Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH-10-1-5677; FRL-48764]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving and disapproving specific portions of a

revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

On April 9, 1986, the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA), submitted amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

Chapter 3745-21 to USEPA as proposed revisions to the SIP for Ozone.

OAC Chapter 3745-21 consists of emission limitations and control

requirements for sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The

amendments to OAC Chapter 3745-21 involve certain compliance deadlines

and source specific exemptions from otherwise applicable emission

limitations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on June 3, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for inspection at (It is recommended that you telephone

Maggie Greene, at (312) 886-6088, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air Enforcement Branch,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of this revision to the Ohio SIP is available for inspection

at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, 6102, 401 M

Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Tenner, Regulation Development

Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3849.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 9, 1986, the OEPA submitted

amendments to OAC Chapter 3745-21 and supporting data to USEPA as a

proposed revision to the ozone portion of its SIP. OEPA adopted these

rules in final form on March 21, 1986. OAC Chapter 3745-21, entitled,

``Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons,

and Related Materials Standards,'' includes Ohio's VOC Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT I and II) regulations.

Ohio's submittal included new VOC regulations for additional source

categories not specifically covered by Ohio's existing rules and a

site-specific revision for the Huffy Corporation. These other elements

of the April 9, 1986, submittal are not covered in this document.

Today's Federal Register document also does not address those

amendments to the ozone SIP that were previously submitted on March 28,

1983, to USEPA, and were addressed in a March 6, 1985 Federal Register

notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 9052) and in a January 18, 1989,

Federal Register final rulemaking (54 FR 1934).

The regulations subject to this rulemaking are embodied in OAC

Chapter 3745-21-01, Definitions; OAC Chapter 3745-21-04, Attainment

dates and compliance time schedules; OAC Chapter 3745-21-09, Control of

emissions of volatile organic compounds from stationary sources; and

OAC Chapter 3745-21-10, Compliance test methods and procedures.

USEPA is taking final action to approve these revisions, with the

following exceptions:

1. USEPA is disapproving the proposed relaxation for food can end

sealing compounds in 3745-21-09 (D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e) from 3.7 to 4.4

lbs VOC/gal.

2. USEPA is disapproving the proposed revision to the exemption, as

well as the entire exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application

by hand of any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or

crack sealing.

Ohio's high ratio of emulsified to cutback asphalt used in 1987 is

not a valid basis for exempting the hand application of cutback

asphalt. This exemption is inconsistent with USEPA guidance, and Ohio

has provided no data on the amount of additional cutback asphalt that

would be used in the ozone season as a result of the exemption.

In addition, USEPA is disapproving the recordkeeping requirements

in 3745-21-09 (N)(4) because they are inadequate with respect to the

time period during which records are required because paragraph 3745-

21-09 (N)(4) only deals with recordkeeping requirements and not when

cutback asphalt is allowed to be used. Ohio's SIP does not allow

cutback asphalt to be used from April 15 through October 15. Unless and

until the exemption period is changed (in 3745-21-09 (N)(3)), the

recordkeeping requirements must reflect the SIP requirements.

3. USEPA is disapproving the relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs. VOC/

gal for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09

(U)(1)(a)(viii) because Ohio did not document the infeasibility of add-

on controls and powder coatings in support of its proposed relaxation.

USEPA will evaluate the merits of a compliance date extension if

submitted and supported by OEPA.

In addition, USEPA will repropose rulemaking on the relaxation for

miscellaneous metal parts, in 3745-21-09 (U)(1)(vii), and USEPA will

propose rulemaking on the exemption for new sources, in 3745-21-09

(U)(2)(f), in separate Federal Register documents.

Comments on the proposed SIP revisions contained in the May 30,

1989, rulemaking notice (54 FR 22915) are discussed below:

1. Can Regulations-Rules 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e)

A. Proposed Action

OEPA proposed a relaxation from 3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon of

coating (lbs VOC/gallon of coating, excluding water) to 4.4 lbs/gal for

food can end sealing compounds. OEPA's basis includes a September 13,

1985, letter and testimony to OEPA from Heekin Can; an April 13, 1984,

submittal from the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) to USEPA; and

testimony presented by Campbell Soup Company before the OEPA on

September 12, 1985. The basis of the can industry's requests for a

relaxation is the purported unavailability of complying end sealing

compounds for food can ends, as well as the infeasibility of add-on

control.

USEPA proposed disapproval of this relaxation because data from a

San Diego source (Van Camp) indicates the possible feasibility of both

add-on control equipment and low solvent coatings, and Ohio had not

considered this information.

B. Comments on Proposed Disapproval

Heekin Can, Campbell Soup, Central States Company, OEPA, and the

Can Manufacturers Institute commented on the proposed disapproval.

Their comments, and USEPA's response to these comments are enumerated

below.

1. Campbell Soup Company Submitted the Following Comments on July 27,

1989

Comment 1: The Amendment should now be approved by USEPA in total:

The data cited by USEPA in the notice of proposed rulemaking is, on its

face, not an appropriate basis for rejection.

USEPA Response: The data cited by USEPA in its notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) provided a strong indication that use of add-on

control equipment may be feasible for controlling end seal compound VOC

emissions. However, after reviewing the comments, USEPA agrees that use

of add-on control equipment doesn't appear feasible. In addition, Van

Camp has switched over to a solventless, waterborne end sealing

compound for its pet food cans. However, USEPA has considered other

relevant information, as discussed in this notice, including comments

received, in conjunction with the data cited in the NPR, in its final

evaluation of the proposed relaxation. Therefore, any shortcomings, or

limitations, in the data cited in the NPR, have been taken into

consideration.

Comment 2: If the Amendment cannot now be approved in total, it

should at least be approved in part, by allowing relaxation of VOC

standards for the period when compliance would otherwise have been

technically and commercially impracticable, i.e., at least until May

1989.

``Only with Campbell's May 1989 conversion to a compliant end-

sealing compound, following extensive research and development efforts

funded by Campbell to develop and apply such a compound, is there

evidence that a 3.7 pound standard became technically and commercially

feasible for Campbell's Ohio facility.''

USEPA Response: USEPA can only act on a proposed revision that has

been submitted to it. Therefore, USEPA's only option is to approve or

disapprove a permanent relaxation of the food can end sealing compound

limit. It should be emphasized that as of May 1989 Campbell came into

compliance with the 3.7 pounds VOC per gallon food can end seal

compound limit. Therefore, USEPA does not believe approval of the

permanent relaxation is appropriate.

Comment 3: If relaxation of the VOC standard to 4.4 pounds for the

period ending May 1989, cannot now be approved for the entire food can

end sealing compound category, it should at least be allowed for such

period for the human food can end sealing compound category.

USEPA Response: As stated in the response to comment 2, USEPA can

only act on a proposed revision that has been submitted to it. The

submitted rule provides for a relaxation for the entire category and

cannot be approved.

Comment 4: In any case, if the Amendment cannot now be approved in

whole or in part, it should not now be rejected with prejudice. Rather,

OEPA should be given a chance to modify or supplement the Amendment.

``USEPA's proposed rulemaking notes that OEPA did not consider

certain Van Camp data, i.e., the Lake paper which, in fact, was only

publicly presented after the date the Amendment was submitted to USEPA.

Accordingly, if the Amendment cannot now be approved in whole or part,

and if such data is still deemed relevant by USEPA, these proceedings

should be remanded without prejudice to OEPA so that the data can be

considered, findings made, and, if deemed appropriate by OEPA, the

Amendment resubmitted to USEPA in the same or modified form after the

new data has been fully considered.''

USEPA Response: USEPA has an obligation to act on any pending SIP

revision request and does not have the authority to ``remand'' such a

submittal to the State. However, the State has the ability to withdraw

or amend a pending SIP revision request at any time prior to final

USEPA action. After USEPA takes final action on a SIP submittal, the

State still may submit revisions to the existing SIP. USEPA will act on

any proposed SIP revision submitted by Ohio in the future including

additional relaxation requests for end sealing compounds. Any

relaxation would need to be consistent with section 193 of the amended

CAA. Moreover, it should be noted that USEPA has considered comments

from OEPA on the Van Camp data in its final evaluation.

2. Heekin Can Submitted Comments on July 27, 1989

These comments include background information, comments on the

infeasibility of add-on controls, and comments on the unavailability of

low solvent compounds.

Comment 1: Before reviewing the infeasibility and unavailability

issues it should be recognized that the level of VOCs that was emitted

at the Heekin facility in 1987 as a result of following the food can

end seal regulation (4.4 pounds of VOC per gallon) instead of the

general VOC content end seal limitation (3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon)

amounted to only 27.89 tons of VOC. Total VOC emissions from the entire

end seal operation at the facility were 219.27 tons for 1987, while

plant-wide emissions (base coaters, litho presses, side seam strippers,

and end seal liner machines) were 652 tons per year after controls.

Thus, the level of emissions sought to be restricted by disapproving

the food can end seal VOC limit is only 4.2 percent of the emissions

from the facility.

USEPA Response: The level of control technology that constitutes

RACT is a function of technical and economical feasibility, and not

emission impacts. Furthermore, excess emissions of 27.89 tons of VOC

per year is not a negligible quantity.

Comment 2--Infeasibility of Add-on Controls: As a result of USEPA's

reliance on the Lake article and the Van Camp study, Heekin

commissioned a RACT study by Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). CDM

focused on collecting VOCs from the application, conveying, and bagging

stages of the end seal lining process. Warehousing areas were

disregarded by Lake and CDM as being infeasible to control.

CDM performed a complete RACT analysis tailored specifically for

Heekin's Hamilton County, Ohio can manufacturing facility. A total of

five end seal lining processes (10 applicators) were considered for

control. Before discussing the results of CDM's RACT study, it should

be noted that CDM disregarded the carbon adsorption control option

because of the difficulties encountered with regeneration. Steam

regeneration of spent carbon creates a hazardous waste requiring costly

disposal. Hot air regeneration requires an incinerator which duplicates

the incinerator control technology option. Also, it is believed that

hexane, the major solvent in the end seal lining compounds, has a poor

adsorption efficiency. Thus, Lake's reporting of a cost effectiveness

figure for a carbon adsorption collection system is not supported by

CDM.

CDM focused on thermal and catalytic incineration as preferable

control options and determined that the capital cost for a catalytic

incinerator system was $1,854,600, approximately $320,000 higher than

the capital cost of a thermal incineration system. The annual operating

expense for the catalytic incineration system was estimated to be

$1,608,719 per year, $2,008,719 per year for thermal incineration.

Dividing the annual cost to operate the control system by the

quantity of VOC reduced yields the ``cost effectiveness'' of the

control system. CDM's analysis utilized three figures for the quantity

of VOC removed per year: (1) The quantity of VOC removed to reach

equivalence with the general end seal compound limit of 3.7 pounds of

VOC per gallon (i.e., 27.89 tons per year); (2) the quantity of VOC

removed assuming a 40 percent capture efficiency (i.e., 87.70 tons per

year); and (3) the quantity of VOC removed assuming that Perlis' 80

percent capture efficiency is correct (i.e., 175.4 tons per year).

Heekin does not believe that an 80 percent collection efficiency on the

system is possible but has calculated the ``cost effectiveness'' for

comparison purposes.

CDM determined the following ``cost effectiveness'' figures. For

scenario one, removal of sufficient VOCs to reach equivalence with the

3.7 pounds per gallon emission rate limitation, the ``cost

effectiveness'' is $71,597 per ton of VOC removed for thermal

incineration and $57,681 per ton of VOC removed for catalytic

incineration. For scenario two, removal of VOCs with a 40 percent

capture efficiency, the ``cost effectiveness'' is $23,235 per ton of

VOC removed for thermal incineration and $19,310 per ton of VOC removed

for catalytic incineration. For scenario three, removal of VOCs with an

80 percent capture efficiency, the ``cost effectiveness'' is $10,853

per ton of VOC removed for thermal incineration and $9,020 per ton of

VOC removed for catalytic incineration.

It should be noted that the above detailed ``cost effectiveness''

figures were calculated based on can end residence times through the

collection system reported by Lake. However, Heekin's actual residence

times are much shorter. Lake reported a total residence time for Van

Camp of 1.5 minutes. During the Perlis test, a residence time of 3.0

minutes was contrived to gain an 87 percent capture efficiency.

Heekin's process lines have a total residence time from lining to

stacking/bagging of only 20 to 65 seconds. The discrepancy between

Heekin's residence time and the Van Camp/Perlis residence times means

that the collection efficiencies for the capture system if it were to

be installed at Heekin would be much lower than the collection

efficiencies reported by Lake. Thus, the cost effectiveness figures

estimated by CDM are on the low side compared to what Heekin could

actually attain because the amount of VOCs removed would be much lower.

USEPA Response: Add-on control is not used on any end seal compound

coating lines. USEPA agrees that add-on control is not feasible for

this application.

Comment 3--Unavailability of Low Solvent Compounds: USEPA stated in

its proposed disapproval of Ohio's Food Can End Regulation that the

Lake article and the Van Camp data indicated ``possible feasibility''

of low solvent coatings. According to the article, Van Camp was

successful at replacing ``9101'' compound with a water-based end

sealing compound, ``480T''. The replacement compound was used by Van

Camp to manufacture ends to be used for pet food cans. Van Camp

continued to use the ``9101'' compound for its human consumption

product line, tuna fish cans. Thus, Van Camp came into compliance with

the 3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon limitation by averaging noncompliant

VOC emissions from ``9101'' usage with water-based emissions from

``480T'' usage. The Van Camp facility continues to operate in this

fashion.

Before addressing the viability of the low solvent coating option,

one must understand the distinction between a ``captive'' and a

``merchant'' can manufacturer. A ``captive'' can manufacturer supplies

cans only for one customer, itself. Conversely, a ``merchant'' can

manufacturer supplies cans for several customers according to the

customer's varied requirements and individualized specifications. Thus,

a ``merchant'' manufacturer has little control over the coatings it

must use to fabricate the cans.

Heekin is a ``merchant'' manufacturer. Van Camp was a ``captive''

manufacturer at the time of the Lake article. Thus, the feasibility of

a lower solvent coating for Heekin is complicated by additional

determining factors that Van Camp does not have (i.e., Heekin must

satisfy the customer's manufacturing requirements and Heekin has no

leverage or internal pressure by which to force a customer to make a

change).

Since the first promulgation of the RACT regulations, Heekin has

made a concerted effort at advising and steering its customers to

specifying coatings and compounds with low solvent formulations. With

regard to end seal liner compounds, however, Heekin is serving several

customers that have refused to accept a low solvent formulation as a

replacement to the end seal liner compound with VOC contents exceeding

3.7 pounds per gallon. The major customer in this category is Ross

Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio. Ross Laboratories is the nation's

largest producer of milk and soy protein infant formulas. They also

manufacture medical nutritional products for hospital and home use.

Ross has made the determination that ``1105'' compound is the only

suitable compound for fabricating cans for these highly sensitive

products. Other national food processing customers specifying ``1105''

and ``9101'' end seal compounds include: Quaker Oats Company, American

Home Foods, and Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson.

Disallowing the food can end seal regulation will put Heekin at a

disadvantage in the ``merchant'' can manufacturer's market. When

approached by Heekin representatives regarding the possibility that

Heekin may no longer be able to use ``1105'', the manager of the

purchasing department stated that an option for Ross Laboratories, if

the regulation is disapproved and Heekin no longer can supply ``1105''

ends, is to move its business to another ``merchant'' can manufacturer

that is not restricted by the end seal liner RACT regulation. Thus,

since low solvent end seal compounds are not an option for Heekin's

customers, Heekin must have the ability to continue to use the ``9101''

and ``1105'' compounds for food can ends.

USEPA Response: Heekin has not adequately demonstrated that 4.4 lbs

VOC per gallon is RACT for food can end sealing compounds for the

following reasons.

1. Other State regulations have a 3.7 lbs/gallon limit for end

sealing compounds.

2. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) amended

its can coating rules (in early 1990). These regulations specify 3.7

lbs/gallon for end sealing compounds for food cans.

3. Campbell Soup stated, in its comments, that in May 1989,

Campbell converted to a compliant end sealing compound, following

extensive research and development efforts funded by Campbell to

develop and apply such a compound. This is ``evidence that a 3.7 pound

standard became technically and commercially feasible for Campbell's

Ohio facility.''

4. There is no indication that 3.7 lbs/gallon end sealing compounds

are unavailable for certain type food cans, e.g., pet food cans and

fruit and vegetable cans.

5. Heekin has not demonstrated that it made a substantial effort to

develop and/or locate complying end seal compounds.

6. In its June 27, 1989, letter, Ross Laboratories states that

there are no qualified replacements, to Dewey and Almy's ``1105'' end

seal compound, available. The letter falls short of saying that they

would refuse to use any other suitable product, if it exists.

7. The fact that Heekin is a ``merchant'' manufacturer is not a

sufficient reason for it to have a less stringent limit. Job shops are

common in the coating industry and have not in the past been given

special consideration because they have to deal with a number of

customers. The feasibility of compliant end seal compounds for Heekin's

customers' cans is more relevant than its status as a ``merchant''

manufacturer.

However, USEPA does agree that 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal compounds

for certain applications may not be available. A July 12, 1989, letter

from Neil Moyer, (then) Director of Rule Development for the SCAQMD,

states that compliant end seal compounds are a problem for cans used

for tuna and other oily products.

Heekin may, in fact, have a problem with end seal compounds for

certain products. However, USEPA does not have the ability to create

exemptions for Heekin. The State has not submitted such a rule. The

State submitted relaxation (to 4.4 lbs/gallon) for all end seal

compounds is overly broad and cannot be approved. Furthermore, Heekin

has not adequately demonstrated the lowest VOC content feasible for its

end seal compounds for specified applications.

3. Central States Can Company Submitted Comments on July 26, 1989

Comment 1: We would be interested to know if there are any end

lines running with off-line controls that can maintain a reduction

efficiency of 76 percent (80% capture, 95% control) over a long period

of time. The type of control systems that could be used on end lining

systems would require a residence time of several hours and seem to be

totally impractical considering the size required and the operational

cost.

USEPA Response: USEPA is not aware of add-on control being used on

any end seal compound coating lines. USEPA agrees that add-on control

is not feasible for this application.

Comment 2: We note that the ``480T'' compound has been used on pet

food. OEPA (presumably commenter means USEPA) seems to be proposing its

use on all foods on the basis of tests with pet food. It should be

pointed out that many other products besides pet food (including infant

formula) are packed and should be considered before such a change is

made. The USEPA cannot ignore food safety in its proposed action.

USEPA Response: USEPA agrees that there appear to be some products

which cannot use 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal compounds. However, there

appear to be some food cans (e.g., pet food cans) which can use

compliant end seal compounds. It is the State's responsibility to

demonstrate that the requirements it submits are RACT. The burden is on

the State to show for which cans another limit (above 3.7) is RACT and

what is that appropriate limit. For example, an adequate demonstration

has not been made of the lowest VOC content feasible for end seal

compounds used for products such as infant formula. Because the State

has submitted a general relaxation of the end seal limit and has not

demonstrated that the relaxed limit is RACT for all end seal compounds,

USEPA cannot approve the relaxation.

Comment 3: While we are confident that other foods can successfully

use an alternate compound, it is important that these products be

tested prior to making such a change. It is not unreasonable that this

testing for all products may require as much as 5 years. It is,

therefore, requested that the Ohio proposed relaxation be approved.

USEPA Response: The need for testing does not, in itself, justify a

permanent relaxation. Central States Can has provided no specifics

about food safety testing, and it is therefore not possible to evaluate

the effects it would have. The nature and length of the testing is also

not specified. Furthermore, there are no details or support for the

Central States comment that ``It is not unreasonable that this testing

for all products may require as much as 5 years.''

4. The Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) Submitted Comments on July 28,

1989

The CMI supports OEPA's action to raise the VOC end seal compound

limits. CMI's specific comments are as follows:

CMI's Position

CMI opposes the basis of USEPA's proposed denial of Ohio's revision

of end seal compound VOC limits. We believe USEPA's reliance on the

study of Van Camp's efforts in San Diego is misguided.

Additionally, CMI is concerned that the Agency is willing to risk

endangering the food supply or forcing Ohio-based can makers to

surrender business to obtain minuscule gains in the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The Van Camp Study by Michael Lake

In 1986, Michael Lake of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, San Diego, California, presented a paper entitled ``VOC

Emission Control for Can End Sealing Compounds: A Case History.'' This

study outlines the Van Camp Company's experience in testing, qualifying

and running water-based end seal compound. It also broached the

possibility of using add-on equipment around end seal application

operations. USEPA cites Van Camp's narrow experience with add-on

control equipment and water-based end seal compound as the rationale

for denying Ohio's proposed rules 3745-21-09 (D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e).

Add-On Controls

The add-on control equipment referred to in the Lake study was not

installed on a permanent basis. The Van Camp plant managers in 1987

told CMI that initial tests of mock-up add-on equipment showed the

system was impractical from an engineering and production standpoint.

The Lake study cites three very serious concerns of Van Camp concerning

add-on control equipment:

1. The prototype VOC containment/capture system had not been tested

under rigorous, extended-production conditions;

2. The system might not allow sufficient visual and physical access

by line operators; and

3. Carbon adsorption was and still is an unproven technology for

control of VOC emissions from can end sealing lines.

CMI asserts that a theoretical system which did not prove

practical, safe or efficacious should not be used as a basis for USEPA

to deny a reasonable regulatory action by Ohio's environmental

authority.

Water-Based End Seal Compound

The use of the Van Camp Study on water-based end seal compound to

deny relaxation of the Ohio VOC limits wrongly assumes these test

conditions are acceptable to qualify end seal compound for other types

of packs and containers. The process required to safely qualify a new

end seal compound is linked to different packing and food conditions.

As a general rule, more testing is required for materials which are

used on a broad basis.

The successful use of a water-based end seal compound by Van Camp,

a division of the Ralston Purina Company, is limited to a very

specific, narrow category of food products--tuna and pet food. The Ohio

can manufacturers who would be subject to this rule produce containers

for a wide variety of products, including baby food, soups and

vegetables.

For USEPA to assume that uniformity exists between the processes

which Van Camp and Ohio can makers use to qualify end seal compounds is

to short change the factors which are necessary to ensure food safety

and shows a considerable lack of understanding of the delicate nature

under which food is processed and packaged. CMI is concerned that USEPA

is willing to risk the safety of the American food supply in order to

obtain minimal gains toward attainment of the NAAQS in Ohio.

Conclusion

In 1984 and 1985, CMI and its Ohio-based members asked OEPA to

relax the VOC end seal limits because they could not use lower solvent

end seal compound with the complete certainty that food safety would be

assured. If a catastrophic failure were to occur in a single canned

product which resulted in the illness or death of a consumer, the

integrity of all canned foods would be suspect.

USEPA Response: USEPA's position on these issues has been

previously stated in the response to Heekin's and Central States Can's

comments. In summary, it is agreed that add-on control has not been

demonstrated to be feasible for end seal compound application

operations. However, it has not been documented that 4.4 lbs/gallon is

the most stringent limit that is feasible for food can end seal

compounds in general. Furthermore, the CMI has not documented the

effect that food safety concerns have on using 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal

compounds. For example, if CMI's position is that 3.7 lbs/gallon end

seal compound cannot be used with canned vegetables (for example) due

to safety reasons, it has not supported its position.

5. OEPA Submitted Comments on July 31, 1989

Comment: The Michael Lake report (paper) was not provided to OEPA

during OEPA's public hearing on the eventual 1986 rulemaking.

Therefore, OEPA could not consider such information. Since USEPA has

added that report to the docket, USEPA must show that the report, which

pertains to a specific plant in a specific food industry, is applicable

to all food industries or at least the food industries in Ohio.

If complying end sealing compounds (at the ``3.7'' level) are or

will be available, OEPA asks that USEPA provide some guidance on the

proper date for compliance. The original RACT regulations, as

envisioned by USEPA, were to require compliance by the end of 1982 with

a time extension up through the end of 1985 for some can plants where

adequately justified. The Michael Lake paper shows that ``it may be

feasible and cost effective to control VOC emissions at the line with

carbon adsorption or incineration'' according to USEPA. At what level

of cost-effectiveness? Does that transfer to plants in Ohio?

USEPA Response: It is OEPA's responsibility to demonstrate that 4.4

lbs/gallon is the most stringent limit that is feasible for food can

end seal compounds. OEPA provides no basis for its statement that

``U.S. EPA must show that the report, which pertains to a specific

plant in a specific food industry, is applicable to all food industries

or at least the food industries in Ohio.'' It would be appropriate for

Ohio to provide adequate support for a relaxation that would make its

limit the least stringent in the country. Similarly, additional time to

achieve compliance with Ohio's end seal limit will only be considered

by USEPA if it is proposed and submitted by OEPA. As stated previously,

USEPA agrees that add-on control is not feasible for this operation.

Therefore, the cost-effectiveness issue is moot.

2. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt-Rule 3745-21-09(N)(4)

A. Proposed Action

Ohio added paragraph 3745-21-09(N)(4) to establish recordkeeping

requirements for those persons using or applying cutback asphalt or

emulsified asphalt during the period from May 15 through September 15.

USEPA proposed disapproval because these recordkeeping requirements

are inadequate in that they do not apply to the appropriate SIP period

of April 15 through October 15. Although in its State regulations, Ohio

currently has an exemption period of September 15 through May 15, USEPA

disapproved that extended exemption period when it was submitted as a

SIP revision. 54 FR 1934. The applicable SIP exemption period is

October 15 through April 15.

Under the current USEPA approved regulations, the use or

application of cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt during October 15

through April 15 is exempt from limitations. Thus, the recordkeeping

requirements are necessary for the remaining period: April 15 through

October 15.

B. Comments

OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The recordkeeping requirements and

the September 15 through May 15 exemption period are considered

adequate in light of the USEPA Region VI's proposed approval of the

Texas regulation which had a September 15 through April 15 exemption

period in a much warmer spring-fall period.

USEPA Response: Paragraph 3745-21-09(N)(4) only deals with

recordkeeping requirements and not when cutback asphalt is allowed to

be used. Ohio's Federally approved SIP does not allow cutback asphalt

to be used from April 15 through October 15. Unless and until the

exemption period is changed (in 3745-21-09(N)(3)), the recording

requirements must reflect the SIP requirements. Therefore, Paragraph

3745-21-09(N)(4) should be finally disapproved.

3. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt-Rule 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e)

A. Proposed Action

This paragraph states that the control requirements of (N)(1) and

(N)(2) shall not apply:

To the use or application by hand of any cutback asphalt or

emulsified asphalt for patching or crack sealing, provided the maximum

daily usage is less than one thousand gallons for any work crew.

USEPA proposed to disapprove this exemption (without the underlined

words) on March 6, 1985 (and finally disapproved this exemption on

January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1934)), and proposed to disapprove the rule as

revised in the May 30, 1989 Federal Register. This exemption is

supported by a November 3, 1982, letter from the Ohio Department of

Transportation which states that ``Our attempts at using emulsified

asphalt as crack sealers have not generally been satisfactory.'' The

County Engineers Association of Ohio, in a June 22, 1982, letter,

requested OEPA to ``Permit use of cutback asphalt for patching up to a

usage not to exceed 2,000 gallons per day at any time of the year''.

The County Engineers stated that this requested change ``would improve

the efficiency and economy of road paving and maintenance work.''

The language added to the end of (N)(3)(e) clarifies the exemption.

However, this clarifying language could result in substantially

increased VOC emissions because it clarifies that the one thousand

gallons per day refers to each work crew. Therefore, this clarifying

language, and the supporting documentation, does not change USEPA's

position on this exemption, for which an adequate basis has not been

provided. USEPA informed OEPA of this in its September 17, 1985,

comment letter.

B. Comments

OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The hand application exemption for

crack sealers and road patching conforms to the best judgement of the

engineering staff at the Ohio Department of Transportation and the

County Engineers Association of Ohio. Ohio's record in the conversion

to acceptable emulsified asphalts is above the median level of the 35

regulated States. This exemption is certainly minor when considering

this fact.

USEPA Response: Ohio's ratio of emulsified to cutback asphalt used

in 1987 is not a valid basis for exempting the hand application of

cutback asphalt. This exemption is inconsistent with USEPA guidance and

its previous determination of RACT. Ohio has not adequately

demonstrated that this revised language causes this exemption to

constitute RACT and it has provided no data on the amount of additional

cutback asphalt that is used in the ozone season as a result of the

exemption.

4. Miscellaneous Metals-Rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii)

A. Proposed Action

This paragraph establishes a limitation of 4.8 lbs VOC/gallon of

coating, excluding water, for a heat resistant, anti-corrosion coating

applied to the interior of a motor vehicle directly above the catalytic

converter. This revision was proposed for disapproval because it is a

relaxation of approved VOC emission limits in Ohio's ozone SIP and Ohio

has not made a demonstration that this relaxation will not interfere

with attainment and/or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, the

July 29, 1983, memorandum titled ``Source Specific SIP Revisions'' by

Sheldon Meyers, former Director of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

addresses the issue of VOC SIP relaxations. This memorandum states that

approval of such a relaxation would require a data base and modeling

demonstration consistent with that applied in extension areas. The

sources subject to this relaxation are located in Lordstown and Dayton,

Ohio. There have not been any revised attainment demonstrations,

consistent with those done for extension areas, submitted for these

areas.

B. Comments

OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The required demonstration will be

made as part of the upcoming post-1987 ozone SIP submissions. USEPA is

asked to accept such commitment on the part of OEPA. Region VI has

accepted such commitment for a future SIP impact assessment at 54 FR

23672 on June 2, 1989 (regarding Vulcan Materials Company, Geismar

Chemicals Plant).

USEPA Response: This requested rule relaxation is being reproposed

in a separate Federal Register notice which deals with corrections to

Ohio's VOC rules (as required by the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990). The reason for this reproposal is that the revelant policy has

changed with the Amended Act.

5. Architectural Aluminum Coating-Rule 3745-21-09 (U)(1)(a)(viii)

A. Proposed Action

The VOC requirement in this paragraph establishes a limitation of

6.2 lbs VOC/gallon of coating excluding water for high performance

architectural aluminum coatings. OEPA considers this limitation to

constitute RACT. This relaxation is supported by a September 6, 1985,

letter from Reynolds Aluminum, to OEPA. This letter states that ``We

have been unable to convert our High Performance Architectural Aluminum

Coatings to a low solvent formulation.'' Reynolds attached a December

6, 1984, letter from PPG which states that its efforts to develop

compliant coatings for the architectural and recreational vehicle

markets have been unsuccessful. USEPA proposed to disapprove this

relaxation because OEPA has neither documented the infeasibility of

add-on control nor the potential use of powder coatings. Three of these

suppliers, Armstrong Products, Fuller O'Brien, and Polymer Corporation,

expect their coatings to pass the 5 year exposure test. Some of these

are currently in the third or fourth year of their 5-year testing

period. Therefore, a permanent relaxation for high performance

architectural aluminum coatings is not approvable.

B. Comments

OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The USEPA purported availability of

compliant coatings for high performance architectural aluminum coatings

at 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon from Armstrong Products, Fuller O'Brien, and

Polymer Corporation should be documented in the docket. If a permanent

relaxation is not appropriate, does USEPA recommend a relaxation for a

specific year (e.g., up to 1989 or 1990)?

USEPA Response: Documentation of USEPA's conversations with powder

coating suppliers is in the Docket. The CTGs and Ohio SIP establish the

presumptive RACT for this source category. Ohio's comments provide no

support for its proposed relaxation. USEPA is only able to take actions

on proposed SIP revisions that are submitted to it. USEPA will evaluate

the merits of a compliance date extension if submitted and supported by

OEPA. Therefore, USEPA is disapproving this relaxation.

Final Action

OEPA had proposed a number of revisions to its RACT I, RACT II, and

general VOC rules. These are contained in OAC Chapter 3745-21-01,

Definitions; OAC Chapter 3745-21-04, Compliance and Schedules; OAC

Chapter 3745-21-09, Emission Limits; and OAC Chapter 3745-21-10, Test

Methods. A listing and short description of all of these revisions are

in USEPA's technical support documents, dated July 14, 1986, September

23, 1986, and July 27, 1988. Many of these revisions are minor.

Ohio submitted these regulations in 1986 in order to meet the RACT

requirement of the pre-amended Act and USEPA reviewed this submittal

against the general RACT requirement of the preamended Act, 1977 Act

Sec. 172.54 FR 22915 (May 30, 1989). Since USEPA did not issue a SIP

call with respect to the elements of this submittal, these revisions

are not required under the section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT fix-up requirement

of the Act. However, amended section 172 retains a general requirement

that States must adopt RACT for nonattainment areas. Therefore, USEPA

is taking final partial approval action as proposed under Section 110

and Part D of the Amended Act, with the exception of the following:

1. USEPA is disapproving the proposed relaxation for food can end

sealing compounds in 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) (from 3.7 to 4.4 lbs VOC/gal).

2. USEPA is disapproving the proposed revision to the exemption, as

well as the entire exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application

by hand of any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or

crack sealing. In addition, USEPA is disapproving the recordkeeping

requirements in 3745-21-09(N)(4) because they are inadequate with

respect to the time period during which records are required.

3. USEPA is disapproving the relaxation (from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC/

gal) for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09

(U)(1)(a)(viii).

4. In the proposed rulemaking for this revision published at 54 FR

22915 (May 30, 1989), USEPA proposed to take no action on the exemption

for new sources in 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). USEPA believes that the Amended

Clean Air Act affects this element and will repropose action on it

consistent with the amended Act in a separate Federal Register

document.

5. In the May 30, 1989, proposed rulemaking for this revision,

USEPA proposed to disapprove the relaxation for miscellaneous metals in

3745-21-09 (U)(1)(a)(vii). This requested rule relaxation will be

reproposed in a separate Federal Register notice because the relevant

policy has changed with the Amended Act.

As stated earlier, Ohio's April 9, 1986, State submittal included

new VOC regulations for additional RACT III source categories not

specifically covered by Ohio's existing rules and a site-specific

revision for the Huffy Corporation. This Federal Register document does

not address these other elements of the April 9, 1986, submittal. This

notice also does not address those amendments to the ozone SIP that

were previously submitted on March 28, 1983, to USEPA and for which

final rulemaking was taken on January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1934).

Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not significant. It has

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

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 July 5, 1994. 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.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of Ohio was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 13, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart KK--Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(90) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(90) On April 9, 1986, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) submitted amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

Chapter 3745-21. The amendments are embodied in the following OAC

regulations: Definitions, Rule 3745-21-01; Attainment dates and

compliance time schedules, Rule 3745-21-04; Control of emissions of

volatile organic compounds from stationary sources, Rule 3745-21-09;

and Compliance test methods and procedures, Rule 3745-21-10. USEPA is

approving these amendments with the following exceptions: The proposed

relaxation for food can end sealing compounds in 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e)

and (D)(2)(e) (from 3.7 to 4.4 lbs VOC/gallon); the proposed revision

to the exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application by hand of

any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or crack

sealing; the recordkeeping requirements in 3745-21-09(N)(4); the

relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC/gallon for high performance

architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(viii); the

exemption for new sources in 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f); and the relaxation

for miscellaneous metals coatings in 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-01,

effective on May 9, 1986.

(B) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-04,

effective on May 9, 1986.

(C) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-09,

effective on May 9, 1986, except for:

(1) 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e) (proposed relaxation for food

can end sealing);

(2) 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) (proposed revision to the exemption for the

application by hand of any cutback or emulsified asphalt for patching

crack sealing);

(3) 3745-21-09(N)(4) (recordkeeping requirements);

(4) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(viii) (relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC.

gal for high performance architectural aluminum coatings);

(5) 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f) (the exemption for new sources); and

(6) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii) (relaxation for miscellaneous metal

coatings).

(D) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-10,

effective May 9, 1996.

[FR Doc. 94-10652 Filed 5-3-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6580-50-P