[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54308-54310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26197]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MI36-01-6712a; FRL-5294-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Michigan; 
Eagle-Ottawa Leather Co. Site-Specific SIP Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA approves a revision to the Michigan State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company facility 
located in Ottawa County, Michigan. This approval makes federally 
enforceable the State's consent order requiring control of volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from the Eagle-Ottawa facility. The 
EPA's review of the revision shows that the controls are sufficient to 
constitute Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for this 
facility. The EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 
economic feasibility.

DATES: This action is effective December 22, 1995 unless adverse 
comments are received within 30 days of this publication. If the 
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are 
available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Douglas Aburano at (312) 
353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation 
Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended on November 15, 
1990, sets forth the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas which 
have been classified as moderate or above. Section 182(b)(2) requires 
the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
for sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Section 182(b)(2)(C) 
requires that States submit revisions to the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for major sources of VOCs for which the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not issued a control 
technology guidelines (CTG) document.
    The Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company is located in Ottawa County which 
is part of the Grand Rapids moderate ozone nonattainment area. The 
facility is a major source of VOCs for which a CTG has not been issued 
and, therefore, the State of Michigan has submitted a site-specific SIP 
revision, in the form of a consent order, that describes RACT for this 
source. This submittal satisfies the RACT requirement for this 
facility.

II. Evaluation of State Submittal

    The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) followed the 
required legal procedures for granting this source a site-specific 
consent order which are prerequisites for EPA to consider including 
this consent order in Michigan's federally enforceable SIP. A public 
comment period was held between April 25, 1994 through May 26, 1994. 
This public comment period was followed by a public hearing on May 26, 
1994. This consent order was submitted to the EPA as a site-specific 
SIP revision under signature of the Governor's designee.
    At the time the RACT evaluation was performed, it was thought, by 
the State, that only the three oldest lines needed to be evaluated for 
RACT. This is not the case and an evaluation should have been performed 
on all seven coating lines at the facility.
    The consent order that was originally submitted by the State set a 
VOC limit of 5.8 lbs/gallon of coating, minus water and exempt 
solvents, as applied. EPA considers this to be acceptable as RACT for 
the coating lines evaluated in the RACT study. In order to satisfy the 
RACT requirement that all emission points at this facility have RACT 
limits applied to them, the remaining four lines will have a VOC limit 
of 3.1 lbs/gallon of coating, minus water and exempt solvents, as 
applied. This 3.1 limit is considered to be more stringent than RACT 
because it is a lower limit than the 5.8 limit which is considered RACT 
for the coating lines at this facility. The company has signed a letter 
indicating that the 3.1 limit is acceptable to them and will be 
incorporated as permit conditions in the federally enforceable permits 
that apply to these lines.
    This RACT submittal is considered approvable because the control 
requirements evaluated as RACT for the three oldest lines have also 
been incorporated as permit conditions for the four lines for which a 
RACT evaluation was not performed. The EPA finds it acceptable that 
although a RACT analysis was not performed on the four newer lines, 
these lines are sufficiently 

[[Page 54309]]
similar to the three older lines that RACT will be the same for all 
lines.
    In the RACT study performed on the 3 oldest surface coating lines 
at this facility, various VOC controls were evaluated for 
appropriateness. The controls considered for the coating lines were: 
coating conversion, thermal incineration, catalytic incineration, and 
carbon adsorption. Based upon the results of this study, the State and 
Eagle-Ottawa have entered into a consent agreement limiting each of the 
lines to 5.8 pounds VOC per gallon of coating, minus water and exempt 
solvents, as applied, for the 3 lines evaluated in this study. The 
company has signed a letter indicating that the four lines that were 
not evaluated in this study, already have federally enforceable 
construction permits, will have the VOC limits in these permits set at 
3.1 pounds VOC per gallon of coating, minus water and exempt solvents, 
as applied, which is more stringent than the limit found to be RACT for 
the lines that were evaluated in the RACT evaluation.
    This RACT limitation requires the use of water-borne coatings but 
will still allow the use of solvent-borne coatings in applications 
where water-borne coatings could compromise product quality. All other 
control techniques have been eliminated on the basis of technological 
infeasibility or unreasonable cost. This same limit of 5.8 pounds of 
VOC per gallon of coating, minus water and exempted solvents, as 
applied, has been proposed as RACT for leather coating sources for the 
States of New York (57 FR 52606) and New Jersey (58 FR 38326). In 
addition to the limits which control the emission of VOCs into the 
atmosphere, appropriate recordkeeping requirements have been placed in 
the permits to aid in determining compliance with these limits.
    In addition to the coating lines that were evaluated for RACT, this 
facility also has a research and development laboratory which is also a 
source of VOC emissions and is not currently covered under Federal 
regulations. The State did not include this point of emissions in the 
RACT evaluation and cited a State permitting regulation (which exempts 
pilot processes and research facilities from control) as justification 
for this exclusion. Region 5 commented that it is inappropriate to 
exclude this point of emissions from a RACT evaluation and that doing 
so is not in keeping with current VOC RACT policy. This comment was 
made in a letter to the State dated June 1, 1994.
    Upon reviewing further documentation provided as technical support 
for this site-specific SIP revision it was found that the research and 
development laboratory emitted approximately 2 tons of VOCs in the past 
2 years. Although a thorough RACT analysis has not been performed on 
this point of emissions at the facility, Region 5 is in agreement with 
the State that it is probably economically unreasonable to control a 
source of emissions of this size. Therefore, RACT for this point of 
emissions can be considered continuing to operate without controls.
    The EPA has reviewed the procedures that the State has followed in 
developing the RACT limits for this facility and has found them to be 
approvable.

III. Action

    The EPA approves Michigan's Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company site-
specific SIP submittal of July 13, 1994. With this action, EPA 
incorporates Michigan's Stipulation for Entry of Consent Order and 
Final Order No. 7-1994 into the SIP, making this consent order 
federally enforceable.
    Because EPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine, we 
are approving it without prior proposal. This action will become 
effective on December 22, 1995. However, if we receive adverse comments 
by November 22, 1995, EPA will publish a document that withdraws this 
action.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The EPA 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.

B. Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
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, EPA 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.
    This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I 
certify that this action 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 the regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today 
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
    This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State 
or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or the private 
sector, result from this action.

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 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 

[[Page 54310]]
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.

    Dated: August 28, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus
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 X--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(99) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) *  *  *
    (99) On July 13, 1994, the State of Michigan requested a revision 
to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State requested 
that a consent order for the Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company of Grand 
Haven be included in the SIP.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. State of Michigan, Department of 
Natural Resources, Stipulation for Entry of Consent Order and Final 
Order No. 7-1994 which was adopted on July 13, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95-26197 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P