```

[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 50711-50713]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au10-8]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0003; FRL-9187-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Final Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 
disapproving an Ohio regulation revision pertaining to volatile organic 
compound (VOC) limits for high performance architectural coatings 
contained in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h). Under 
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, we are also conditionally approving a 
revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745-21-09, based on a State 
commitment to provide for enforceability of a pertinent limit no later 
than one year from the date of EPA's conditional approval.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0003. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, 
Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 353-8777 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, 
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Were EPA's Proposed Actions?
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Were EPA's Proposed Actions?

    On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3668), EPA proposed a variety of actions 
regarding revisions to OAC 3745-21, from submittals dated October 9, 
2000, February 6, 2001, August 3, 2001, and June 24, 2003. We proposed 
to (1) approve into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) certain 
revisions in OAC 3745-21 which have been adopted by the State; (2) 
disapprove a revision pertaining to high performance architectural 
coatings; (3) conditionally approve a revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of 
OAC 3745-21-09, if the State gives EPA a letter that commits to provide 
for enforceability of the 1 ton per year limit no later than one year 
from the expected date of EPA's conditional approval; (4) take no 
action on certain regulation revisions, and, (5) provide notice that 
EPA and Ohio have created a mechanism to incorporate into the Ohio SIP 
permits to 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). For administrative 
convenience, in a separate rulemaking published June 21, 2010, at 75 FR 
34939, we approved certain submitted regulation revisions, took no 
action on others, and recognized various emission control exemptions 
that have been granted for miscellaneous metal coating operations under 
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). Today's action makes final our disapproval and 
conditional approval of portions of OAC rule 3745-21-09. You can learn 
more information about the rule revisions submitted and our evaluation 
of them in our proposed action.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We 
did not receive any comments on the proposed action. On March 1, and 
July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy deficiencies in OAC 3745-21-
09(BBB)(1).

III. What Actions is EPA Taking?

    EPA is disapproving the coating VOC content limit for high 
performance architectural aluminum coatings contained in paragraph 
(U)(1)(h) of OAC 3745-21-09 because 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. EPA is conditionally 
approving a revision to OAC 3745-21-09(BBB)(1) provided that the State 
is able to, within one year of our final rulemaking, further revise the 
paragraph to include test procedures and recordkeeping requirements 
compatible with the paragraph's revised emission limit. On March 1, and 
July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy the deficiencies in this 
revision. If the State fails to correct this rule and confirm this 
correction within the allowed one year period, this conditional 
approval will revert to disapproval.

[[Page 50712]]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act (CAA).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 18, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 3, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (kk) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (kk) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the coating VOC content limit 
for high performance architectural aluminum coatings contained in 
paragraph (U)(1)(h) of chapter 3745-21-09 of the Ohio Administrative 
Code.

0
3. Section 52.1919 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1919  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (b) On October 9, 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted a revision to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-21-09(BBB). 
The revision removed 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

[[Page 50713]]

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. The revision lacked test procedures and record keeping 
requirements compatible with the revised emission limit. On March 1, 
2010, Ohio submitted a commitment to revise OAC 3745-21-09(BBB) to 
include the necessary test procedures and record keeping requirements 
by September 16, 2011. When EPA determines the state has met its 
commitment, OAC 3745-21-09(BBB) will be incorporated by reference into 
the SIP.

[FR Doc. 2010-19827 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```