[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