34298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI55–02–7263; FRL–6114–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Michigan; SiteSpecific SIP Revision for Leon

Plastics, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking finalizes the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) disapproval of the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality’s

site-specific State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision for Leon Plastics, Inc. A

site-specific SIP revision request was

made by the State of Michigan on behalf

of Leon Plastics. This site-specific SIP

would allow coating lines at the Leon

Plastics facility in Grand Rapids,

Michigan to demonstrate compliance

with requirements based in the Clean

Air Act through cross-line averaging

over a 30-day period instead of on a

line-by-line, daily basis. The EPA

proposed to disapprove this request on

February 3, 1998. During the comment

period, comments were submitted and

the EPA is responding to these

comments.

DATES: This disapproval is effective July

24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Douglas Aburano at (312) 353–6960

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Aburano, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353–6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 3, 1998, EPA proposed to

disapprove the site-specific SIP revision

for Leon Plastics, Inc. (63 FR 5489). This

proposed disapproval was based on the

fact that the submittal did not contain

adequate justification for a greater than

daily averaging and, thus, did not

warrant approving a greater than daily

averaging approach combined with

cross-line averaging.

Following are the comments

submitted during the public comment

period and EPA’s response to those

comments.

II. Public Comments/Response to

Comments

General Comment: EPA has policy

other than that cited which supports the

requested SIP revision.

This general comment is broken down

into the two comments that follow.

Comment 1: EPA Policy which

authorizes the requested SIP revision.

The commentor states that, ‘‘EPA’s

January 20, 1984 policy memorandum

entitled ‘Averaging Times for

Compliance with VOC Emission Limits’

supports the SIP revision. This policy

statement recognizes that application of

RACT for each emission point taken

individually may not be economically

or technically feasible on a daily basis.

One of the motivations for allowing

more than daily averaging is ‘variability

or lack of predictability in a source’s

daily operation.’ ’’

Response to Comment 1: The policy

memorandum referred to by the

commentor might be interpreted to

allow greater than daily averaging due

to ‘‘variability or lack or predictability

in a source’s operation,’’ but a policy

memorandum dated January 20, 1987

that modifies the 1984 memorandum

states, ‘‘Long term averaging should

never be employed to disguise the fact

that a RACT emission limitation is being

relaxed. Unless recordkeeping presents

an insurmountable problem,

adjustments should be made in the

RACT number, not in the averaging

time.’’

The January 20, 1987 memorandum

was the basis for the proposed

disapproval published in the Federal

Register on February 3, 1998.

Comment 2: The EPA has granted

monthly averaging to the very customers

to whom Leon Plastics supplies flexible

vinyl parts.

Response to Comment 2: EPA has not

granted monthly averaging to the

automotive industry. EPA believes that

this comment refers the document

entitled, ‘‘Protocol for Determining the

Daily Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Rate of Automobile and Lightduty Truck Topcoat Operations’’ (EPA–

450/3–88–018, December 1988). First,

this protocol applies to a different

source category than does Rule 632.

Second, while this protocol allows

recordkeeping of coating usage on a

monthly basis, it requires the

production usage records to be kept on

a daily basis. This methodology will

prorate the coating usage down to a

daily basis to determine compliance

with a daily limit. It does not allow an

extended averaging time as the

commentor indicates.

Comment 3: EPA has breached its

duty of good faith; detrimental reliance.

Specifically, the commentor states that

Leon Plastics was told that the air use

permit terms and conditions were being

discussed with EPA. The commentor

goes further to indicate that EPA

indicated that a cross-line average with

extended averaging time would be

approvable.

Response to Comment 3: The EPA had

no discussions regarding this sitespecific SIP revision request prior to its

submittal in September 1996. EPA never

indicated that a cross-line average with

extended averaging time could be

approvable for this source. If there had

been prior discussions, EPA would have

expressed a preference for a site-specific

SIP revision request that would not have

involved cross-line averaging or

extended averaging but simply a request

for a higher VOC limit for the line

experiencing difficulty in complying

with the applicable limit of 5.0 lb/gal.

This type of request was mentioned in

the February 3, 1998 proposed

disapproval.

Comment 4: Alternatively, EPA

should approve a site-specific SIP

amendment for the coating. Leon

Plastics requests, as an alternative to the

pending SIP revision, a 6.3 pounds of

VOCs per gallon of coating, as applied,

minus water, limit for its flexible vinyl

coatings.

Response to Comment 4: EPA

mentioned this as a potential resolution

to this situation in lieu of the sitespecific SIP revision that is being

disapproved. In the February 3, 1998

proposed disapproval, EPA stated that,

‘‘an alternative RACT for the Finish

Room seems justified.’’

While an alternative RACT limit

would be a variance from the 5.0 lb/gal

limit found in Michigan’s Rule 632, EPA

would compare the subsequent SIP

submittal material to information

relating to EPA’s suggested limit that

applies to ‘‘soft coatings.’’ This limit, as

found in EPA’s Alternative Control

Techniques (ACT) document for

‘‘Surface Coating of Automotive/

Transportation and Business Machine

Plastic Parts’’ Table 4–1A, is 5.9 lb/gal.

Judging from background materials

included as part of the site-specific

submittal that is being disapproved

today, EPA is led to believe that the

coating being used by Leon Plastics may

be considered a ‘‘soft coating’’ which is

a separate coating category unto itself in

EPA’s ACT, but a category not found in

Michigan’s Rule 632.

If the appropriate justification

documenting the need for a higher VOC
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34299

limit as RACT was submitted as part of

a site-specific SIP revision requesting a

higher limit on the Finish Room line,

EPA would approve such a request.

However, this comment cannot be a

substitute for a formal SIP revision

request and the SIP revision request that

has been made is not approvable.

Comment 5: The proposed

disapproval categorically states that the

vinyl coating operations performed by

Leon Plastics Inc. are subject to

Michigan’s Rule 632 and to the 5.0 lbs.

VOC per gallon limit on air dried

interior coatings. Leon Plastics would

note, however, that no Control

Techniques Guidance (CTG) document

supporting the 5.0 number was cited in

the proposed disallowance. Leon

Plastics is now seeking a clarification

that Rule 632 does not apply to the

coating of flexible vinyl automotive

parts.

Response to Comment 5: Under

Michigan’s Rule 632, that has been

approved into Michigan’s federally

enforceable SIP, the vinyl coating

operations performed by Leon Plastics

are considered under the general

category of ‘‘Air-dried coating— interior

parts’’ and are, therefore, subject to the

5.0 lb/gal limit.

A CTG was not cited as the basis for

disapproval because CTGs and ACTs are

only guidance documents used in the

development of regulations. As

discussed above, the basis for

disapproval is that the revision

proposing greater than daily averaging

combined with cross-line averaging is

not an acceptable alternative to the

approved SIP.

EPA’s ACT for Surface Coating of

Automotive/Transportation and

Business Machine Plastic Parts does

have a limit for ‘‘soft coatings’’ of 5.9 lb/

gal. This limit was not adopted by the

State of Michigan. If it had been, it is

possible that the coating used by Leon

Plastics would be considered a ‘‘soft

coating’’ and would then be subject to

the 5.9 lb/gal limit rather than the 5.0

lb/gal limit.

Comment 6: No consideration was

given to flexible vinyl parts in adopting

Rule 632; therefore there is no technical

basis for Rule 632 to apply. The

proposed disapproval erroneously states

that Rule 632 emission levels are based

upon suggested VOC limits on EPA’s

control techniques document. However,

Table 66 of Rule 632 was effective

January 1, 1993 a full 13 months before

the ACT was even issued.

Response to Comment 6: It is true

there is no specific category referred to

as ‘‘flexible vinyl parts’’ in Michigan’s

Rule 632. As previously mentioned,

EPA’s ACT for Surface Coating of

Automotive/Transportation and

Business Machine Plastic Parts may

address the coating of these parts under

the category of ‘‘soft coatings’’ which

has a higher VOC limit than the more

general category of ‘‘Air-dried coating—

interior parts’’ which appears in

Michigan’s Rule 632.

The proposed disapproval did not

state that Michigan’s rule was based on

EPA’s ACT. It stated that, ‘‘Rule 632

limits the VOC content of air dried

interior automotive plastics coatings to

5.0 lbs of VOC per gallon of coating

minus water. This limit reflects the

suggested VOC content found in EPA’s

ACT for this category.’’ The fact that

Michigan’s Rule 632 may have been

adopted prior to EPA’s issuance of an

ACT for this category does not change

EPA’s rationale for approving Rule 632.

The limits found in Rule 632 are

considered comparable to (i.e., at least

as stringent as) those found in EPA’s

ACT. Michigan’s decision not to adopt

the higher limit for ‘‘soft coatings’’ as

described in EPA’s ACT, does not make

the rule disapprovable. Michigan’s rule

simply is more stringent because, under

Rule 632, ‘‘soft coatings’’ are subject to

the more general ‘‘Air-dried coating—

interior parts’’ with a limit of 5.0 lb/gal

rather than being subject to the 5.9 lb/

gal limit.

Comment 7: It is believed the current

Michigan rule and RACT standard do

not address VOC content of air dried

interior flexible vinyl coatings, but only

coatings used for air dried interior rigid

plastics.

Response to Comment 7: While EPA’s

ACT does not recognize ‘‘air dried

interior flexible vinyl coatings’’ as a

category, the coatings used at Leon

Plastics may be considered ‘‘soft

coatings’’ which are considered

specialty coatings and have a higher

VOC limit than do other ‘‘air dried

interior automotive coatings.’’ Michigan

did not incorporate this higher limit

into their Rule 632.

In any event, Leon Plastics may

request a site-specific RACT limit for

any coating line not meeting the general

limit found in Michigan’s rule. If there

is adequate justification submitted with

this request, a higher limit could be

given to that coating line.

Comment 8: There is no definition of

flexible vinyl as a plastic in Rule 632 or

elsewhere. There is no definition of

‘‘plastic automotive parts.’’ There

apparently is no CTG on coating plastic

automotive parts which would delineate

whether or not EPA or MDEQ ever

considered flexible vinyl substrates to

be included or excluded from ‘‘plastic

automotive parts.’’ Therefore, Rule 632

should not be applied to the coating of

flexible vinyl interior automotive parts

with air dried coatings.

Response to Comment 8: Rule 632

states that the emission limits shall

apply to the ‘‘coating of plastic parts of

automobiles and trucks.’’ In Michigan

Rule R 336.1103 Definitions; C, the

coating of plastic parts of automobiles

and trucks means the coating of any

plastic part that is or shall be assembled

with other parts to form an automobile

or truck.

The general definition of plastic is

any of various nonmetallic compounds,

synthetically produced, usually from

organic compounds by polymerization,

of which vinyl is a subset. Rules usually

do not contain definitions for words or

phrases that are commonly used or have

generally accepted standard definitions,

such as plastic and vinyl.

Since vinyl is considered a plastic

and these coated parts are assembled

with other parts to form an automobile

or truck, Rule 632 does apply to the

process line in question.

While it is true there is no CTG on

coating of plastic automotive parts,

EPA’s ACT, which has been mentioned

previously, does contain a coating

category within which flexible vinyl

substrates may be included. This

coating category is called ‘‘soft coating’’

and has a limit of 5.9 lb/gal. While this

category is not included in Michigan’s

Rule 632, EPA would approve a

properly promulgated and supported

SIP revision to include it or a sitespecific SIP revision for source that

apply ‘‘soft coatings’’ at a 5.9 lb/gal

limit. However, since Michigan’s Rule

632 does not have this specific category,

the coating operations at Leon Plastics

fall under the more general category of

‘‘air-dried coating—interior parts’’ with

the lower limit of 5.0 lb/gal.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

To determine the approvability of a

rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

section 110 and part D of the Act. In

addition, EPA has reviewed the

Michigan submittal in accordance with

EPA policy guidance documents,

including: EPA’s policy memorandum

dated January 20, 1987 from G. T.

Helms, Chief of EPA’s control Programs

Operations Branch, entitled,

‘‘Determination of Economic

Feasibility’’. Upon completing this

review, the EPA is disapproving

Michigan’s SIP revision request because

it is inconsistent with the Act and the

applicable policy set forth in this

document.
34300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because this disapproval only

affects one source, Leon Plastics, Inc.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Furthermore, as explained in

this action, the request does not meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

and EPA cannot approve the request.

EPA has no option but to disapprove the

submittal.

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under Section 110 and subchapter I,

part D of the Clean Air Act does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal requirements remain in

place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does

not affect its State enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, I

certify that this disapproval action does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this

disapproval action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal disapproval

action imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result.

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness 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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 891 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 12, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–16672 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–035–2–9815a; FRL–6115–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Georgia:

Approval of Revisions for a

Transportation Control Measure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

the Georgia State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted by the State through the

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

on August 29, 1997, requesting the

incorporation of several transportation

control measures (TCMs) into the SIP

and the deletion of two TCMs from the

existing SIP. This action only addresses

the incorporation of one of the five

TCMs submitted for approval into the

SIP. Action was taken on the other

TCMs in a separate rulemaking. The

subject of this action is an alternative

fuel refueling station/park and ride

transportation center project located in

Douglas County.

DATES: This final rule is effective August

10, 1998 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by July 24, 1998.

Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish in the Federal

Register a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule informing the public

that this rule did not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kelly A.

Sheckler at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of

documents relative to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Reference file

GA35–9807. The Region 4 office may

have additional background documents

not available at the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Attn: Kelly Sheckler, 404/562–

9042.

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Air Protection Division,

4244 International Parkway, Suite

136, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly A. Sheckler at 404/562–9042.