[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15235-15241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7100]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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, 
[[Page 15236]] 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 Dayton-
Springfield, Cincinnati, Youngstown-Warren, 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, Youngstown-Warren, Canton, Toledo and Akron 
nonattainment areas and December 31, 1987, for the Cleveland and 
Cincinnati nonattainment areas. Therefore, Dayton-Springfield, 
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 
[[Page 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 post-enactment 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:

[[Page 15238]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Allowable   Allowable            
                                       VOC, lb/    VOC, lb/     Percent 
         Nonattainment area            day, RACT   day, Ohio  Difference
                                        cutoff      cutoff              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, [[Page 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-
to-install, 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 CTG-based 
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 post-enactment 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 [[Page 15240]] 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 non-revised 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 post-enactment 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-for-profit 
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:

    [[Page 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:


Sec. 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-Akron-Lorain; 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.


Sec. 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