Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0545-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of Ohio's Volatile Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for Cincinnati and Dayton
Posted Date: 2006-12-06T05:00Z

[Federal Register: December 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 234)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 70699-70702]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06de06-17]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0545; FRL-8251-6]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio; Volatile 
Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for Cincinnati and Dayton

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 9, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 
EPA) submitted several volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for 
approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The primary purpose 
of the rules is to partially replace the VOC reductions from Ohio's 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (E-Check) program (which ended on 
December 31, 2005) in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. These 
replacement rules include a provision requiring the use of lower 
emitting solvents in cold cleaner degreasers, the use of more efficient 
auto refinishing painting application techniques and a rule requiring 
the use of lower emitting portable fuel containers. These rules are 
approvable because they contain more stringent requirements than Ohio's 
existing rules and they are enforceable. Ohio has correctly calculated 
their VOC emission reduction impact. EPA is also approving several 
other rule revisions, all of which meet EPA requirements, including an 
exemption for its printing rules, a site-specific rule for an aerosol 
can filling facility, elimination of the fluid catalytic cracking unit 
limitations for a Marathon Petroleum LLC facility, and an alternative 
leak detection and repair program for the Premcor Lima Refinery.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0545, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
     Fax: (312) 886-5824.
     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.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 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-
2006-0545. 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 Steven Rosenthal at (312) 
886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. 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 Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of Ohio's Submitted VOC Rules?
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--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions

[[Page 70700]]

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. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing to approve several VOC rules into the OhioSIP. 
These include more stringent solvent degreasing rules, an exemption for 
its printing rules, a site-specific rule for an aerosol can filling 
facility, elimination of the fluid catalytic cracking unit limitations 
for a Marathon Petroleum Company LLC facility, an alternative leak 
detection and repair program for the Premcor Lima Refinery, a rule 
requiring the marketing and sale of only low-emitting portable fuel 
containers, and a rule including the use of high efficiency paint 
application equipment at auto body refinishing operations.

III. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    The primary purpose of the rules that Ohio submitted is to obtain 
VOC emission reductions to partially offset the increase in VOC 
emissions resulting from elimination of its E-Check program in the 
Cincinnati and Dayton areas. Ohio EPA has submitted additional VOC and 
nitrogen oxide emission reduction measures to fully compensate for this 
increase in emissions. These additional emission reduction measures, as 
well as other demonstrations needed to remove the E-Check program from 
the Ohio SIP, will be the subject of future rulemaking actions. Ohio 
has also submitted several site-specific rule revisions that have been 
requested by emission sources in Ohio. These rule revisions are also 
addressed in this notice.

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of Ohio's Submitted VOC Rules?

A. New VOC Rules and Rule Revisions

(1) 3745-21-09(O)--Solvent Metal Cleaning
    A new paragraph (3745-21-09(O)(2)(e)(i)) restricts owners and 
operators of cold cleaners located in the Cincinnati and Dayton ozone 
nonattainment areas to the use of solvents with a maximum vapor 
pressure of 1.0 mmHg, which results in a 67 percent emission reduction, 
after a compliance date of May 1, 2006 (as specified in 3745-21-
04(C)(16)(c). This vapor pressure limitation was chosen to further 
reduce VOC emissions from cold cleaners. An exemption was added for the 
cleaning of paint gun parts. This exemption, in 3745-21-
09(O)(2)(e)(iv), is approvable because the requirement to use less 
volatile paint cleaners would probably require the use of higher 
emitting processes and because the removal of paint and coatings from 
paint gun parts is not generally considered, and regulated, by cold 
cleaning regulations. In addition, 3745-21-(6)(b) clarifies that 
regardless of whether or not a solvent metal cleaning operation is 
exempt from the requirements in 3745-21-09(O)(2)-(O)(5), because it is 
subject to the halogenated solvent cleaning rule in subpart T of 40 CFR 
Part 63, the solvent in a cold cleaner cannot exceed 1.0 mmHg. These 
revisions to the Ohio's solvent metal cleaning rule are approvable 
because they make the rule more stringent and are enforceable.
(2) 3745-21-09(T)--Leaks From Petroleum Refinery Equipment
    OAC 3745-21-09(T)(4) allows the director of Ohio EPA to accept an 
alternative petroleum refinery monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
program to that required by (T)(1) of this rule if the alternative 
program is at least as effective in identifying, documenting and 
reporting leaks as the program in (T)(1). A new paragraph (T)(4)(a) 
approves the November 19,2002 alternative monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting program entitled ``Premcor Lima Refinery, LDAR Plan'' by the 
director of Ohio EPA. The alternative monitoring, recordkeeping and 
reporting program is approved in the SIP. EPA is hereby approving OAC 
3745-21-09(T)(4), and the November 19, 2002, alternative monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting program entitled ``Premcor Lima Refinery, 
LDAR Plan,'' because EPA agrees that this alternative program is at 
least as effective as the existing program in (T)(1) in detecting and 
reducing emissions from leaks.
 (3) 3745-21-09(Y)--Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure and Publication 
Rotogravure Printing Lines
    A new paragraph, 3745-21-09(Y)(2)(d), was added to exempt any 
printing line at a facility in which the total maximum usage of VOC in 
all coatings and inks employed in all lines is less than or equal to 
one hundred tons per year. This exemption is consistent with EPA 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) guidance. New paragraph 
3745-21-09(Y)(3) adds a ``once in, always in'' provision which 
clarifies that a facility is not eligible for a facility exemption once 
the control requirements of this rule apply to a facility. This ``once 
in, always in'' provision is also consistent with EPA RACT policy. 
These new paragraphs are approvable.
(4) 3745-21-09(RR)--Sherwin Williams Diversified Brands
    This new paragraph contains site-specific RACT requirements for the 
Sherwin Williams facility in Bedford Heights that fills aerosol cans. 
The primary source of emissions from this facility is filling aerosol 
cans with VOC propellant. The numerical emission limit is 0.75 pounds 
of VOC per 1,000 aerosol cans produced, which also includes, for each 
rolling 12-month period, the emissions from Sherwin Williams' liquid 
mixing tanks, can liquid filling operations, gashouse operations, can 
brushing operations and can piercing operations. The RACT requirements 
specify a minimum 90% control efficiency for the required thermal 
incinerator, and specify that VOC emissions from non-emergency safety 
diversions of a thermal incinerator are to be included in determining 
compliance with the VOC emission rate limitation. This rule is 
approvable because (1) it requires that, when operating, a gashouse 
(the largest emission source where the propellant is added) thermal 
incinerator meets a minimum 90% destruction efficiency and (2) 
clarifies safety diversions, the emissions which are included in the 
0.75 lbs VOC/1000 cans limit, as well as emergency events (during which 
the line is shut down), which are not included. The safety diversion 
and emergency event provisions are necessary because of the potential 
for an explosion in using an incinerator to control gashouse emissions.

[[Page 70701]]

(5) 3745-21-09(VV)--Marathon Petroleum Company
    The control requirements for the Marathon facility's fluid 
catalytic cracking unit, previously contained in 3745-21-09(VV)(1), 
have been deleted in order to reduce overlapping and conflicting 
requirements with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from PetroleumRefineries (Refinery MACT). Deletion of 3745-
21-09(VV)(1) is approvable because the control requirements in 40 CFR 
Part 63,Subpart UUU of the Refinery MACT are at least as stringent as 
the control requirements in 3745-21-09(VV)(1), and will achieve 
equivalent or greater emission reductions from the Marathon facility's 
fluid catalytic cracking unit.
(6) 3745-21-17--Portable Fuel Container and Spouts
    This new rule, containing the standards for portable fuel 
containers (PFCs), was added as an additional control strategy to lower 
future VOC emissions throughout Ohio. PFCs are used to transport and 
store fuel(gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuel) from a retail 
distribution point to a point of use and eventually dispense fuel into 
equipment (e.g., a lawnmower). These containers come in a variety of 
shapes and sizes with nominal capacities ranging from 1 to over 6 
gallons. This rule is based upon the rule by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB), which is the leader in PFC technology. This 
rule is enforceable, and, based upon CARB test data, PFCs meeting these 
limits will achieve a 75 percent emission reduction. This rule is 
therefore approvable.
(7) 3745-21-18--Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 
Refinishing Operations
    This new rule was added to lower VOC emissions from auto body 
refinishing operations, most of which are at small body shops that 
repair and refinish automobiles. This rule eliminates the use of air 
spray, which has a low transfer efficiency resulting in higher 
emissions, requires proper training in the use of paint application 
equipment, specifies proper spray gun cleaning techniques and requires 
that VOC containing materials be stored in nonabsorbent, non-leaking 
containers and that the containers be closed when not in use. This rule 
also requires that auto body refinishing facilities provide 
documentation of the above cited control measures. This rule is 
approvable because it eliminates air spray and adds additional control 
measures that must be properly documented.

B. Revisions That Correct Errors in Previously Adopted and Effective 
(On May 27, 2005) VOC RACT Rules

(1) 3745-21-01(V)(9)--Control Device Definition
    This definition of a control device for SOCMI Reactors 
andDistillation Units was amended to eliminate a reference to a rule 
section that had been removed. This revised definition is approvable 
because it properly defines a control device and clarifies that a 
recovery device is not considered a control device.
(2) 3745-21-12(H)(4)--Bakeries
    This section requires any uncontrolled bakery oven exempted under 
paragraph (D)(2), and not (D)(2)(a) which does not exist, to keep 
records to determine whether the applicability cutoffs in (D)(2) have 
been exceeded. This section also requires that Ohio EPA or its 
delegated local air agency be notified if the applicability cutoff in 
(D)(2) has been exceeded. This section is therefore approvable.
(3) 3745-21-01(AA)--Incorporation by Reference
    The revisions to the incorporation by reference section include 
both minor changes to properly format citations and new references to 
materials referenced in Ohio's VOC regulations. These revisions include 
the addition of the ``Standard Specification for Portable Kerosene 
Containers for Consumer Use,'' ``Standard Specification for Portable 
Gasoline Containers for Consumer Use,'' ``Code for the Manufacture and 
Storage of Aerosol Products,'' and ``Protocol for Determining the Daily 
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty 
Truck Topcoat Operations,'' and are approvable.

C. Analysis of VOC Emission Reductions From Individual Control Measures 
Analyses (Please note that these rules have been previously described 
in section IV. (A))

(1) 3745-21-09(O)--Solvent Metal Cleaning
    Reducing the vapor pressure in cold cleaners to no greater than 1.0 
mmHg has been documented to result in a 67 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions. Such reduction is based upon a survey of existing solvent 
vapor pressures. This regulation is based on similar regulations 
previously promulgated in the Chicago/Metro East areas of Illinois, 
which was also used as a basis for the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 
model rule as discussed in ``Industrial Cleaning'', Midwest RPO (LADCO) 
white paper dated March 14, 2005. EPA's default 80 percent rule 
effectiveness was also applied. Using 2002 baseline emissions for VOC 
(tons/day), a growth factor of 1.199, a 67 percent reduction and an 80 
percent rule effectiveness resulted in Cincinnati area estimated 
reductions of 2.57 tons per day (TPD) for 2006. Dayton area estimated 
reductions were determined to be 1.75 TPD for 2006.
(2) 3745-21-18--Commercial Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 
Refinishing Operations
    This rule requires the use of higher transfer efficiency paint 
application equipment, which has been documented to achieve a 35 
percent reduction, according to the OTC Pechan Report, dated March 
2001, and in the LADCO white paper ``Auto Body Refinishing,'' dated 
March 28, 2005. EPA's default 80 percent rule effectiveness was also 
applied. Using 2002 baseline emissions for VOC (tons/day), a 1.175 
growth factor, a 35 percent reduction and an 80 percent rule 
effectiveness resulted in Cincinnati area estimated reductions of 0.44 
TPD for 2006. Dayton area estimated reductions were determined to be 
0.30 TPD for 2006.
(3) 3745-21-17--Portable Fuel Container and Spouts
    A February 9, 2005 LADCO white paper estimates that 12,694 tons of 
VOCs are emitted yearly in Ohio from PFCs. Ohio has adopted this rule 
based on CARB's PFC rule, which has been documented by CARB to achieve 
a 75 percent VOC reduction. Emission reductions are estimated by 
considering a 75 percent control efficiency, a 10 percent annual 
turnover rate, and an 80 percent rule effectiveness. These reductions 
will begin to occur in 2007, when this rule goes into effect.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[[Page 70702]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded 
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

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

Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

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

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

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a 
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 21, 2006.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-20638 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P