Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0036-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final Approval of Ohio Reinforced Plastic Composites Rule
Posted Date: 2011-07-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41086-41088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17471]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0036; FRL-9430-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Volatile Organic Compound Reinforced Plastic Composites 
Production Operations Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
a new rule for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from reinforced plastic composites production operations. This rule 
applies to any facility that has reinforced plastic composites 
production operations. This rule is approvable because it satisfies the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA proposed this rule for 
approval on January 27, 2011, and received three sets of comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0036. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through 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 Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven 
Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.

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

I. What public comments were received on the proposed approval and 
what is EPA's response?
II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the basis of this 
action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What public comments were received on the proposed approval and what 
is EPA's response?

    EPA received three comments. A discussion of each follows:
    (A) An anonymous comment was in support of EPA's approval of Ohio's 
rule.
    (B) The Aquatic Company commented that it is concerned that the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) limits in subpart WWWW of 
40 CFR part 63, for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, 
underestimate emissions generated by tub/shower manufacturers and notes 
that EPA is currently working to correct these and other issues with 
subpart WWWW. The Aquatic Company opposes any rule which is tied to the 
subpart WWWW regulations. This comment is not directly relevant to this 
rulemaking because it is mainly a complaint against the MACT and 
provides no suggested revisions to Ohio's rule.
    (C) Premix, Inc. commented that it objects to the 25 tons VOC per 
year applicability cutoff for sheet mold compound (SMC) machines. 
Premix has successfully, and cost-effectively, controlled VOCs from its 
SMC machines using its Tight Wet Area Enclosures and a small 
Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer.

[[Page 41087]]

This control system has reduced VOC emissions from its two SMC machines 
at its facility in North Kingsville, Ohio by more than 95 percent for a 
period of 18 months. Premix submits that this new VOC control system 
can be cost-effectively implemented on a single, stand-alone SMC 
machine, and that therefore EPA should not approve the 25 tons VOC per 
year applicability cutoff in Ohio's rule.
    EPA agrees that the Premix control system represents a technically 
and economically feasible control system that should be considered to 
represent reasonably available control (RACT), which is the level of 
control required by VOC sources in ozone nonattainment areas. However, 
all of Ohio is designated as attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard and therefore RACT is not required. EPA notes that if and when 
portions of Ohio are designated to nonattainment of a new ozone 
standard, it is unlikely that Ohio's reinforced plastic composites rule 
will be considered to satisfy RACT for SMC machines.

II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the basis of this 
action?

    EPA is approving into Ohio's SIP new rule Ohio Administrative Code 
(OAC) 3745-21-25 ``Control of VOC Emissions from Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production Operations.'' This rule was submitted by the Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to EPA on November 10, 2010, 
and contains enforceable requirements for VOC emissions from reinforced 
plastic composites production operations. This rule was adopted to 
establish VOC requirements for such operations to replace the 
requirements contained in OAC rule 3745-21-07 ``Control of emissions of 
organic materials from stationary sources.'' 3745-21-07 is Ohio's 
general rule for the control of organic materials from stationary 
sources that are not controlled by a specific VOC RACT rule. 3745-21-07 
has been revised by Ohio, and the revised rule (which is the subject of 
a separate Federal Register action) excludes reinforced plastic 
composites production operations.
    In EPA's January 27, 2011 proposal (76 FR 4835), we present a 
detailed analysis of the State's submission. The reader is referred to 
that notice for additional background on the submission.
    As discussed in the proposal, upon achieving compliance with this 
rule, the reinforced plastic composites production operations at a 
facility are not required to meet the requirements of 3745-21-07. This 
exemption from OAC 3745-21-07 is appropriate because OAC 3745-21-25 
contains VOC requirements specific to reinforced plastic composites 
production operations, whereas OAC 3745-21-07 is a general rule that 
covers a number of source categories.
    For facilities subject to OAC 3745-21-25, the control requirements 
are more stringent than the requirements for these facilities under OAC 
3745-21-07. However, the applicability cutoff of OAC 3745-21-07 is 8 
pounds/hour, or 40 pounds/day, as compared to a less stringent 25 tons 
VOC/year cutoff for the control requirements of OAC 3745-21-25 for SMC 
manufacturing operations. The main purpose of this rule is the control 
of such SMC operations because SMC machines were previously covered by 
OAC 3745-21-07. Because overall, considering both applicability and the 
control requirements for subject sources, OAC 3745-21-07 is more 
stringent than OAC 3745-21-25 for SMC machines, EPA must evaluate, 
according to section 110(l) of the CAA, whether the revision might 
interfere with attainment, maintenance, or any other CAA requirements.
    Ohio EPA submitted an October 25, 2010 demonstration under section 
110(l) of the CAA that the less stringent applicability cutoff in OAC 
3745-21-25 does not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), nor interfere with any other requirement 
of the CAA. Ohio documented that the actual emission increase from this 
change in applicability cutoffs would be 7.1 tons of VOC/year, and that 
the worst case maximum theoretical increase in uncontrolled emissions 
is 159 tons of VOC/year.
    Most of the SMC production in Ohio is in the Cleveland area. In 
December 2007 Ohio EPA promulgated rules reducing emissions of nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) in the Cleveland area. These rules, in OAC 
Chapter 3745-110, entitled ``NOX RACT,'' addressed 
NOX emissions from stationary sources such as boilers, 
combustion turbines, and stationary internal combustion engines. The 
rules were made applicable as an attainment strategy in the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain ozone moderate nonattainment area. On September 15, 2009, 
EPA redesignated the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain metropolitan area as 
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At the same time, EPA 
approved a waiver for this area from the NOX RACT 
requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA, based on the area attaining 
the standard. Ohio's NOXRACT rules are, therefore, surplus 
and can be used to offset any increase in emissions from SMC machines 
in Ohio. Ohio obtained 538 tons NOx/year actual (and surplus) emission 
reductions from the Arcelor-Mittal facility as a result of the 
installation of low NOX burners in its three reheat 
furnaces. The requirement for these low NOX burners is 
permanent and enforceable because they are needed to comply with OAC 
3745-110, Ohio's NOX RACT rule. In the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area, the ratio of NOX emissions to VOC emissions is 
approximately 1.36 pounds NOx/pound VOC. Applying this factor, the VOC 
offset potential for the Arcelor-Mittal facility NOX 
reductions is 396 tons VOC/year. Consequently, EPA concludes that the 
net effect of the relaxation of the applicability criterion plus the 
compensation from requiring NOX emission reductions at 
Arcelor-Mittal will be an environmental improvement in the Cleveland 
area and will not interfere with attainment, maintenance, or other CAA 
requirements.
    In addition, two uncontrolled SMC machines are located at 
Continental Structural Plastics in Van Wert County, which are outside 
of the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone moderate nonattainment area. 
This rule relaxation is not contrary to the requirements of section 
110(l) because the most recent three years of data (2008-2010) 
indicates that the nearest monitor, which is in Lima (in the Lima-Van 
Wert-Wapakoneta, Ohio Combined Statistical Area), has a 3-year ozone 
design value which is well under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard (70.0 
parts per billion vs. the 75.0 parts per billion standard), such that 
removal of a requirement for controlling these SMC machines may be 
judged not to have the potential to cause violations of the standard. 
Furthermore, if any of its SMC machines exceeds 25 tons VOC per year, 
the facility is required to reduce their emissions by 95 percent.
    In conclusion, OAC 3745-21-25 is approvable because all of Ohio is 
in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and therefore a RACT 
level of control is not required and Ohio demonstrated that a 
relaxation of the applicability cutoff for SMC machines, from 8 pounds 
VOC per hour to 25 tons VOC per year, per machine, does not interfere 
with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or 
interfere with any other requirement of the CAA, as required by section 
110(l) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission

[[Page 41088]]

that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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:
     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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     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.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     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 Act; and
     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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2011. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(153) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (153) On November 10, 2010, the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted new rule OAC 3745-21-25 ``Control of VOC 
Emissions from Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations'' 
for approval into its state implementation plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-25 ``Control of VOC 
Emissions from Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations,'' 
effective November 11, 2010.
    (B) November 1, 2010, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders,'' 
signed by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    (ii) Additional material. (A) An October 25, 2010, letter from 
Robert F. Hodanbosi, Chief Division of Air Pollution Control of the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to Susan Hedman, Regional 
Administrator, containing documentation of noninterference, under 
section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, of the less stringent 
applicability cutoff for sheet mold compound machines.

[FR Doc. 2011-17471 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P