[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19128-19130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07259]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0088; FRL-9783-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to convert a conditional 
approval of specified provisions of the Ohio state implementation plan 
(SIP) to a full approval. Ohio submitted a request to approve revised 
particulate matter (PM) rules on February 23, 2012. The PM rule 
revisions being approved establish work practices for coating 
operations, add a section clarifying that sources can be subject to 
both stationary source and fugitive source PM restrictions, and add a 
PM emission limitation exemption for jet engine testing. Pursuant to a 
state commitment underlying a previous conditional approval of this 
rule, the revised rule provides that any exemption from the work 
practice requirements that the state grants to large coating sources 
must be submitted to EPA for approval.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 28, 2013, unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by April 29, 2013. If adverse comments 
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final 
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0088, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakely, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office 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-
2012-0088. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The 
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 email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 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 Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at 
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected].

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 is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Ohio sought SIP approval of its revision of Ohio Administrative 
Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17 to clarify and amend its PM rules in an 
August 22, 2008, submission. EPA approved nine sections, partially 
approved another section, and approved the rescission of another 
section of the OAC 3745-17 PM rules in an October 26, 2010, direct 
final rule (75 FR 65567). EPA conditionally approved OAC 3745-17-11 in 
the October 26, 2010, rule, conditioned on Ohio making specified 
revisions to the rule. The rule that EPA conditionally approved 
established work practice requirements for coating sources in lieu of 
PM emission limits. As written when submitted on August 22, 2008, OAC 
3745-17-11 would have authorized Ohio to exempt coating sources that 
are too large to meet the work practice requirements of the rule from 
complying with those requirements. No EPA approval of the exemption was 
required, thus the state could have unilaterally exempted coating 
sources from the work practice requirements. EPA conditionally approved 
OAC 3745-17-11 based on a commitment by Ohio to revise the rule to 
require that any exemption of large coating sources from the work 
practice requirements be submitted to EPA as a request for revision to 
the SIP.
    Pursuant to its commitment, Ohio revised OAC 3475-17-11, 
Restrictions on Particulate Emissions from Industrial Sources, on 
December 13, 2011. The revised rule was effective on December 23, 2011. 
Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l) to provide that any exemption 
from the surface coating PM work

[[Page 19129]]

practice requirements for sources coating large size items, which the 
state may grant when emission control would be technically infeasible, 
economically unreasonable, or both, must be submitted to EPA for SIP 
approval. The added language makes clear that state action to grant 
such an exemption does not exempt the source from Federal enforcement 
of the work practice requirements in the SIP unless and until EPA 
approves the exemption.
    The version of OAC 3745-17-11 that EPA conditionally approved 
included other revisions from the PM rules EPA approved into the Ohio 
SIP on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65417). Section (A)(5) states that 
sources can be subject to both fugitive dust and stationary source PM 
restrictions if that facility emits PM through its stacks as well as 
emits fugitive dust. Section (A)(1)(m) exempts jet engine test stands 
from the PM emission limits.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?

    EPA finds the revisions to OAC 3745-17-11 submitted on February 23, 
2012, to be approvable.
    Although the primary emissions of concern from surface coating are 
the volatile organic compound emissions that arise from solvent 
evaporation, OAC 3745-17-11 establishes a particulate emission limit 
for coating operations simply because OAC 3745-17-11 establishes 
generic emission limits for any process handling material such as 
coatings and objects being coated. However, testing of particulate 
emissions from coating operations is difficult, making it difficult to 
determine whether particular control measures provide for compliance. 
Therefore, Ohio exempted surface coating operations from the generic 
emission limits in OAC 3745-17-11 and subjected these sources instead 
to a set of rules requiring a specific set of work practices that will 
limit the emissions as well as an emission limit. The exemptions for 
surface coaters are provided in OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(h) to (l).
    As noted in Section I., Ohio revised OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l) to 
require EPA approval, as a SIP revision, for all large item exemptions. 
This satisfies EPA's concerns with director's discretion previously 
expressed to Ohio regarding the August 22, 2008, submission. Therefore, 
EPA is now approving OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(l), as submitted on February 
23, 2012, into the Ohio SIP.
    OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(m) grants an exemption from the rule's PM 
emission limits for jet engine testing. PM emissions resulting from 
this exemption are expected to be small given that a small number of 
engines will be tested at once and only for a limited time. Ohio stated 
that the maximum PM emissions rate resulting from this exemption will 
be 10 pounds per hour. EPA finds that this exemption will have de 
minimis impact and thus finds OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(m) approvable.
    Another addition to OAC 3745-17-11 is section (A)(5), which states 
that source can be subject to both OAC 3745-17-08 and OAC 3745-17-11. 
This section applies to a source that is a fugitive dust source, as 
defined by OAC 3745-17-01 (B)(7), and emits PM through one or more 
stacks. Restrictions on emissions of fugitive dust are given in OAC 
3745-17-08. It is logical that a source emitting PM as fugitive dust 
and also through stack emissions would be subject to the PM emission 
restrictions for both fugitive sources and for stationary sources. 
Thus, EPA is approving this addition to the Ohio SIP.
    A final important element of Ohio's submittal is OAC 3745-17-11 
(C), the requirements for surface coating processes that are exempt 
under OAC 3745-17-11 (A)(1)(h) to (l). Surface coating processes are 
required by OAC 3745-17-11 (C)(1) to use a dry particulate filter, 
waterwash, or equivalent control device to limit PM emission. Subject 
facilities must follow the work practice requirements given in OAC 
3745-17-11 (C)(2) including maintaining documentation, properly 
operating the control device, and conducting periodic inspections of 
the control device. This section also requires a surface coating source 
to comply with any PM emission limits given in a facility's permit 
instead of the previous listed requirement of OAC 3745-17-11 (C)(1) and 
(2). EPA finds these requirements to be a suitable equivalent to 
subjecting these sources to the generic emission limit in Ohio's 
process weight rate rule.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is converting its prior conditional approval to full approval 
because Ohio submitted revisions to OAC 3745-17-11 that satisfy the 
conditions listed in EPA's conditional approval. EPA is approving all 
of OAC 3745-17-11, as effective on December 23, 2011, into the Ohio 
SIP.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 28, 2013 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by April 29, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective May 
28, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or

[[Page 19130]]

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(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 28, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed 
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(157) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (157) On February 23, 2012, Ohio submitted revisions to Ohio 
Administrative Code Chapter 3745-17, Rule 3745-17-11. The revisions 
contain particulate matter restriction for industrial sources in the 
State of Ohio necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5, annual PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-17-11 ``Restrictions on 
particulate emissions from industrial processes'', effective December 
23, 2011.
    (B) December 13, 2011, ``Director's Final Findings and Orders'', 
signed by Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency.


Sec.  52.1919  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.1919 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

[FR Doc. 2013-07259 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P