[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21960-21966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09506]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0802; FRL-9962-07-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Volatile Organic Compound Control Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 21961]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a November 18, 2015, State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency consisting of adjustments and additions to volatile 
organic compound (VOC) rules in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The 
changes to these rules are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year 
periodic review of its VOC rules and a new rule to update the VOC 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings source category for the 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area (``Cleveland area'') consisting of 
Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit 
counties. Additionally, EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP an 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emission limit for Arcelor-Mittal 
Cleveland that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA section 110(l) 
anti-backsliding demonstration for architectural aluminum coatings.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0802 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, 
[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 purpose of this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?
    A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements
    B. References to Operating Permits
    C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements
    D. Solvent Cleaning Operations
    E. OAC Rule 3745-21-24 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
    F. OAC Rule 3745-21-26 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal 
and Plastic Parts
    G. OAC Rule 3745-21-28 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and 
Sealants
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the purpose of this action?

    EPA proposes to approve a November 18, 2015, Ohio SIP submittal 
consisting of adjustments and additions to OAC Chapter 3745-21. 
Specifically, this includes amended OAC rules 3745-21-01, 3745-21-03, 
3745-21-04, 3745-21-08, 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 
3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-17, 3745-21-18, 3745-21-19, 
3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-25, 3745-21-27, 
3745-21-28, 3745-21-29; rescission of existing OAC rule 3745-21-24, and 
adoption of new OAC rules 3745-21-24 and 3745-21-26.
    Except for OAC rule 3745-21-26, the changes to the Chapter 3745-21 
rules are based on an Ohio-initiated five-year periodic review of its 
VOC rules. When Ohio reviews a rule and amends greater than fifty 
percent of that rule, Ohio issues the entire rule as a new replacement 
rule. This is the case with OAC 3745-21-24. OAC rule 3745-21-26 is an 
entirely new rule, the purpose of which is to update the VOC RACT 
requirements for the Cleveland area for the miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts coatings source category. Additionally, EPA proposes to 
approve OAC 3745-110-03(N) into the Ohio SIP; this rule includes an 
emission limit that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA 110(l) 
demonstration for architectural coatings, which is discussed in detail 
later in this proposed rulemaking.

II. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?

    Many of Ohio's amendments to the rules in Chapter 3745-21 are not 
significant. These amendments include: Updates to items incorporated by 
reference; minor typographical changes to conform to new state 
preferences on style and formatting; updates to correct typographical 
and format errors; updates to reflect source name and/or address 
changes; the removal of references to sources which have been 
permanently shut down; updates to replace deadlines associated with 
previous rule effective dates with actual dates (e.g. ``sixty days from 
the effective date of this rule'' replaced with an actual date); and 
language updates to provide clarification and to avoid confusion. EPA 
reviewed these and other non-significant and/or non-substantive 
amendments and proposes to approve them since they do not constitute 
significant and/or substantive changes to Ohio's rules. More 
significant amendments, those amendments requiring more explanation, 
and the addition of OAC rule 3745-21-26 are discussed below.

A. Catalytic Incinerator Requirements

    Ohio amended catalytic incinerator requirements where rules require 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of both the catalytic 
incinerator inlet temperature and the temperature difference across the 
catalyst bed. Ohio updated these requirements for catalytic 
incinerators to include catalytic incinerator inspection and 
maintenance requirements in addition to monitoring the temperature at 
the inlet to the catalyst bed as an alternative to monitoring the 
temperature difference across the catalyst bed. Monitoring of the 
temperature difference across the catalyst bed may not necessarily be a 
useful indicator of destruction efficiency when there is a low 
concentration of VOC at the inlet to the catalyst bed. In these cases, 
Ohio recommends implementing a catalytic incinerator inspection and 
maintenance program as a compliance alternative to using catalyst bed 
temperature difference data. Ohio made catalytic incinerator 
requirement amendments to rules 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 
3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-27, 
3745-21-28. Ohio has similar provisions that are already included in 
OAC rules 3745-21-22 and 3745-21-24.
    EPA has implemented a similar alternative for a site-specific 
inspection

[[Page 21962]]

and maintenance plan to be implemented as an alternative to monitoring 
the temperature difference across the catalyst bed under the following 
rules: 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (Paper and Other Web Coating) at 
63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(C); 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO (Printing, Coating, 
and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles) at 63.4363(b)(3); 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SSSS (Surface Coating of Metal Coil) at 
63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C); and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP (Engine Test 
Cells/Stands) at 63.9324(b)(3). Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 
these catalytic incinerator requirement amendments to Ohio's rules 
3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 
3745-21-16, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28.

B. References to Operating Permits

    Ohio replaced references to ``operating permits'' and ``permits-to-
operate'' with ``permits-to-install and operate'' for Chapter 3745-3l 
sources (non-Title V sources), since ``operating permits'' under 
Chapter 3745-35 have been replaced with ``permits-to-install and 
operate'' under Chapter 3745-31 for non-Title V sources. Ohio made this 
amendment for the following rules 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 3745-21-14, 
3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-19, 3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22, 
3745-21-23, 3745-21-24, 3745-21-25, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28, and 3745-
21-29. EPA proposes to approve this amendment in each instance since it 
results in increased clarity and consistency in the Ohio rules.

C. VOC Recordkeeping Requirements

    Ohio amended VOC recordkeeping language as it relates to source 
applicability. Ohio changed the requirement to maintain records of VOC 
content in percent by weight and pounds per gallon to percent by weight 
or pounds per gallon depending upon whether total pounds or total 
gallons of each adhesive or solvent is recorded. Ohio no longer 
requires records in both units of measurement as long as the units of 
measurement chosen to be recorded match and can be used to establish 
whether monthly or daily applicability cutoffs are exceeded. Ohio made 
these VOC recordkeeping amendments for rules 3745-21-23 and 3745-21-28. 
Similarly, for rule 3745-21-29, Ohio added the option to record VOC 
content in pounds per gallon (or percent by weight) and the option to 
record coating and cleaning solvent usage in pounds (or gallons) as 
long as the units of measurement for these two parameters match and can 
be used to establish whether monthly or daily applicability cutoffs are 
exceeded. EPA proposes to approve these amendments to rules 3745-21-23, 
3745-21-28, and 3745-21-29, since compliance can be determined with 
either VOC content record as long as the units of measurement are 
consistent with the associated coating and/or solvent usage records.

D. Solvent Cleaning Operations

    Ohio amended rule 3745-21-23 paragraph (C)(6)(b) to allow resin 
manufacturers to use the alternative cleaning operations compliance 
option. Prior to this revision, the rule only allowed manufacturers of 
coatings, inks, or adhesives to use the alternative cleaning operations 
compliance option. The alternative solvent cleaning and storage option 
in (C)(6)(b) is based on the California Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District's rules which are referenced in EPA's solvent cleaning CTG and 
have been established by EPA as RACT for cleaning coatings, inks, and 
resins from storage tanks and grinding mills. EPA, therefore, proposes 
to approve this amendment.

E. OAC Rule 3745-21-24 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

    When Ohio reviews a rule and amends greater than fifty percent of 
that rule, Ohio issues the entire rule as a new replacement rule. This 
is the case with OAC 3745-21-24. EPA proposes to approve the revisions 
to OAC rule 3745-21-24, since they provide increased clarity and 
consistency.

F. OAC Rule 3745-21-26 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and 
Plastic Parts

    OAC rule 3745-21-26 is a new rule updating the VOC RACT 
requirements for the Cleveland area for the miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts coatings source category as outlined in EPA's September 
2008, ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and 
Plastic Parts Coatings.'' \1\ Pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2), the 
Cleveland area was subject to VOC RACT requirements since it was 
classified as moderate nonattainment under the 1997 ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Section 182(b)(2) requires states 
with moderate nonattainment areas to implement RACT under section 
172(c)(1) with respect to each of the following: (1) All sources 
covered by a Control Technology Guideline (CTG) document issued between 
November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment; (2) all sources covered 
by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and, (3) all other major 
non-CTG stationary sources. EPA's 2008 CTG is a revised CTG that is a 
strengthening of previous CTGs covering these categories that were 
addressed by rules adopted and updated by Ohio during previous 
rulemakings (61 FR 18255; 74 FR 37171) prior to the Cleveland area 
being redesignated to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in September 
2009 (74 FR 47414).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and 
Plastic Parts Coatings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-453/R-08-003. 
September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to Ohio's adoption of OAC rule 3745-21-26, OAC rule 3745-21-
09(U) regulated the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and 
OAC rule 3745-21-09(HH) regulated the surface coating of automotive/
transportation plastic parts and business machine plastic parts. OAC 
rule 3745-21-26 applies to such sources located in the Cleveland area. 
The requirements of paragraphs (U) and (HH) of OAC rule 3745-21-09 will 
no longer apply to these sources after the compliance date for 
facilities subject to the requirements of OAC rule 3745-21-26. Prior to 
this action, EPA has not approved into the Ohio SIP 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) 
pertaining to VOC content limits for architectural coatings. In this 
rulemaking, however, EPA proposes to approve 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) into 
the Ohio SIP, since Ohio's anti-backsliding demonstration for 
architectural coatings shows, as discussed below, that our approval of 
this rule in conjunction with our approval of 3745-110-03(N) into the 
Ohio SIP will not interfere with CAA section 110(l).
i. Ohio's CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration Regarding Architectural 
Aluminum Coatings
    Ohio established a 6.2 pounds per gallon (lbs/gal) VOC content 
limit for high-performance architectural aluminum coatings effective 
May 9, 1986, at OAC rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h). Prior to this, high-
performance architectural aluminum coatings in Ohio were subject to a 
VOC content limit of 3.5 lbs/gal under a general SIP-approved coating 
category of extreme performance coatings. EPA disapproved Ohio's 1986 
rule, since Ohio did not demonstrate that the relaxation from 3.5 lbs/
gal to 6.2 lbs/gal represented RACT and would not interfere with 
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (75 FR 50711). Since EPA's CTG, 
updated in 2008, recommends a VOC content limit of 6.2 lbs/gal for high 
performance architectural coatings and Ohio has adopted OAC rule 3745-
21-26 to

[[Page 21963]]

supersede OAC rule 3745-21-09(U) for sources in the Cleveland area, 
Ohio, as part of this submittal, requested that EPA approve into the 
Ohio SIP OAC rule 3745-21-26 including the relaxation of the high-
performance architectural aluminum coatings VOC content limit.
    Ohio also requested that EPA approve a NOX emission 
limit contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03 for unit P046 
at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland. EPA's approval of the emission limit for 
unit P046 into the Ohio SIP will make this emission limit federally 
enforceable and available to use as an emission offset for the purposes 
of Ohio's demonstration to show that the relaxation of the high-
performance architectural coatings VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal 
to 6.2 lbs/gal will not result in a net increase in ozone precursor 
emissions in the Cleveland area.
    Section 110(l), known as the anti-backsliding provision of the CAA, 
states:

    The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the 
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 
171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

    Ohio performed a CAA section 110(l) demonstration for the VOC 
content limits in paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and 6 of OAC rule 3745-21-
26 for high performance architectural coatings.
    In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no 
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under 
section 110(l), states may substitute equivalent emissions reductions 
to compensate for any change to a SIP-approved program, as long as 
actual emissions are not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions 
mean reductions which are equal to or greater than those reductions 
achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that 
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate 
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions 
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a 
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control 
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emissions in the 
air. As described in EPA's memorandum ``Improving Air Quality with 
Economic Incentive Programs'' published in January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-
001), the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent, 
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    Ohio completed a demonstration that indicates that the prerequisite 
for approval under section 110(l) of the CAA will be satisfied despite 
the VOC content limit relaxation for high-performance architectural 
coatings. Ohio's methodology involved identifying actual emissions from 
all operating permitted architectural aluminum coating processes in the 
state, of which there are five emission units among three permitted 
facilities. This includes one emission unit at the American Warming and 
Ventilation facility, one unit at the Thermo Fisher Scientific 
facility, and three units at the American Japanning facility, which is 
the only facility of the three operating permitted facilities that is 
located in the Cleveland area.
    For the five emission units with architectural aluminum coating 
processes, Ohio converted the unit-specific facility-reported actual 
VOC emissions in tons per year (TPY) to gallons per year assuming an 
average solvent density of 7.36 lbs VOC/gal VOC. Then, using the full 
VOC content limit of 6.2 lbs/gal under OAC rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h) as 
listed in each facility's permit, Ohio estimated actual gallons of 
coating utilized per year at each unit at each facility for the 2010-
2012 time period. Next, Ohio used the gallons of coating per year to 
estimate the 2010-2012 emissions from each unit using a VOC content 
limit of 3.5 lbs/gal rather than 6.2 lbs/gal. Ohio's calculations show 
that, in going from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal, the estimated VOC 
emissions increase averaged over the 2010-2012 time period is 2.02 TPY 
in the Cleveland area and 10.5 TPY statewide. Ohio's calculations are 
provided in its SIP submittal, which is included in the docket to this 
proposed rulemaking.
    In order to make a satisfactory 110(l) demonstration and render 
this SIP revision approvable by EPA under the requirements of the CAA, 
Ohio needs a comparable emission reduction to offset this estimated VOC 
emissions increase. VOCs and NOX contribute to the formation 
of ground-level ozone. Thus, the potential increase in VOC needs to be 
offset with equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions from another 
VOC control measure or proportionally equivalent (or greater) emissions 
reductions from a NOX control measure in order to 
demonstrate anti-backsliding.
    For its offset, Ohio requested to use a NOX emission 
limit contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03 for unit P046 
at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland. Since only a portion of this emission 
limit has been used for a previous 110(l) demonstration, the remaining 
portion is available for use as an offset for the purposes of this 
demonstration. In December 2007, Ohio promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-110, 
``Nitrogen Oxides--Reasonably Available Control Technology'' to address 
NOX emissions from stationary combustion sources as a 
potential attainment strategy in the Cleveland area. In September 2009 
(74 FR 47414), EPA redesignated the Cleveland area to attainment of the 
1997 ozone NAAQS and approved a waiver for the Cleveland area from the 
NOX RACT requirements of section 182(f). Ohio's 
NOX RACT rules are therefore surplus and are available to be 
used to offset the potential increase in emissions from a higher VOC 
content limit for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in 
Ohio. For the purposes of this 110(l) demonstration, Ohio is requesting 
to use an emission limit on one specific emission unit at one specific 
facility for its offset.
    Prior to Ohio's promulgation of OAC Chapter 3745-110, Arcelor-
Mittal Cleveland operated with an emission factor of 0.55 lbs 
NOX/million British thermal units (MMBTU) established via a 
stack test in 2003. To meet the requirements of OAC Chapter 3745-110, 
Arcelor-Mittal installed low-NOX burners in the facility's 
three reheat furnaces (Ohio emission unit IDs P046, P047, and P048) and 
reduced its emission factor to 0.29 lbs NOX/MMBTU 
established via a stack test in 2010 to comply with the OAC 3745-110-
03(N) NOX emission limit of 0.35 lbs/MMBTU. Based on actual 
natural gas usage reported for 2010-2012 and going from an emission 
factor of 0.55 lbs NOX/MMBTU to an emission factor of 0.29 
lbs NOX/MMBTU, Ohio calculated an average NOX 
emission reduction for this facility of 571.6 TPY and an average 
NOX emission reduction specifically from unit P046 of 193.8 
TPY.
    Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), Ohio calculated 
the ratio of NOX emissions to VOC emissions in the Cleveland 
area at approximately 1.30 lbs NOX per lb of VOC. Ohio 
applied this factor to the Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland NOX 
reductions to show that the average VOC emissions offset theoretically 
available for the time period of 2010-2012 is 438.2 TPY of VOC for the 
facility and 148.6 TPY of VOC from unit P046.
    Not all emission reductions from Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland are 
available for use as offsets. On October 25, 2010, Ohio submitted a 
similar 110(l)

[[Page 21964]]

demonstration for emissions from sheet molding compound (SMC) machines 
in Ohio regulated by OAC rule 3745-21-07. Ohio used the same reductions 
from Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland to demonstrate sufficient offsets to 
justify an emissions increase for SMC machines. The offset needed for 
SMC machines was 7.1 TPY of VOC, meaning the quantity of VOC offsets 
available for this 110(l) demonstration is 431.1 TPY of VOC from 
Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland and 141.5 TPY of VOC from EU P046. Therefore, 
there is enough of an emission offset remaining from EU P046 for Ohio 
to offset the estimated increase in VOC emissions (10.5 TPY for all 
five units and 2.02 TPY for the three Cleveland area units) as a result 
of relaxing its high-performance architectural coatings VOC content 
limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal in the Ohio SIP.
    EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP the NOX limit 
on emission unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland, which will make this 
emissions limit federally enforceable. In combination with Ohio's use 
of an offset in the form of a permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, 
surplus emission reduction achieved through the NOX limit on 
unit P046 at Arcelor-Mittal Cleveland, EPA proposes that our SIP 
approval of Ohio's relaxation of the high-performance architectural 
coatings VOC content limit from 3.5 lbs/gal to 6.2 lbs/gal would not 
interfere with section 110(l) of the CAA. Furthermore, this VOC content 
limit satisfies RACT for high-performance architectural coatings as 
recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve into 
the Ohio SIP, OAC rule 3745-21-26 including the VOC content limits in 
paragraph (C)(1) Tables 1 and 6 for high performance architectural 
coatings.
ii. Ohio's 5% VOC RACT Equivalency Analysis for a 3-Gallon per Day 
Coating Usage Exemption
    Ohio performed a 5% RACT equivalency analysis to justify the OAC 
rule 3745-21-26 paragraph (A)(3)(f)(i) exemption from the VOC content 
limits of metal coating lines that use less than three gallons per day. 
Ohio demonstrated that the increase in emissions from this exemption 
would be no more than 5% compared to adopting the CTG exactly as EPA 
issued it. EPA guidance entitled ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations'' also referred to as ``the 
Bluebook'' \2\ contains an example 5% equivalency analysis calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 
and Deviations Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 
Federal Register. Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch, Air Quality 
Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
May 25, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio performed its 5% RACT equivalency analysis consistent with 
EPA's Bluebook and determined that the increase in emissions resulting 
from a three gallons per day exemption would be approximately 4%. Since 
the emissions increase is less than 5%, Ohio may incorporate this 
exemption into its VOC RACT rule for the control of emissions from 
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products for the 
Cleveland area.
    To conduct its 5% RACT equivalency analysis, Ohio listed all of the 
current metal parts and products surface coating sources in the 
Cleveland area and each source's actual 2008 VOC emissions or, where 
2008 actual emissions data were unavailable, used information based on 
current operation to determine representative 2008 actual emissions 
from metal coating lines. Ohio identified each emission unit at each 
facility that would be subject to the new OAC rule 3745-21-26 and 
converted TPY of VOC to gallons per year of VOC using an average 
solvent density of 7.36 lbs VOC/gal VOC. Ohio used source-specific 
information to obtain gallons of coating used in 2008 or, where such 
data were unavailable, used an average mix density of 10.0 lbs VOC/gal 
coating. Ohio also subtracted gallons of VOC per year from total 
gallons of coating used per year to obtain gallons of solids per year, 
since some limits in the 2008 CTG are expressed in lbs of VOC per 
gallon of coating and some are expressed in lbs of VOC per gallon of 
solids. Ohio used these 2008 baseline data to find the difference in 
the two options: The option to include a three gallons per line per day 
exemption and the option that specifies an applicability cutoff of 15 
lbs of VOC per day across all lines as specified in EPA's 2008 CTG. 
Ohio's analysis shows that the difference between allowing and 
disallowing the three gallons per day exemption is less than 5%. Ohio's 
analysis is provided in its SIP submittal, which is included in the 
docket to this proposed rulemaking. Since the result of Ohio's RACT 
equivalency analysis to support the exemption in its rule is less than 
5%, and since Ohio's general methodology for conducting the equivalency 
analysis is consistent with EPA's Bluebook, which indicates that for 
the purposes of VOC RACT regulation a difference of no more than 5% 
between EPA's CTG and the state's rules is not a significant emissions 
differential, EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP the OAC rule 
3745-21-26 exemption from the VOC content limits of metal coating lines 
that use less than three gallons per day.
iii. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's VOC RACT Requirements for Pleasure 
Craft Coatings
    EPA's 2008 CTG includes VOC content limits for pleasure craft 
coatings, which Ohio has not historically regulated. Ohio 
systematically analyzed existing permitted facilities which may become 
subject to its new pleasure craft coating rules. Ohio's analysis is 
important, because, theoretically, a facility could go from being 
subject to an existing VOC content limit under a different coating 
category to being subject to a less stringent VOC content limit under 
Ohio's new pleasure craft coating rules. If that were the case, the 
potential for interference with CAA section 110(l) would need to be 
addressed. Ohio's analysis indicates that there are 12 sources in the 
state with the potential to be subject to the new OAC rule 3745-21-26. 
Ohio determined six of these sources are not subject to OAC rule 3745-
21-26, because they are not located in the Cleveland area, and four of 
the remaining sources are not subject to OAC rule 3745-21-26, since 
they are marinas that only contain gasoline dispensing facilities. The 
remaining two sources are the Duramax Marine facility in Geauga County 
and the Hanover Marine facility in Lake County. The Duramax facility 
operates spray booths that only apply adhesives and are therefore 
exempt from OAC rule 3745-21-26. Rather, this facility may be subject 
to the OAC rule 3745-21-28; ``Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives'' 
requirements. The Hanover facility builds fiberglass boats. It operates 
one small spray booth for painting stripes only and historically has 
had emissions under the applicability levels. Mostly this facility 
performs resin/gel work and may be subject to New Source Review 
requirements and the requirements of OAC rule 3745-21-27; ``Fiberglass 
Boat Manufacturing.'' Ohio's analysis shows that our approval into the 
Ohio SIP of these pleasure craft coating VOC content limits will have 
no or minimal effect to reduce emissions, but, of course, the adoption 
of these limits will not cause any increase in emissions and, 
therefore, not interfere with section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Table 1, below, shows a comparison of the differences between EPA's 
2008 CTG and Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26 VOC content limits for pleasure 
craft coatings. The portion of Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26 pertaining to 
pleasure craft coatings differs from EPA's 2008

[[Page 21965]]

CTG in several ways. Ohio's VOC content limits for the ``extreme high 
gloss topcoat'' and ``other substrate antifoulant'' coating categories 
are greater than those recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG, and Ohio's rule 
contains a ``antifouling sealer/tie coat'' coating category that is not 
included in EPA's 2008 CTG. Additionally, Ohio's OAC rule 3745-21-26 
defines extreme high gloss coating for the pleasure craft coating 
industry as that which achieves greater than 90% reflectance, as 
opposed to greater than 95% reflectance recommended in EPA's 2008 CTG.

Table 1--Differences Between EPA's 2008 CTG and Ohio's OAC Rule 3745-21-
            26 VOC Content Limits for Pleasure Craft Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Pound VOC per gallon coating
         Coating category          -------------------------------------
                                         2008 CTG         Ohio's rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme High Gloss Topcoat........                4.1                5.0
                                   -------------------------------------
High Gloss Topcoat................                   3.5
Pretreatment Wash Primer..........                   6.5
Finish Primer/Surfacer............                   3.5
High-Build Primer/Surfacer........                   2.8
                                   -------------------------------------
Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat.......  Not a category in                3.5
                                       the 2008 CTG
                                   -------------------------------------
Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant....                   4.7
                                   -------------------------------------
Other Substrate Antifoulant.......                2.8                3.3
                                   -------------------------------------
All Other Pleasure Craft Surface
 Coatings for Metal or Plastic....                   3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differences shown in Table 1, above, between EPA's original 
recommendations in the 2008 CTG and Ohio's VOC content limits for 
pleasure craft coatings in OAC rule 3745-21-26 are consistent with 
those requested by the pleasure craft coating industry. When EPA 
released the 2008 CTG, the pleasure craft coating industry requested 
that EPA reconsider the 2008 CTG recommended VOC content limits for 
extreme high gloss, high gloss, and antifoulant coatings citing what 
the industry deemed to be technological and feasibility challenges to 
meeting the VOC content limits recommended in the CTG. EPA responded in 
a June 1, 2010, memorandum entitled ``Control Technique Guidelines for 
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for 
Reconsideration.'' While EPA did not formally revise the 2008 CTG to 
reflect the changes requested by the pleasure craft coating industry, 
in the June 1, 2010, memo, EPA encouraged the pleasure craft industry 
to work together with state agencies in the RACT rule development 
process to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated 
under each state's rules. EPA's CTGs are intended to provide state and 
local air pollution control authorities with information to assist them 
in determining RACT for VOC, but CTGs impose no legally binding 
requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating 
facilities. Regardless of whether a state chooses to implement the 
recommendations contained in the CTG through state rules, or to issue 
state rules that adopt different approaches, states must submit their 
RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. 
In the June 1, 2010, memo, EPA stated its intent to evaluate the 
state's RACT rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking 
in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT 
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations.
    EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP these OAC rule 3745-21-26 
VOC content limits for pleasure craft coatings as RACT since this rule, 
in most respects, is consistent with EPA's 2008 CTG, and, where it 
differs from EPA's 2008 CTG as explained above, EPA proposes to find 
these differences to be reasonable in terms of available control 
technology for the pleasure craft coating industry.

G. OAC Rule 3745-21-28 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Sealants

    Ohio made two amendments to Table 1 of OAC rule 3745-21-28; the 
first amendment was to indicate that the VOC content limit excludes 
water and exempt solvents, and the second amendment was to change the 
category ``tire retread'' to ``tire repair.'' EPA proposes to approve 
these amendments, since these changes result in language that is 
consistent with EPA's CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives, which 
is the basis for OAC rule 3745-21-28.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio SIP adjustments and additions 
to VOC RACT rules in OAC Chapter 3745-21. Additionally, EPA proposes to 
incorporate OAC 3745-110-03(N) into the Ohio SIP; this rule includes an 
emission limit that Ohio is using as an offset in its CAA 110(l) 
demonstration for the OAC rule 3745-21-26 VOC content limit for 
architectural coatings.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by 
reference Ohio's updated VOC rules including 3745-21-01, 3745-21-03, 
3745-21-04, 3745-21-08, 3745-21-09, 3745-21-10, 3745-21-12, 3745-21-13, 
3745-21-14, 3745-21-15, 3745-21-16, 3745-21-17, 3745-21-18, 3745-21-19, 
3745-21-20, 3745-21-21, 3745-21-22, 3745-21-23, 3745-21-24, 3745-21-25, 
3745-21-26, 3745-21-27, 3745-21-28, 3745-21-29, effective October 15, 
2015, and the NOX emission limit on unit P046 at Arcelor-
Mittal Cleveland contained in paragraph (N) of OAC rule 3745-110-03. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 5 
Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further 
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

[[Page 21966]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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. 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 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 CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 21, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-09506 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P