[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3668-3680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1223]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54393b3b3a312d7a3e3b3c3a143124357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f222020212a3661252027210f2a3f2e61282039">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80ede1e9e5f4f4e1aee1eef4e8efeef9c0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a070b030f1e1e0b440b041e020504132a0f1a0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 source-specific 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?

[[Page 3669]]

    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 source-specific 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 SIP-
incorporation of the specific State rule revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 one-hour 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.

[[Page 3670]]

    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 state-issued 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

[[Page 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Short term limit                        VOC content/other
     Facility ID         Facility name         (hr/day)            TPY limit             limit        PTI<greek-i>             PTI issue date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1409000714..........  Polymet             25 lbs VOC/month..  0.15 tons VOC/yr..  None..............      14-4578   Wednesday, September 23, 1992.
                       Corporation.
1409000716..........  Chase-Durus         55 lbs VOC/day; 10  5.72 tons OC/yr     5.5 lbs OC/gal, as     14-04268   Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
                       Industries.         gal/day for both    from coating        applied,
                                           metal and non-      metal and 5.72      including water
                                           metal.              TPY from coating    and exempt
                                                               non-metal; PTO:     solvents (PTO
                                                               2.48 tons VOC/yr.   uses VOC/gal).
1409000842..........  Ransoholff Inc....  75 lbs VOC/day      10.55 tons VOC/yr.  7.5 lbs VOC/gal        14-04268   Wednesday, March 5, 1997.
                                           from coatings;                          coating, as
                                           830 lbs VOC/mo                          applied; 8.3 lbs
                                           from CU; 10 gal/                        VOC/gal CU, as
                                           day of coating.                         applied.
1409000842..........  Ransoholff Inc....  75 lbs VOC/day      10.55 tons VOC/yr.  7.5 lbs VOC/gal        14-04612   Wednesday, March 5, 1997.
                                           from coatings;                          coating, as
                                           830 lbs VOC/mo                          applied; 8.3 lbs
                                           from CU; 10 gal/                        VOC/gal CU, as
                                           day of coating.                         applied.
1409000892..........  Phoenix             56.1 lbs OC/day...  4.5 tons OC/yr....  None..............     14-04612   Thursday, January 21, 1999.
                       Presentations Inc.
1409000892..........  Phoenix             56.1 lbs OC/day...  4.5 tons OC/yr....  None..............     14-04612   Thursday, January 21, 1999.
                       Presentations Inc.
1409000892..........  Phoenix             56.1 lbs OC/day...  4.5 tons OC/yr....  None..............     14-04014   Thursday, January 21, 1999.
                       Presentations Inc.

[[Page 3672]]

 
1413080305..........  Lt. Moses Willard   49.6 lbs/day w/     4.75 tons OC/yr     7.3 lbs OC/gal,         14-4220   Tuesday, December 23, 1997.
                       Inc.                metal parts.        from metal parts;   including water
                                                               10.7 tons OC/yr     and exempt
                                                               from wood and       solvents for all
                                                               metal and all CU.   coatings and all
                                                                                   CU materials.
1413080305..........  Lt. Moses Willard   49.6 lbs/day w/     4.75 tons OC/yr     7.3 lbs OC/gal,         14-4348   Tuesday, December 23, 1997.
                       Inc.                metal parts.        from metal parts;   including water
                                                               10.7 tons OC/yr     and exempt
                                                               from wood and       solvents for all
                                                               metal and all CU.   coatings and all
                                                                                   CU materials.
1431072466..........  Air Placement       5.27 lbs VOC/hr; 1  1.36 TPY: PTO and   5.27 lbs VOC/gal        14-4027   Wednesday, September 27, 1989.
                       Equipment Co.       gal/hr topcoat; 1   a Summary limit     topcoat as an
                                           gal/hr primer.      in PTI.             average; 5.22 lbs
                                                                                   VOC/gal primer;
                                                                                   6.47 lbs VOC/gal
                                                                                   CU.
1431403268..........  Cincinnati Sub-     5.0 lbs VOC/gal,    6.46 tons VOC/yr..  5.0 lbs VOC/gal,        14-1750   Wednesday, December 7, 1988.
                       Zero Products.      as a monthly                            as a monthly
                                           volume weighted                         volume weighted
                                           average.                                average.
1431403268..........  Cincinnati Sub-     5.0 lbs VOC/gal,    1.28 tons VOC/yr..  5.0 lbs VOC/gal,        14-1750   Wednesday, December 7, 1988.
                       Zero Products.      as a monthly                            as a monthly
                                           volume weighted                         volume weighted
                                           average.                                average.
1431403974..........  WHM Equipment Co..  46.15 lbs VOC/day;  4.03 tons VOC/yr..  5.0 lbs VOC/gal         14-4610   Wednesday, May 28, 1997.
                                           8 gals coating/                         coatings; 6.15
                                           day and 1 gal/day                       lbs VOC/gal CU.
                                           CU.
1431483908..........  Panel Fab, Inc....  56.05 lbs VOC/day;  5.56 tons VOC/yr..  6.1 lbs VOC/gal of      01-6635   Wednesday, March 6, 1996.
                                           8 gal/day                               coating, as
                                           coating; 1 gal/                         applied; 7.25 lbs/
                                           day CU.                                 gal of CU.
1483060233..........  Fujitec America,    2.89 lbs VOC/gal    11.7 tons/yr......  2.89 lbs VOC/gal       01-08869   December 8, 1983.
                       Inc.                of prime coat.                          of prime coat.
1483060233..........  Fujitec America,    5.383 lbs VOC/day;  0.864 ton VOC/yr    6.72 lbs VOC/gal        01-6743   October 15, 1990.
                       Inc.                0.801 gal coating/  including CU.       coating, minus
                                           day.                                    water (PTO:
                                                                                   Excluding water
                                                                                   and exempt
                                                                                   solvents).; 7.2
                                                                                   lbs VOC/gal CU
                                                                                   minus water (PTO:
                                                                                   Excluding water
                                                                                   and exempt
                                                                                   solvents).
1483090326..........  Cincinnati Fan &    102.4 lbs VOC/day.  Summary limit:      5.7 lbs VOC/gal         01-6743   Wednesday, April 26, 1995.
                       Ventilator.                             16.54 tons VOC/yr.  coating,
                                                                                   excluding water
                                                                                   and exempt
                                                                                   solvents; 7.3 lbs
                                                                                   VOC/gal for CU.
0180000130..........  Honda MAP.........  6.5 lbs VOC/gal,    81.7 tons/rolling   6.5 lbs VOC/gal as     03-10256   01-2675, issued 9/18/90; 01-6642 mod
                                           as applied, when    12-mo.              applied, when                     8/7/01; 01-8869 mod 12/02/04; mod 1/
                                           coating metal                           coating metal                     13/05, mod 9/20/07.
                                           motorcycle parts                        auto parts; 4.3
                                           and non-metal.                          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.

[[Page 3673]]

 
0180000130..........  Honda MAP.........  4.7 lbs VOC/gal as  55.3 tons/rolling   4.7 lbs VOC/gal as     03-10256   December 24, 1997.
                                           a daily volume-     12 mo. from         a daily volume-
                                           weighted average.   coatings.           weighted average.
0180000130..........  Honda MAP.........  4.7 lbs VOC/gal as  43.7 tons/rolling   4.7 lbs VOC/gal as     03-10256   December 24, 1997.
                                           a daily volume-     12 mo. from         a daily volume-
                                           weighted average.   coatings.           weighted average.
0278080612..........  Ohio Trailer......  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn  None..............  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn     03-10256   October 11, 1984.
                                           primer, excluing                        primer, excluding
                                           water; 4.5 lbs                          water; 4.5 lbs
                                           VOC/gal topcoat,                        VOC/gal topcoat,
                                           excluding water                         excluding water
                                           (PTO: Excluding                         (PTO: Excluding
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, as                            solvents, as
                                           applied on a                            applied on a
                                           daily volume-                           daily volume-
                                           weighted                                weighted average).
                                           average); 60 gal
                                           coating/day for
                                           R001, R002, and
                                           R003 together.
0278080612..........  Ohio Trailer......  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn  None..............  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn     03-10256   October 11, 1984.
                                           primer, excluing                        primer, excluing
                                           water; 4.5 lbs                          water; 4.5 lbs
                                           VOC/gal topcoat,                        VOC/gal topcoat,
                                           excluding water                         excluding water
                                           (PTO: Excluding                         (PTO: Excluding
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, as                            solvents, as
                                           applied on a                            applied on a
                                           daily volume-                           daily volume-
                                           weighted                                weighted average).
                                           average); 60 gal
                                           coating/day for
                                           R001, R002, and
                                           R003 together.
0278080612..........  Ohio Trailer......  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn  None..............  4.0 lbs VOC/gal Zn      03-0257   October 11, 1984.
                                           primer, excluding                       primer, excluding
                                           water; 4.5 lbs                          water; 4.5 lbs
                                           VOC/gal topcoat,                        VOC/gal topcoat,
                                           excluding water                         excluding water
                                           (PTO: Excluding                         (PTO: Excluding
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, as                            solvents, as
                                           applied on a                            applied on a
                                           daily volume-                           daily volume-
                                           weighted                                weighted average).
                                           average); 60 gal
                                           coating/day for
                                           R001, R002, and
                                           R003 together.
0306010138..........  Goodyear Tire and   202 lbs VOC/day...  None..............  None, 202 lbs VOC/     14-04268   October 2, 1991.
                       Rubber, St. Marys.                                          day; 416 gal
                                                                                   primer/mo and 520
                                                                                   gal top coat/mo.
0306020025..........  American Trim       basecoat: 1.53 lbs  basecoat: 6.69      basecoat: 4.64 lbs     14-04268   October 29, 1997.
                       (Superior Metal     OC/hr; topcoat      tons OC/yr;         VOC/gal; topcoat
                       Products: Plant     1.72 lbs OC/hr;     topcoat 7.57 tons   4.92 lbs VOC/gal;
                       <greek-i>4).        ink: 0.07 lb OC/    OC/yr; ink: 0.31    ink: 3.43 lbs VOC/
                                           hr.                 tons OC/yr; CU      gal, all
                                                               6.00 tons/yr and    excluding water
                                                               986 lbs OC/mo.      and exempt
                                                                                   solvents.
0306020025..........  American Trim       basecoat: 1.96 lbs  basecoat: 8.56      basecoat and           14-04612   October 29, 1997.
                       (Superior Metal     OC/hr; topcoat:     tons OC/yr;         topcoat: 3.00 lbs
                       Products: Plant     1.96 lbs OC/hr.     topcoat 8.56 tons   VOC/gal excluding
                       <greek-i>4).                            OC/yr; CU 6.00      water and exempt
                                                               tons/yr and 986     solvents.
                                                               lbs OC/mo.

[[Page 3674]]

 
0387020354..........  Henry Filters.....  35.0 lbs OC/hr-     19.0 ton OC/yr &    7.0 lbs VOC/gal,       14-04612   June 26, 1996; last as a
                                           K001.               1.6 tons/mo from    excluding H20 &                   modification on 8/22/2002.
                                                               K001, K002, K003    exempt solvents,
                                                               together (K002      as applied.
                                                               and K003 in
                                                               different permit).
0546000117..........  Honda East Liberty  87.2 lbs VOC/hr...  EU Group Limits:    5.32 lbs VOC/gal,      14-04612   April 17, 1996.
                                                               11 EUs: 1,268.65    excluding water
                                                               tons VOC/rolling    and exempt
                                                               12-mo coating; 18   solvents, as a
                                                               EUs: 103.3 tons     monthly volume-
                                                               per rolling 12      weighted average.
                                                               mo. and 38.44
                                                               tons/mo from CU.
0546000117..........  Honda East Liberty  19.6 lbs VOC/hr     29.2 tons VOC per   6.54 lbs VOC/gal,      14-04014   April 17, 1996.
                                           from coatings;      rolling 12-mo.      excluding water
                                           5.8 lbs/hr from     from coatings;      and exempt
                                           non-PRM solvents.   9.98 tons VOC per   solvents, as a
                                                               rolling 12-mo for   monthly volume-
                                                               non-PRM solvents.   weighted average.
0575010106..........  American Trim.....  5.36 lbs VOC/gal    18.895 tons VOC/    5.36 lbs VOC/gal        14-4822   June 30, 1994.
                                           coating as          rolling 12.         coating as
                                           applied minus                           applied minus
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, for                           solvents, for
                                           extreme                                 extreme
                                           performance                             performance
                                           coatings.                               coatings.
0575010106..........  American Trim LLC.  5.21 lbs VOC/gal    18.874 tons VOC/    5.21 lbs VOC/gal        14-4822   January 5, 1994.
                                           coating as          rolling 12.         coating as
                                           applied minus                           applied minus
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, for                           solvents, for
                                           extreme                                 extreme
                                           performance                             performance
                                           coatings; 7.76                          coatings; 7.76
                                           lbs VOC/gal                             lbs VOC/gal
                                           cleanup.                                cleanup.
0575010106..........  American Trim.....  5.36 lbs VOC/gal    22.8 tons VOC/      5.36 lbs VOC/gal        14-4220   September 13, 1995.
                                           coating as          rolling 12.         coating as
                                           applied minus                           applied minus
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt
                                           solvents, for                           solvents, for
                                           extreme                                 extreme
                                           performance                             performance
                                           coatings; 7.76                          coatings; 7.76
                                           lbs VOC/gal                             lbs VOC/gal
                                           cleanup.                                cleanup.
0575010106..........  American Trim.....  5.21 lbs VOC/gal,   27.8 tons VOC/      5.21 lbs VOC/gal,       14-4220   December 3, 1998 (05-9516); 05-12030
                                           as applied minus    rolling 12 mo.      as applied minus                  mod issued final 7/30/02 and new
                                           water and exempt                        water and exempt                  mod draft issued 9/9/04.
                                           solvents for                            solvents for
                                           extreme                                 extreme
                                           performance                             performance
                                           coatings; 7.76                          coatings; 7.76
                                           lbs VOC/gal CU.                         lbs VOC/gal CU.
0708000017..........  Hawkline, LLC       2007.87 lbs VOC/    204.4 tons VOC/     3.5 lbs VOC/gal,        14-4348   February 28,1996.
                       (formerly Trinity   day.                rolling 12.         excluding water
                       Industries).                                                as a monthly
                                                                                   volume-weighted
                                                                                   average.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 source-specific 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 source-specific 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 source-specific miscellaneous metal 
coating submittal currently before EPA?
    A February 6, 2001 state specific submittal from Ohio EPA with a 
VOC

[[Page 3676]]

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 source-specific SIP revision request. Before any 
approval of this submittal as a source-specific 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 VOC-compliant 
coatings; and (3) use of add-on 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 <greek-i>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

[[Page 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 short-term 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),

[[Page 3678]]

(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

[[Page 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),

[[Page 3680]]

(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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>