 

learned that such cans may be difficult 

to procure. Therefore, the language in 

section 4.1 has been revised to state that 

cans soldered in diis manner are 

preferred, but that if such cans are not 

available other cans made widi a 

welded construction may be used as 

long as their construction is not affected 

by (and it does not affect) the gasoline 

being sampled. 

(3) Section 12.6 of Appendix D sets 

forth a water displacement method of 

sampling gasoline. This method was 

promulgated erroneously because the 

sampling and testing methods were 

intended to eliminate all contact with 

water in order to allow their use with 

alcohol blends. The water displacement 

method, however, allows direct contact 

between water and product being 

sampled. Therefore, it is being deleted 

as an acceptable sampling method. The 

Agency notes that the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) does 

not allow use of this sampling method in 

conjunction with alcohol blends. See 

ASTM D-4814-88, Annex A2, section 

A2.6.2. 

(4) Figure 4 of Appendix D was drawn 

incorrectly. In each of the sample probes 

illustrated in this figure, the center line 

notation appeared to be a "w" rather 

than a "CL" (the proper notation). In 

addition, in Probe (C) the orifice facing 

upstream should have been a smooth 

curve instead of a sharp angle, and there 

should not have been a space in die line 

facing downstream. A new Figure 4 

correcting these.errors is included in this 

notice. 

(5) Section 8.1 of Method 1 of 40 CFR 

Part 80, Appendix E, describes the 

sample transfer portion of the volatility 

test procedures. Language has been 

added to this section to make clear that 

the fuel chamber should be dried prior