Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15235

Illinois Environmental Protection Act

(Illinois Act), section 42(a), states that

any person that violates any provision

of this Illinois Act or any regulation

adopted by the Board, or any permit or

term or condition thereof, or that

violates any determination or order of

the Board pursuant to this Act, shall be

liable to a civil penalty not to exceed

$50,000 for the violation and an

additional $10,000 for each day for

which the violation continues. In that

this submittal is a regulation adopted by

the Board, a violation of which subjects

the violator to penalties under section

42(a), the submittal contains sufficient

enforcement penalties for approval.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

The USEPA approves the SIP revision

submitted by the State of Illinois. The

State of Illinois has submitted a SIP

revision that includes enforceable state

regulations which are consistent with

Federal requirements. The State has also

committed to perform enforcement

inspections on at least 20 percent of the

regulated stations during the first year of

enforcement. Substantial penalties that

will provide an adequate incentive for

the regulated industry to comply and

are no less than the expected cost of

compliance are included in current

Pollution Control Board Regulation.

USEPA is, therefore, approving this

submittal.

Procedural Background

Because USEPA considers this action

noncontroversial and routine, the

Agency is approving it without prior

proposal. The action will become

effective on May 22, 1995. However, if

the USEPA receives adverse comments

by April 24, 1995, then the USEPA will

publish a notice that withdraws the

action, and will address the comments

received in response to this direct final

rule in the final rule on the requested

SIP revision, which has been proposed

for approval in the proposed rules

section of this Federal Register. The

comment period will not be extended or

reopened.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 22, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbon,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(109) to read as

follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(109) On October 25, 1994, Illinois

submitted a regulation that reduced the

maximum allowable volatility for

gasoline sold in the Metro-East St. Louis

ozone nonattainment area, which

includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair

Counties, to 7.2 psi during the summer

control period. The summer control

period is June 1 to September 15 for

retail outlets and wholesale consumers,

and May 1 to September 15 for all

others.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois

Administrative Code Title 35:

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions

Standards and Limitations for

Stationary Sources, Part 219 Organic

Material Emission Standards and

Limitations for Metro East Area,

(A) Section 219.112 Incorporation by

Reference. Amended at 18 Ill. Reg.

14987. Effective September 21, 1994.

(B) Section 219.585 Gasoline

Volatility Standards. Amended at 18 Ill.

Reg. 14987. Effective September 21,

1994.

[FR Doc. 95–7108 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[OH45–1–5974a; FRL–5169–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving

revisions to the Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by

the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) on March 15, 1993, and

December 30, 1994. The OEPA

submitted these revisions to the USEPA

on June 7, 1993, and February 17, 1995.

The revisions concern Ohio

Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter

3745–21, ‘‘Carbon Monoxide,

Photochemically Reactive Materials,
15236 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Hydrocarbons, and Related Materials

Standards.’’ The USEPA has evaluated

the revisions to Rules 01, 04, 09, and 10

and is approving the requested

revisions. The USEPA’s action is based

upon a revision request which was

submitted by the State to satisfy the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective May

22, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 24,

1995. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: William L. MacDowell,

Chief, Regulation Development Section,

Air Enforcement Branch (AE–17J),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request and

USEPA’s analysis are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

addresses: (It is recommended that you

telephone Bonnie Bush at (312) 353–

6684, before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604; Office of Air

and Radiation (OAR), Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

room M1500, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460; and Public Information

Reference Unit, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Bush, Air Enforcement Branch,

Regulation Development Section (AE–

17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 353–6684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, amendments

to the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Under the pre-amended CAA, ozone

nonattainment areas were required to

adopt reasonably available control

technology (RACT) rules for sources of

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions. VOC’s contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. These rules were required as part

of an effort to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard for

ozone.

RACT, as defined in 40 CFR

51.100(o), means devices, systems

process modifications, or other

apparatus or techniques that are

reasonably available taking into account

(1) the necessity of imposing such

controls in order to attain and maintain

a national ambient air quality standard,

(2) the social, environmental and

economic impact of such controls, and

(3) alternative means of providing for

attainment and maintenance of such

standard. The USEPA issued three sets

of control technique guidelines (CTGs)

documents, establishing a ‘‘presumptive

norm’’ for RACT for various categories

of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs

were: (1) Group I, issued before January

1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II, issued in

1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III, issued

in the early 1980’s (5 CTGs). Those

sources not covered by a CTG were

called non-CTG sources. The USEPA

determined that a given nonattainment

area’s SIP-approved attainment date

established which RACT rules the area

needed to adopt and implement. Under

pre-amended section 172(a)(1), ozone

nonattainment areas were generally

required to attain the ozone standard by

December 31, 1982. Those areas that

projected attainment by that date were

required to adopt RACT for sources

covered by the Group I and II CTGs.

Those areas that sought an extension of

the attainment date under section

172(a)(2) to as late as December 31,

1987, were required to adopt RACT for

all CTG sources and for all major (i.e.,

100 ton per year or more of VOC

emissions) non-CTG sources.

Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act

requires States to adopt RACT rules for

all areas designated nonattainment for

ozone and classified as moderate or

above. There are three parts to the

section 182(b)(2) RACT requirement: (1)

RACT for sources covered by an existing

CTG, i.e., a CTG issued prior to the

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990; (2) RACT for

sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) all major sources not

covered by a CTG (note: this includes

unregulated emission units within a

source if they total more than 100 tons

per year in the aggregate). Section

182(b)(2) requires nonattainment areas

that previously were exempt from RACT

requirements to ‘‘catch up’’ to those

nonattainment areas that became subject

to those requirements during an earlier

period. In addition, it requires newly

designated ozone nonattainment areas

to adopt RACT rules consistent with

those for previously designated

nonattainment areas.

Under the pre-amended Act, the

USEPA designated the DaytonSpringfield, Cincinnati, YoungstownWarren, Canton, Toledo, Cleveland, and

Akron areas and Ashtabula County as

nonattainment. The Dayton-Springfield

area included Clark, Greene, Miami, and

Montgomery Counties; the Cincinnati

area included Clermont, Hamilton,

Warren, and Butler Counties; the

Youngstown-Warren area included

Mahoning and Trumbull Counties; the

Canton area included Stark County; the

Toledo area included Lucas County; and

the Cleveland and Akron areas included

Portage, Summit, Cuyahoga, Geauga,

Lake, and Lorain Counties. Ohio

established a pre-enactment attainment

date of December 31, 1982, for the

Dayton-Springfield, YoungstownWarren, Canton, Toledo and Akron

nonattainment areas and December 31,

1987, for the Cleveland and Cincinnati

nonattainment areas. Therefore, DaytonSpringfield, Youngstown-Warren,

Canton, Toledo, and Akron were

required to adopt RACT for Groups I

and II sources, and the Cincinnati and

Cleveland areas were required to adopt

RACT for Groups I, II, III, and major

non-CTG sources. Ashtabula County

was designated rural nonattainment and

was required to adopt RACT for Groups

I and II sources.

However, none of the above areas

attained the ozone standard by their

respective approved attainment dates.

On May 26, 1988, and November 8,

1989, the USEPA notified the Governor

of Ohio that portions of the SIP were

inadequate to attain and maintain the

ozone standard and requested that

deficiencies in the existing SIP be

corrected. These notifications are

referred to as USEPA’s SIP Calls). In

amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that pre-enactment ozone

nonattainment areas that retained their

designation of nonattainment and were

classified as marginal or above fix their

deficient RACT rules for ozone by May

15, 1991. The Dayton-Springfield,

Cincinnati, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and

Toledo areas and Ashtabula County

retained their designation of

nonattainment and were classified as

moderate; the Youngstown-Warren and

Canton areas retained their designation

of nonattainment and were classified as

marginal. 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991).

The State submitted revisions to meet

the RACT fix-up requirement for all the

above areas, and the USEPA has taken

a final action of partial approval, partial

disapproval, and partial limited

approval/limited disapproval of that

submittal. 59 FR 23796 (May 9, 1994).

In addition to the pre-enactment

nonattainment areas retaining their

nonattainment designations, the USEPA

also extended the boundaries of the

Toledo and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15237

nonattainment areas to include Wood

County in the Toledo area and

Ashtabula and Medina Counties in the

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area. 56 FR

56694 and 57 FR 56762 (November 30,

1992). Wood and Medina Counties were

previously not subject to CAA RACT

requirements. Ashtabula County was

previously subject to Groups I and II

RACT and to the section 182(a)(2)(A)

RACT fix-up requirement. Therefore,

these portions of the extended

nonattainment area also are subject to

the RACT requirements of section

182(b)(2), which requires the State, for

these extended portions of the

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Toledo

nonattainment areas, to submit RACT

rules covering all pre-enactment CTGs,

to identify all sources the State

anticipates will be covered by a postenactment CTG, and to submit non-CTG

rules for all remaining major sources

(100 tons per year) of VOC emissions

(Appendix E to the General Preamble,

57 FR 18077, April 28, 1992).

The following is the USEPA’s

evaluation and rulemaking action for

the submitted revisions to Ohio

Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter

3745–21 ‘‘Carbon Monoxide

Photochemically Reactive Materials,

Hydrocarbons, and Related Materials

Standards,’’ including the following

amendments: 3745–21–01, Definitions;

3745–21–04, Attainment Dates and

Compliance Time Schedules; 3745–21–

09, Control of Emissions of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Stationary

Sources; and 3745–21–10, Compliance

Test Methods and Procedures.

II. USEPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, the USEPA must evaluate the

rule for consistency with the

requirements of the Act and USEPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and

Part D of the Act and 40 CFR part 51

(Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The USEPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for this action,

appears in various USEPA policy

guidance documents discussed in this

Notice.

For the purpose of assisting State and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, the USEPA prepared a series of

CTG documents. The CTG’s are based

on the underlying requirements of the

Act and specify the presumptive norms

for RACT for specific source categories.

The USEPA has not yet developed

CTG’s to cover all sources of VOC

emissions. Further interpretations of

USEPA policy are found in those

portions of the proposed Post-1987

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT (52 FR 45044, November

24, 1987) and ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and

Deviation, Clarification to Appendix D

of November 24, 1987, Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book). Notice of

availability of the Blue Book was

published in the Federal Register on

May 25, 1988. In general, these guidance

documents have been set forth to ensure

that VOC rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen the SIP. A detailed analysis

of the submittals and discussion of the

USEPA’s basis for this action is

contained in a February 21, 1995,

USEPA Technical Support Document

(TSD).

This Notice addresses VOC

regulations applying to CTG source

categories contained in Ohio’s June 7,

1993, and February 17, 1995, submittals

and one site-specific non-CTG rule

applying to the British Petroleum

Company, Toledo Refinery (BP Oil).

Because of the size of this submittal, a

single rulemaking action on the entire

submittal would further delay Federal

enforceability of any part of it.

Therefore, this Notice evaluates and

takes action on only that portion of the

submittal applying to sources belonging

to the following CTG source categories:

Automobiles and Light-Duty Truck Coating

Can Coating

Coil Coating

Paper Coating

Fabric Coating

Vinyl Coating

Metal Furniture Coating

Magnet Wire Coating

Large Appliance Coating

Bulk Gasoline Plants

Bulk Gasoline Terminals

Gasoline Tank Trucks

Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof

Tanks

Petroleum Refinery Sources

Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts in Road

Construction and Maintenance

Solvent Metal Cleaning

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment

Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coating

Synthesized Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Facilities

Printing

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External

Floating Roof Tanks

Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Facilities

Leaks from Process Units that Produce

Organic Chemicals

Air Oxidation Processes in Organic Chemical

Manufacture

The rules in the submittal that apply

to non-CTG sources other than BP Oil

are addressed in a separate rulemaking

action.

No deficiencies have been identified

in the rules subject to this rulemaking

action. The February 1995 USEPA TSD

discusses the bases for approval of the

portions of the submittals subject to this

action and lists the references, guidance

documents, and correspondence used in

the evaluation of the submittals.

Alternative Applicability Cutoff in OAC

Rule 3745–21–09(U)

OAC 3745–21–09(U) is Ohio’s rule for

miscellaneous metals coating facilities.

Rule (U), paragraph (2)(e)(i) exempts

sources in the Dayton nonattainment

area which use eight or less gallons of

coating per day per line (gpd/line), and

paragraph (2)(e)(ii) exempts sources in

the Canton, Toledo, Cleveland,

Cincinnati, and Youngstown

nonattainment areas which use 10 or

less gpd/line. The USEPA CTG

document for miscellaneous metal

coaters does not define an applicability

cutoff specific to the source category, so

the general RACT cutoff of 15 lb VOC

per day actual emissions before control

for all sources in the source category at

a given facility, as described in the Blue

Book, applies to these facilities. While

Rule (U), paragraph (2)(h), includes the

USEPA RACT cutoff, the exemptions in

(2)(e) make possible the exemption of

sources with emissions above the RACT

cutoff. The Blue Book provides for

approval of alternative applicability

cutoffs if the State demonstrates that the

allowable emissions under the

alternative cutoff are within five percent

of the allowable emissions under the

USEPA RACT cutoff—a ‘‘five percent

equivalency demonstration.’’

The OEPA submitted complete five

percent demonstrations (summary

calculations and supporting

documentation) for the Canton, Dayton,

Toledo, and Youngstown areas. Review

of the complete five percent

demonstrations shows that the

alternative cutoffs for the Canton,

Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown,

nonattainment areas are approvable.

Based on emissions data for 1990 or

earlier, the allowable VOC emissions

using the alternative cutoffs are, in each

case, within five percent of the

allowable VOC emissions using the

USEPA RACT cutoff. The calculation of

the demonstrations was consistent with

USEPA policy, and the calculations

were adequately supported by

documentation of VOC coating content.

The results of the demonstrations are

summarized in the following table:
15238 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Nonattainment area

Allowable

VOC, lb/

day, RACT

cutoff

Allowable

VOC, lb/

day, Ohio

cutoff

Percent

Difference

Canton ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,950.54 3,062.26 +3.79

Dayton ............................................................................................................................................................ 18,751.82 19,615.44 +4.61

Toledo ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,385.85 5,599.37 +3.96

Youngstown .................................................................................................................................................... 10,158.50 10,490.85 +3.27

The OEPA also submitted summary

calculations, without supporting

documentation, showing that a three or

less gpd/line cutoff for the Cincinnati

and Cleveland nonattainment areas

results in emissions that are within five

percent of the emissions allowed by the

RACT cutoff. A three or less gpd/line

cutoff has not been adopted by Ohio,

and the OEPA has requested that the 10

or less gpd/line cutoff in Rule

(U)(2)(e)(ii), contained in the February

1995 submittal, not be made part of the

ozone SIP for the Counties of Ashtabula,

Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga,

Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Medina,

Portage, Summit, and Warren, which

constitute the Cincinnati and Cleveland

nonattainment areas. The OEPA has

requested that USEPA delay action on

the rule as it applies in Cincinnati and

Cleveland because the OEPA intends to

adopt a three or less gpd/line cutoff for

the Cincinnati and Cleveland

nonattainment areas, and submit this

cutoff, accompanied by supporting

documentation, to the USEPA as a SIP

revision request. Therefore, the USEPA

is approving this rule only as it applies

to Canton, Dayton, Toledo, and

Youngstown. The USEPA will take

further action on this rule as it applies

to Cincinnati and Cleveland when the

OEPA submits the revised rule.

The revised Rule (U) also corrects a

deficient emission limit, removes vague

and unenforceable language, and adds

clarifying language necessary for

consistency with RACT, thereby

strengthening the SIP.

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Exemptions

and Technical Support

The June 1993 submittal contains a

version of OAC 3745–21–09(X), Ohio’s

rule for rubber tire manufacturing

facilities, which includes new

exemptions for two facilities: the

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

facility at 200 S. Martha Avenue, Akron,

Ohio, and the Denman Tire Corporation

facility in Leavittsburg, Ohio. There are

two ways to exempt a facility from

applicable RACT requirements: (1) The

State can demonstrate that the

exemption meets existing USEPA

exemption policy for the specific source

category, or (2) the State can

demonstrate that RACT as defined by

the USEPA is infeasible or unreasonable

for the facility being exempted. The

USEPA exemption policy for rubber tire

manufacturing (the Blue Book) states

that RACT ‘‘does not apply to the

production of specialty tires for antique

or other vehicles when produced on an

irregular basis or with short production

runs only if these tires are produced on

equipment separate from normal

production lines for passenger type

tires.’’

While the OEPA included technical

documentation for these exemptions in

the June 1993 submittal, it did not

sufficiently support either of the above

demonstrations. The inadequacy of the

technical support was communicated to

the OEPA in a June 1994 comment

letter, and draft paragraphs from the

USEPA TSD were sent to the OEPA via

facsimile to facilitate subsequent

discussions of unresolved issues. During

these discussions, the USEPA asked the

OEPA to consider the USEPA’s draft

model VOC rule language pertaining to

applicability for rubber tire

manufacturing facilities. The OEPA has

eliminated the exemptions for Denman

and Goodyear and incorporated the

model rule applicability language in the

February 1995 submittal. The USEPA

now finds OAC Rule 3745–21–09(X) to

be fully approvable.

Reconsideration of Previously Noted

Deficiencies

Pursuant to discussions between the

OEPA and the USEPA, the USEPA has

reconsidered its position on some of the

deficiencies cited in the Notice of Final

Rulemaking (NFR) on two earlier VOC

rules submittals from Ohio (May 9,

1994, 59 FR 23796). All but two of the

retractions are described in a July 22,

1994, USEPA memorandum to the files;

the remaining two reconsiderations

warrant more detailed explanations, as

follows:

1. Rule 3745–21–09(B), General

provisions, paragraph (3)(f): The

deficiency originally cited was that the

rule must provide for daily, not

monthly, recordkeeping to be consistent

with RACT as defined by the USEPA

and must be fully enforceable. The

OEPA stated that an Ohio VOC source,

Champion International, contacted

USEPA Headquarters (HQ) on this issue,

and HQ agreed that monthly

recordkeeping is acceptable in this

situation. This was not documented in

the OEPA’s June 1993 technical support,

and Region 5 staff were not aware of this

policy. The OEPA subsequently

submitted a November 24, 1992, letter

from John Calcagni, Director of the Air

Quality Management Division, USEPA,

to Robert A. Meyer, Jr., of a Columbus,

Ohio, law firm, which supports the

monthly recordkeeping requirement.

2. Rule 3745–21–09(EE), Air oxidation

processes that produce organic

chemicals: The deficiency originally

cited was that the phrase ‘‘good

engineering practices’’ in the exemption

in paragraph (2)(a) is vague and

unenforceable. The OEPA stated that the

exemption language in paragraph (2)(a)

was taken from the USEPA Control

Techniques Guideline document on air

oxidation processes. This was

confirmed by USEPA staff, and we

informed the OEPA that the final

disapproval of this paragraph in the

May 9, 1994, NFR (59 FR 23796) was an

error, which is corrected by this action.

All of the other regulations cited as

deficient in the May 9, 1994, NFR (59

FR 23796), have either been revised by

the OEPA to correct the deficiency or

reconsidered by the USEPA as

discussed above, and all such

regulations are now fully approvable.

Non-CTG Regulation for BP Oil

BP Oil, Toledo Refinery, is located in

Lucas County, which is designated as

moderate nonattainment for ozone. Prior

to enactment of the CAA amendments,

Lucas County was part of an area that

had projected attainment by December

31, 1982, and therefore was subject to

Group I and II CTG’s only. Under

section 182(b)(2), Lucas County is now

subject to Group III CTG’s and non-CTG

RACT for major sources. BP Oil was

identified by the OEPA as a major

source, already subject to OAC 3745–

21–09(L), (M), (T), and (Z), which

regulate the source categories Fixed

Roof Petroleum Tanks, Miscellaneous

Refinery Sources, Leaks from Petroleum

Refineries, and External Floating Roof

Petroleum Tanks. On January 10, 1991,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15239

the OEPA sent BP a letter requesting

submittal by August 22, 1991, of a

RACT study of all VOC sources not

regulated by OAC 3745–21–09. BP hired

ENSR Consulting and Engineering

(ENSR) to perform this RACT study,

which has been included in the

technical support submitted by the

OEPA for Rule 09(UU), the non-CTG

rule for BP Oil.

A detailed description of the RACT

study, a discussion of issues and their

resolution, and the verbatim non-CTG

rule language can be found in the

February 1995 USEPA TSD. The control

requirements established by OAC Rule

3745–21–09(UU) are acceptable and

found to constitute RACT for the

sources they control. The compliance

deadlines for these controls as specified

in OAC Rule 3745–21–04(C)(55) meet

the section 182(b)(2) requirement; the

latest compliance deadline is May 1,

1995. The RACT study and other

technical support was reviewed in great

detail by USEPA staff, and during the

review process, many issues arose.

These issues were resolved through

discussions with OEPA staff and

submittal of further technical support by

the OEPA.

In an attempt to clarify the emissions

picture at BP Oil, USEPA staff

performed a detailed comparison

between Ohio’s 1990 base year

inventory (currently under USEPA

review) and the ‘‘de minimis,’’

‘‘negligible,’’ and ‘‘minor’’ sources

described in the RACT study. This

comparison resulted in the

identification of a number of sources in

the inventory which appeared to require

RACT evaluation. These sources were

discussed one by one with OEPA staff,

who, in summary, stated that most of

the sources were subject to CTG

regulations in Chapter 09. The USEPA

accepts the State’s assessment of these

sources regarding their being subject to

CTG regulations, and, therefore, USEPA

staff did no further investigation of

these sources. Ultimately, only the

sources discussed in the USEPA’s

November 7, 1994, comments for the

public record remained unresolved. On

November 8, 1994, the USEPA received

a letter from the OEPA stating that the

1990 base year inventory is in error in

that the sources in question are not

really VOC sources; therefore, no RACT

evaluation is necessary. USEPA staff

reviewing the inventory were notified of

the errors and given a copy of the OEPA

letter.

The USEPA finds Rule 09(UU) to be

approvable.

RACT Studies

In response to the non-CTG RACT

requirements of sections 182(a)(2)(A)

and 182(b)(2) of the amended CAA,

Ohio submitted RACT studies for ten

facilities for which no rule development

was performed. The OEPA concluded

that the existing controls at these

facilities constitute RACT and are

federally enforceable. Two of the ten

RACT studies were evaluated for the

current rulemaking action: (1) the Sun

Refining and Marketing Company in the

Toledo nonattainment area, and (2) the

General Motors Company (GMC) Delco

Chassis Division in the Dayton

nonattainment area. The evaluations

and recommendations for these studies

can be found in two USEPA TSDs, dated

August 23, 1994 (Sun), and September

7, 1994 (GMC Delco). In summary, for

Sun Oil, the USEPA believes that the

existing controls at Sun Oil are federally

enforceable and that they constitute

RACT for this facility. For GMC Delco,

the USEPA believes that the existing

controls constitute RACT; however, at

the time of the June 1993 submittal, they

were not federally enforceable. The

OEPA was made aware of this

deficiency through several letters cited

in the list of references in the February

1995 USEPA TSD. The February 1995

submittal includes a modified permit-toinstall, which upon approval by the

USEPA into the Ohio ozone SIP, fulfils

the requirements of section 182(b)(2) of

the amended CAA. The USEPA is

approving the modified permit-to-install

into the Dayton area ozone SIP as RACT.

General Preamble Issues

The General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR

13497, April 16, 1992) gives guidance

for implementation of Title I. For

section 182(b)(2), the General Preamble

states that States must submit negative

declarations for those source categories

for which they are not adopting CTGbased regulations, even if such negative

declarations have been made for an

earlier SIP (57 FR 13512). A negative

declaration is a statement that, for a

given source category, there are no

facilities with sources in that source

category in any of the Counties subject

to the requirement. Ohio’s June 7, 1993,

submittal contains negative declarations

for the source categories of

polypropylene or high density

polyethylene resin manufacturing,

natural gas/gasoline processing plants,

and surface coating of flat wood

paneling. Ohio previously submitted

negative declarations for the resin

manufacturing and gas processing

categories in 1986. The OEPA has

resubmitted those declarations and

reconfirmed that there are no facilities

in Ohio subject to RACT in these

categories. There is one plant in Ohio

with a hardboard paneling finishing

line, which was constructed after the

issuance of the CTG for surface coating

of flat wood paneling. The source,

Abitibi-Price Corporation, is subject to a

federally enforceable permit-to-install

with requirements that are equivalent to

the CTG requirements. The USEPA is

approving that permit-to-install into the

ozone SIP as RACT.

States must include in the section

182(b)(2) submittal a list of major

sources that the State has identified as

being potentially subject to postenactment CTG documents to be issued

for the source categories listed in

Appendix E to the General Preamble.

Supplement to the General Preamble (57

FR 18070, 18077, April 28, 1992). The

State was again notified of this necessity

in a January 15, 1993, letter from Valdas

Adamkus, Regional Administrator, to

Governor George Voinovich. This source

list was not included in the June 7,

1993, submittal to the USEPA. The

omission of the list from the June 1993

submittal was communicated to Ohio in

an August 26, 1993, letter. On July 27,

1994, the USEPA Region 5 office

received by facsimile a list of facilities,

the source categories to which they

belong, with the year of any RACT study

that has been done. On February 21,

1995, the State submitted an updated

list. The USEPA considers this list to

satisfy the Appendix E guidelines

pertaining to the list of sources due

November 15, 1992.

Stage II

On October 20, 1994, a direct final

rulemaking notice was published (59 FR

52911) partially approving the Stage II

rule submitted on June 7, 1993. That

rulemaking codified OAC 3745–21–

09(DDD), the emissions standards

portion of the rule. While the October

1994 notice discussed the compliance

schedule and the test methods for Stage

II, codification of these portions of the

rule was inadvertently omitted. The

USEPA is now approving OAC 3745–

21–04(C)(64), the Stage II compliance

schedule, and OAC 3745–21–10 (Q), (R),

(S), and Appendices A, B, and C, the

Stage II test methods, as submitted on

June 7, 1993, into the Ohio ozone SIP.

III. Rulemaking Action

The USEPA has evaluated the State’s

submittal for consistency with the Act,

USEPA regulations, and USEPA policy.

The USEPA has determined that the

submitted CTG rules meet the Act’s
15240 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

requirements, and with this action

approves, under section 110(k)(3), the

following rules:

OAC 3745–21–01: (D)(6), (D)(8), (D)(45),

(M)(8).

OAC 3745–21–04: (B); (C)(3)(c),

(C)(4)(b), (C)(5)(b), (C)(6)(b), (C)(8) (b)

and (c), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10)(b), (C)(19)

(b), (c) and (d), (C)(28)(b), (C)(38),

(C)(39), (C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44),

(C)(45), (C)(47), (C)(55), (C)(64) as

submitted on June 7, 1993, (C)(65).

OAC 3745–21–09: (A), (C) through (L),

(N) through (T), (X), (Y), (Z), (BB),

(CC), (DD), (UU), Appendix A; (B)

with the exception of (B)(3) (d) and (e)

for the Cincinnati and Cleveland

nonattainment areas; (U) with the

exception of (U)(1)(h) statewide and

(U)(2)(e)(ii) for the Cincinnati and

Cleveland nonattainment areas.

OAC 3745–21–10: (A), (B), (C), (E), (O),

as submitted in February 1995, and

(Q), (R), (S), and Appendices A, B,

and C as submitted in June 1993.

The Cincinnati and Cleveland

nonattainment areas include the Ohio

Counties of Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont,

Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton, Lake,

Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit, and

Warren.

OAC 3745–21–01 (H), (Q), and (T);

3745–21–04(C) (38), (39), (42), (44), (45),

(47), (49), (51) through (63), and (66),

and (64) as submitted in June 1993;

3745–21–09 (FF) through (TT) and (VV)

through (DDD); and 3745–21–10 (Q),

(R), (S), and Appendices A and B as

submitted in February 1995 are being

addressed in separate rulemaking

actions. Ohio requested that the USEPA

not consider certain paragraphs for

approval into the ozone SIP, including

OAC 3745–21–09(B)(3) (d) and (e) and

09(U)(2)(e)(ii) for the Cleveland and

Cincinnati nonattainment areas and

09(U)(1)(h) statewide. For these

paragraphs, the appropriate previously

approved rules stand as the federally

approved SIP. The State included nonrevised existing rules in the submittal,

and such rules remain part of the

current federally approved Ohio ozone

SIP as they stand; therefore, no Federal

rulemaking action is necessary.

The submitted permit-to-install for

GMC Delco is approved into the Ohio

ozone SIP.

The negative declarations made by

Ohio for the source categories of high

density polyethylene or polypropylene

resin manufacturing, natural gas/

gasoline processing plants, and surface

coating of flat wood paneling are

approved into the Ohio ozone SIP. The

submitted permit-to-install for the

Abitibi-Price Corporation is approved

into the Ohio ozone SIP.

Submittal of a list of major stationary

sources which will be subject to postenactment CTG’s for the source

categories listed in Appendix E to the

General Preamble are a necessary part of

any submittal intended to satisfy section

182(b)(2) of the CAA. The USEPA is

approving into the Ohio ozone SIP the

list of facilities submitted on February

21, 1995.

IV. Comment and Approval Procedure

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

USEPA views this action as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, the USEPA is publishing a

separate document in this Federal

Register publication, which constitutes

a ‘‘proposed approval’’ of the requested

SIP revision and clarifies that the

rulemaking will not be deemed final if

timely adverse or critical comments are

filed. The ‘‘direct final’’ approval shall

be effective on May 22, 1995, unless the

USEPA receives adverse or critical

comments by April 24, 1995.

If the USEPA receives comments

adverse to or critical of the approval

discussed above, the USEPA will

withdraw this approval before its

effective date by publishing a

subsequent Federal Register notice

which withdraws this final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent rulemaking

notice. Please be aware that the USEPA

will institute a second comment period

on this action only if warranted by

revisions to the rulemaking based on the

comments received.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

USEPA hereby advises the public that

this action will be effective on May 22,

1995.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The

USEPA 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.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, the USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids the USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

section 7410(a)(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 22, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15241

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(103) and revising

paragraph (c)(104) to read as follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(103) On June 7, 1993, and February

17, 1995, the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for ozone. The revisions

include one new non-Control Technique

Guideline volatile organic compound

(VOC) rule, corrections to existing VOC

rules, and two permits-to-install.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) OEPA Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC) Rule 3745–21–01, Definitions,

Paragraphs (B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(6), (D)(6),

(D)(8), (D)(22), (D)(45), (D)(48), (D)(58),

(M)(8); effective January 17, 1995.

(B) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–04,

Attainment Dates and Compliance Time

Schedules, Paragraphs (B), (C)(3)(c),

(C)(4)(b), (C)(5)(b), (C)(6)(b), (C)(8) (b)

and (c), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10)(b), (C)(19) (b),

(c), and (d), (C)(28)(b), (C)(38), (C)(39),

(C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44), (C)(45), (C)(47),

(C)(55), (C)(65); effective January 17,

1995.

(C) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–09,

Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Stationary Sources,

Paragraphs (A), (C) through (L), (N)

through (T), (X), (Y), (Z), (BB), (CC),

(DD), (UU), Appendix A; effective

January 17, 1995.

(D) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–09,

Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Stationary Sources,

Paragraph (B) except (B)(3)(d) and (e) for

the Ohio Counties of Ashtabula, Butler,

Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton,

Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit,

and Warren; effective January 17, 1995.

(E) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–09,

Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Stationary Sources,

Paragraph (U) except (U)(1)(h) statewide

and (U)(2)(e)(ii) for the Ohio Counties of

Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga,

Geauga, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain,

Medina, Portage, Summit, and Warren;

effective January 17, 1995.

(F) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–10,

Compliance Test Methods and

Procedures, Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (E),

(O); effective January 17, 1995.

(G) Permit to Install, Application

Number 04–204, for Abitibi-Price

Corporation, APS Premise Number

0448011192. The date of issuance is July

7, 1983.

(H) Permit to Install, Application

Number 08–3273, for General Motors

Corporation Delco Chassis Division,

APS Premise Number 0857040935. The

date of issuance is February 13, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) On June 7, 1993, the OEPA

submitted negative declarations for the

source categories of polypropylene or

high density polyethylene resin

manufacturing, natural gas/gasoline

processing plants, and surface coating of

flat wood paneling. These negative

declarations are approved into the Ohio

ozone SIP.

(B) On February 21, 1995, the OEPA

submitted a list of facilities subject to

the post-enactment source categories

listed in Appendix E to the General

Preamble. 57 FR 18070, 18077 (April 28,

1992). This list is approved into the

Ohio ozone SIP.

(104) On June 7, 1993, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) submitted a revision request to

Ohio’s ozone SIP for approval of the

State’s Stage II vapor recovery program.

The Stage II program requirements

apply to sources in the following areas:

Cincinnati-Hamilton; Cleveland-AkronLorain; and Dayton-Springfield.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) OEPA Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC) Rule 3745–21–04, Attainment

Dates and Compliance Time Schedules,

Paragraph (C)(64); effective date March

31, 1993.

(B) OEPA OAC Rule 3745–21–10,

Compliance Test Methods and

Procedures, Paragraphs (Q), (R), (S),

Appendices A, B, C; effective date

March 31, 1993.

§ 52.1885 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1885 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (b).

[FR Doc. 95–7100 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 102–3–6902; FRL–5173–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Placer

County Air Pollution Control District

and San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval

of revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on January 10,

1995. The revisions concern rules from

the Placer County Air Pollution Control

District (PCAPCD) and the San Diego

County Air Pollution Control District

(SDCAPCD). This approval action will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving these rules is to regulate

emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

The revised rules control VOC

emissions from metal can and coil

coating operations and establish

recordkeeping requirements for sources

emitting VOCs. Thus, EPA is finalizing

the approval of these revisions to the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and

EPA’s evaluation report for each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

available for inspection at the following

locations:

Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

Placer County Air Pollution Control

District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA

95603.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123–1096.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nikole Reaksecker, Rulemaking Section,

Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Telephone: (415)

744–1187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 10, 1995 in 60 FR 2563,

EPA proposed to approve the following

rules into the California SIP: PCAPCD’s

Rule 223, Metal Container Coating;

PCAPCD Rule 410, Recordkeeping for

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions;

and SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal

Container, Metal Closure, and Metal

Coil Coating Operations. Rules 223 and

410 were adopted by PCAPCD on

October 6, 1994 and November 3, 1994,

respectively. Rule 67.4 was adopted by

SDCAPCD on September 27, 1994. The

rules were submitted by the State of

California to EPA on November 30,