[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6545-6547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3788]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MI37-01-6713a; FRL-5422-5]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Michigan; 
Site-Specific SIP Revision for the Enamalum Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA approves a revision to the Michigan State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that was submitted on August 26, 
1994 by the State of Michigan. This revision is a site-specific SIP 
revision that determines the appropriate reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) level for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from the Enamalum Corporation Novi, Michigan facility. This approval of 
the site-specific SIP revision allows for a limit higher than that 
found in the control technology guidance (CTG) document for this source 
category. Approval of this site-specific SIP revision is based upon the 
argument that the Enamalum Corporation facility cannot afford the 
controls normally required by the State's RACT rule. In the proposed 
rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is proposing approval 
of, and soliciting comments on, this requested SIP revision. If adverse 
comments are received on this action, the EPA will withdraw this final 
rule and address the comments received in response to this action in a 
final rule on the related proposed rule, which is being published in 
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register. A second public 
comment period will not be held. Parties interested in commenting on 
this action should do so at this time. This approval makes federally 
enforceable the State's consent order that has been incorporated by 
reference.

DATES: This ``direct final'' is effective on April 22, 1996, unless EPA 
receives adverse or critical comments by March 22, 1996. 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 Programs Branch (AR-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 Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 
60604, (312) 353-6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Enamalum Corporation owns a facility located in Novi, Michigan 
that 

[[Page 6546]]
performs metal coating operations. Because this facility is located in 
what was the Detroit-Ann Arbor moderate ozone nonattainment area and 
because its VOC emissions exceed the applicability cutpoint found in 
Michigan's RACT rule for this source category (R 336.621 Emission of 
volatile organic compounds from existing metallic surface coating lines 
or ``Rule 621''), it is subject to the RACT requirements for this 
source category. The State of Michigan has adopted the requirements 
found in EPA's CTG for this source category (``Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface 
coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'') and the State's 
Rule 621 has been approved into the federally enforceable Michigan SIP.
    The EPA issued CTG requires the prescriptive coating limit of 3.5 
pounds of VOC per gallon of coating, minus water, as applied. 
Michigan's Rule 621 reflects this requirement.
    The State of Michigan issued a consent order, Stipulation for Entry 
of Final Order By Consent SIP No. 6-1994, to the Enamalum Corporation 
that allows this facility to exceed the VOC emission limit established 
in Michigan's Rule 621. Specifically, the consent order allows the 
facility to use coatings with a 6.5 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating 
(minus water) as applied, limit.
    The State of Michigan, on behalf of the Enamalum Corporation, has 
submitted to EPA a site-specific SIP revision requesting that the 
State's consent order now be approved into the Michigan SIP.

II. Evaluation of State Submittal

    Michigan submitted this site-specific SIP revision to the EPA on 
August 26, 1994 under the signature of the Governor's designee, Roland 
Harmes, Director of the former Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
(now called the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, but for 
purposes of this document the abbreviation ``MDNR'' will be used). The 
EPA found this rule to be complete in a letter to Roland Harmes dated 
November 8, 1994. The MDNR followed the required legal procedures for 
adopting this rule which are prerequisites for EPA to consider 
including this rule in Michigan's federally enforceable ozone SIP. A 
public comment period on this rule was open from March 25, 1994 through 
April 26, 1994, and a public hearing for this rule was held on April 
26, 1994.
    The MDNR has submitted for approval into the federally enforceable 
SIP the consent order that it has issued for the Enamalum Corporation's 
Novi facility. The basis for arguing that this site-specific SIP 
revision should be approved into the SIP, is that this facility cannot 
reasonably afford the controls required by Michigan's Rule 621.
    A number of controls have been considered by the Enamalum 
Corporation and none have been found to be considered reasonable and 
have been eliminated as potential RACT options.

A. Process Description

    The Enamalum Corporation applies a high performance architectural 
coating, Kynar 500, to aluminum extrusions used on commercial, 
storefront, and high-rise buildings. The Kynar 500 coating emits, on 
average, 6.1 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating when applied. This 
coating is being used because it meets the American Architectural 
Manufacturer's Association (AAMA) specification 605.2-1985 as a high 
performance architectural coating. Few other coatings are able to meet 
both this AAMA standard and the VOC RACT limit.

B. Control Scenario I--Powder Coatings

    Powder coatings are currently available as substitutes for the 
liquid Kynar 500 coating. These powder coatings are able to meet both 
the AAMA standard and the Michigan VOC RACT limit but are not 
considered reasonable in terms of cost for the Enamalum Corporation.
    The Enamalum Corporation is currently using powder coatings on some 
of its products but has not been able to use these coatings in a cost-
effective manner on their outdoor products that will be exposed to 
extreme environmental conditions. The Enamalum Corporation has found 
that the amount of powder coating needed to produce a desirable product 
would increase the cost of the product to such a degree that their 
customers would no longer purchase their product. The cost of coating 
more than doubles when powder coatings are used in place of the liquid 
Kynar 500 coating. Also, the company has provided information 
indicating that the cost of powder coatings as means of a VOC control 
is beyond what would normally be considered RACT on a dollars per ton 
of VOC controlled basis. For these reasons, the use of powder coatings 
has been eliminated as a RACT option on basis of economic 
reasonability.

C. Add-On Incineration

    The use of an add-on incinerator, like the use of powder coating, 
is considered to be a technically feasible way to control the emissions 
of VOCs from this source. However, because of economic considerations, 
it has also been eliminated as a RACT option.
    Add-on incineration generally is considered to be economically 
reasonable on a dollars per ton of VOC reduced basis. However, MDNR was 
found that the expense of an incinerator is not affordable for this 
specific source.
    The Enamalum Corporation has submitted information demonstrating 
that the net present value of the company after purchasing and 
operating an incinerator would be less than the net present value of 
the company if the facility were to shut down. When a company is able 
to make this demonstration for a control technique, this control 
technique is considered to be unaffordable by that company.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    The EPA approves Michigan's site-specific SIP revision, thereby 
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 April 22, 1996. However, if we receive adverse comments by 
March 22, 1996, 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), 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 

[[Page 6547]]
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. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

D. Unfunded Mandates

    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.

E. 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 April 22, 1996. 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.

    Dated: February 2, 1996.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting 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)(103) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) On August 26, 1994 Michigan submitted a site-specific SIP 
revision in the form of a consent order for incorporation into the 
federally enforceable ozone SIP. This consent order determines 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) specifically for the 
Enamalum Corporation Novi, Michigan facility for the emission of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following Michigan Stipulation 
for Entry of Final Order By Consent.
    (A) State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Stipulation 
for Entry of Final Order By Consent No. 6-1994 which was adopted by the 
State on June 27, 1994.

[FR Doc. 96-3788 Filed 2-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P