Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH45-1-5974a; FRL-5169-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving revisions to the Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) on March 15, 1993, and December 30, 1994. The OEPA

submitted these revisions to the USEPA on June 7, 1993, and February

17, 1995. The revisions concern Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter

3745-21, ``Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically Reactive Materials,

[[Page 15236]] Hydrocarbons, and Related Materials Standards.'' The

USEPA has evaluated the revisions to Rules 01, 04, 09, and 10 and is

approving the requested revisions. The USEPA's action is based upon a

revision request which was submitted by the State to satisfy the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 22, 1995 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by April 24, 1995. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.

MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement

Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following addresses: (It is recommended that you telephone Bonnie Bush

at (312) 353-6684, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604;

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and Information Center (Air

Docket 6102), room M1500, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and Public Information

Reference Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Bush, Air Enforcement Branch,

Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA)

were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.

7401-7671q. Under the pre-amended CAA, ozone nonattainment areas were

required to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules

for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. VOC's

contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These

rules were required as part of an effort to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.

RACT, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(o), means devices, systems

process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are

reasonably available taking into account (1) the necessity of imposing

such controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air

quality standard, (2) the social, environmental and economic impact of

such controls, and (3) alternative means of providing for attainment

and maintenance of such standard. The USEPA issued three sets of

control technique guidelines (CTGs) documents, establishing a

``presumptive norm'' for RACT for various categories of VOC sources.

The three sets of CTGs were: (1) Group I, issued before January 1978

(15 CTGs); (2) Group II, issued in 1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III,

issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). Those sources not covered by a CTG

were called non-CTG sources. The USEPA determined that a given

nonattainment area's SIP-approved attainment date established which

RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. Under pre-amended

section 172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment areas were generally required to

attain the ozone standard by December 31, 1982. Those areas that

projected attainment by that date were required to adopt RACT for

sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs. Those areas that sought an

extension of the attainment date under section 172(a)(2) to as late as

December 31, 1987, were required to adopt RACT for all CTG sources and

for all major (i.e., 100 ton per year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG

sources.

Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT

rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified

as moderate or above. There are three parts to the section 182(b)(2)

RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG,

i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG (note: this

includes unregulated emission units within a source if they total more

than 100 tons per year in the aggregate). Section 182(b)(2) requires

nonattainment areas that previously were exempt from RACT requirements

to ``catch up'' to those nonattainment areas that became subject to

those requirements during an earlier period. In addition, it requires

newly designated ozone nonattainment areas to adopt RACT rules

consistent with those for previously designated nonattainment areas.

Under the pre-amended Act, the USEPA designated the Dayton-

Springfield, Cincinnati, Youngstown-Warren, Canton, Toledo, Cleveland,

and Akron areas and Ashtabula County as nonattainment. The Dayton-

Springfield area included Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery

Counties; the Cincinnati area included Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, and

Butler Counties; the Youngstown-Warren area included Mahoning and

Trumbull Counties; the Canton area included Stark County; the Toledo

area included Lucas County; and the Cleveland and Akron areas included

Portage, Summit, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, and Lorain Counties. Ohio

established a pre-enactment attainment date of December 31, 1982, for

the Dayton-Springfield, Youngstown-Warren, Canton, Toledo and Akron

nonattainment areas and December 31, 1987, for the Cleveland and

Cincinnati nonattainment areas. Therefore, Dayton-Springfield,

Youngstown-Warren, Canton, Toledo, and Akron were required to adopt

RACT for Groups I and II sources, and the Cincinnati and Cleveland

areas were required to adopt RACT for Groups I, II, III, and major non-

CTG sources. Ashtabula County was designated rural nonattainment and

was required to adopt RACT for Groups I and II sources.

However, none of the above areas attained the ozone standard by

their respective approved attainment dates. On May 26, 1988, and

November 8, 1989, the USEPA notified the Governor of Ohio that portions

of the SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard

and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected. These

notifications are referred to as USEPA's SIP Calls). In amended section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement

that pre-enactment ozone nonattainment areas that retained their

designation of nonattainment and were classified as marginal or above

fix their deficient RACT rules for ozone by May 15, 1991. The Dayton-

Springfield, Cincinnati, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Toledo areas and

Ashtabula County retained their designation of nonattainment and were

classified as moderate; the Youngstown-Warren and Canton areas retained

their designation of nonattainment and were classified as marginal. 56

FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). The State submitted revisions to meet the RACT

fix-up requirement for all the above areas, and the USEPA has taken a

final action of partial approval, partial disapproval, and partial

limited approval/limited disapproval of that submittal. 59 FR 23796

(May 9, 1994).

In addition to the pre-enactment nonattainment areas retaining

their nonattainment designations, the USEPA also extended the

boundaries of the Toledo and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

[[Page 15237]] nonattainment areas to include Wood County in the Toledo

area and Ashtabula and Medina Counties in the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

area. 56 FR 56694 and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). Wood and Medina

Counties were previously not subject to CAA RACT requirements.

Ashtabula County was previously subject to Groups I and II RACT and to

the section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT fix-up requirement. Therefore, these

portions of the extended nonattainment area also are subject to the

RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2), which requires the State, for

these extended portions of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain and Toledo

nonattainment areas, to submit RACT rules covering all pre-enactment

CTGs, to identify all sources the State anticipates will be covered by

a post-enactment CTG, and to submit non-CTG rules for all remaining

major sources (100 tons per year) of VOC emissions (Appendix E to the

General Preamble, 57 FR 18077, April 28, 1992).

The following is the USEPA's evaluation and rulemaking action for

the submitted revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-

21 ``Carbon Monoxide Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons,

and Related Materials Standards,'' including the following amendments:

3745-21-01, Definitions; 3745-21-04, Attainment Dates and Compliance

Time Schedules; 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Stationary Sources; and 3745-21-10, Compliance Test

Methods and Procedures.

II. USEPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, the USEPA must

evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and

USEPA regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40

CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The USEPA interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for this action, appears in various USEPA policy

guidance documents discussed in this Notice.

For the purpose of assisting State and local agencies in developing

RACT rules, the USEPA prepared a series of CTG documents. The CTG's are

based on the underlying requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for RACT for specific source categories. The USEPA

has not yet developed CTG's to cover all sources of VOC emissions.

Further interpretations of USEPA policy are found in those portions of

the proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern

RACT (52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987) and ``Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987, Federal Register Notice'' (Blue Book).

Notice of availability of the Blue Book was published in the Federal

Register on May 25, 1988. In general, these guidance documents have

been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen the SIP. A detailed analysis of the submittals and

discussion of the USEPA's basis for this action is contained in a

February 21, 1995, USEPA Technical Support Document (TSD).

This Notice addresses VOC regulations applying to CTG source

categories contained in Ohio's June 7, 1993, and February 17, 1995,

submittals and one site-specific non-CTG rule applying to the British

Petroleum Company, Toledo Refinery (BP Oil). Because of the size of

this submittal, a single rulemaking action on the entire submittal

would further delay Federal enforceability of any part of it.

Therefore, this Notice evaluates and takes action on only that portion

of the submittal applying to sources belonging to the following CTG

source categories:

Automobiles and Light-Duty Truck Coating

Can Coating

Coil Coating

Paper Coating

Fabric Coating

Vinyl Coating

Metal Furniture Coating

Magnet Wire Coating

Large Appliance Coating

Bulk Gasoline Plants

Bulk Gasoline Terminals

Gasoline Tank Trucks

Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks

Petroleum Refinery Sources

Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts in Road Construction and Maintenance

Solvent Metal Cleaning

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment

Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coating

Synthesized Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Facilities

Printing

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks

Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Facilities

Leaks from Process Units that Produce Organic Chemicals

Air Oxidation Processes in Organic Chemical Manufacture

The rules in the submittal that apply to non-CTG sources other than

BP Oil are addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

No deficiencies have been identified in the rules subject to this

rulemaking action. The February 1995 USEPA TSD discusses the bases for

approval of the portions of the submittals subject to this action and

lists the references, guidance documents, and correspondence used in

the evaluation of the submittals.

Alternative Applicability Cutoff in OAC Rule 3745-21-09(U)

OAC 3745-21-09(U) is Ohio's rule for miscellaneous metals coating

facilities. Rule (U), paragraph (2)(e)(i) exempts sources in the Dayton

nonattainment area which use eight or less gallons of coating per day

per line (gpd/line), and paragraph (2)(e)(ii) exempts sources in the

Canton, Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Youngstown nonattainment

areas which use 10 or less gpd/line. The USEPA CTG document for

miscellaneous metal coaters does not define an applicability cutoff

specific to the source category, so the general RACT cutoff of 15 lb

VOC per day actual emissions before control for all sources in the

source category at a given facility, as described in the Blue Book,

applies to these facilities. While Rule (U), paragraph (2)(h), includes

the USEPA RACT cutoff, the exemptions in (2)(e) make possible the

exemption of sources with emissions above the RACT cutoff. The Blue

Book provides for approval of alternative applicability cutoffs if the

State demonstrates that the allowable emissions under the alternative

cutoff are within five percent of the allowable emissions under the

USEPA RACT cutoff--a ``five percent equivalency demonstration.''

The OEPA submitted complete five percent demonstrations (summary

calculations and supporting documentation) for the Canton, Dayton,

Toledo, and Youngstown areas. Review of the complete five percent

demonstrations shows that the alternative cutoffs for the Canton,

Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown, nonattainment areas are approvable.

Based on emissions data for 1990 or earlier, the allowable VOC

emissions using the alternative cutoffs are, in each case, within five

percent of the allowable VOC emissions using the USEPA RACT cutoff. The

calculation of the demonstrations was consistent with USEPA policy, and

the calculations were adequately supported by documentation of VOC

coating content. The results of the demonstrations are summarized in

the following table:

[[Page 15238]]

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

Allowable Allowable

VOC, lb/ VOC, lb/ Percent

Nonattainment area day, RACT day, Ohio Difference

cutoff cutoff

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

Canton.............................. 2,950.54 3,062.26 +3.79

Dayton.............................. 18,751.82 19,615.44 +4.61

Toledo.............................. 5,385.85 5,599.37 +3.96

Youngstown.......................... 10,158.50 10,490.85 +3.27

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

The OEPA also submitted summary calculations, without supporting

documentation, showing that a three or less gpd/line cutoff for the

Cincinnati and Cleveland nonattainment areas results in emissions that

are within five percent of the emissions allowed by the RACT cutoff. A

three or less gpd/line cutoff has not been adopted by Ohio, and the

OEPA has requested that the 10 or less gpd/line cutoff in Rule

(U)(2)(e)(ii), contained in the February 1995 submittal, not be made

part of the ozone SIP for the Counties of Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont,

Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit, and

Warren, which constitute the Cincinnati and Cleveland nonattainment

areas. The OEPA has requested that USEPA delay action on the rule as it

applies in Cincinnati and Cleveland because the OEPA intends to adopt a

three or less gpd/line cutoff for the Cincinnati and Cleveland

nonattainment areas, and submit this cutoff, accompanied by supporting

documentation, to the USEPA as a SIP revision request. Therefore, the

USEPA is approving this rule only as it applies to Canton, Dayton,

Toledo, and Youngstown. The USEPA will take further action on this rule

as it applies to Cincinnati and Cleveland when the OEPA submits the

revised rule.

The revised Rule (U) also corrects a deficient emission limit,

removes vague and unenforceable language, and adds clarifying language

necessary for consistency with RACT, thereby strengthening the SIP.

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Exemptions and Technical Support

The June 1993 submittal contains a version of OAC 3745-21-09(X),

Ohio's rule for rubber tire manufacturing facilities, which includes

new exemptions for two facilities: the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

facility at 200 S. Martha Avenue, Akron, Ohio, and the Denman Tire

Corporation facility in Leavittsburg, Ohio. There are two ways to

exempt a facility from applicable RACT requirements: (1) The State can

demonstrate that the exemption meets existing USEPA exemption policy

for the specific source category, or (2) the State can demonstrate that

RACT as defined by the USEPA is infeasible or unreasonable for the

facility being exempted. The USEPA exemption policy for rubber tire

manufacturing (the Blue Book) states that RACT ``does not apply to the

production of specialty tires for antique or other vehicles when

produced on an irregular basis or with short production runs only if

these tires are produced on equipment separate from normal production

lines for passenger type tires.''

While the OEPA included technical documentation for these

exemptions in the June 1993 submittal, it did not sufficiently support

either of the above demonstrations. The inadequacy of the technical

support was communicated to the OEPA in a June 1994 comment letter, and

draft paragraphs from the USEPA TSD were sent to the OEPA via facsimile

to facilitate subsequent discussions of unresolved issues. During these

discussions, the USEPA asked the OEPA to consider the USEPA's draft

model VOC rule language pertaining to applicability for rubber tire

manufacturing facilities. The OEPA has eliminated the exemptions for

Denman and Goodyear and incorporated the model rule applicability

language in the February 1995 submittal. The USEPA now finds OAC Rule

3745-21-09(X) to be fully approvable.

Reconsideration of Previously Noted Deficiencies

Pursuant to discussions between the OEPA and the USEPA, the USEPA

has reconsidered its position on some of the deficiencies cited in the

Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) on two earlier VOC rules submittals

from Ohio (May 9, 1994, 59 FR 23796). All but two of the retractions

are described in a July 22, 1994, USEPA memorandum to the files; the

remaining two reconsiderations warrant more detailed explanations, as

follows:

1. Rule 3745-21-09(B), General provisions, paragraph (3)(f): The

deficiency originally cited was that the rule must provide for daily,

not monthly, recordkeeping to be consistent with RACT as defined by the

USEPA and must be fully enforceable. The OEPA stated that an Ohio VOC

source, Champion International, contacted USEPA Headquarters (HQ) on

this issue, and HQ agreed that monthly recordkeeping is acceptable in

this situation. This was not documented in the OEPA's June 1993

technical support, and Region 5 staff were not aware of this policy.

The OEPA subsequently submitted a November 24, 1992, letter from John

Calcagni, Director of the Air Quality Management Division, USEPA, to

Robert A. Meyer, Jr., of a Columbus, Ohio, law firm, which supports the

monthly recordkeeping requirement.

2. Rule 3745-21-09(EE), Air oxidation processes that produce

organic chemicals: The deficiency originally cited was that the phrase

``good engineering practices'' in the exemption in paragraph (2)(a) is

vague and unenforceable. The OEPA stated that the exemption language in

paragraph (2)(a) was taken from the USEPA Control Techniques Guideline

document on air oxidation processes. This was confirmed by USEPA staff,

and we informed the OEPA that the final disapproval of this paragraph

in the May 9, 1994, NFR (59 FR 23796) was an error, which is corrected

by this action.

All of the other regulations cited as deficient in the May 9, 1994,

NFR (59 FR 23796), have either been revised by the OEPA to correct the

deficiency or reconsidered by the USEPA as discussed above, and all

such regulations are now fully approvable.

Non-CTG Regulation for BP Oil

BP Oil, Toledo Refinery, is located in Lucas County, which is

designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone. Prior to enactment of

the CAA amendments, Lucas County was part of an area that had projected

attainment by December 31, 1982, and therefore was subject to Group I

and II CTG's only. Under section 182(b)(2), Lucas County is now subject

to Group III CTG's and non-CTG RACT for major sources. BP Oil was

identified by the OEPA as a major source, already subject to OAC 3745-

21-09(L), (M), (T), and (Z), which regulate the source categories Fixed

Roof Petroleum Tanks, Miscellaneous Refinery Sources, Leaks from

Petroleum Refineries, and External Floating Roof Petroleum Tanks. On

January 10, 1991, [[Page 15239]] the OEPA sent BP a letter requesting

submittal by August 22, 1991, of a RACT study of all VOC sources not

regulated by OAC 3745-21-09. BP hired ENSR Consulting and Engineering

(ENSR) to perform this RACT study, which has been included in the

technical support submitted by the OEPA for Rule 09(UU), the non-CTG

rule for BP Oil.

A detailed description of the RACT study, a discussion of issues

and their resolution, and the verbatim non-CTG rule language can be

found in the February 1995 USEPA TSD. The control requirements

established by OAC Rule 3745-21-09(UU) are acceptable and found to

constitute RACT for the sources they control. The compliance deadlines

for these controls as specified in OAC Rule 3745-21-04(C)(55) meet the

section 182(b)(2) requirement; the latest compliance deadline is May 1,

1995. The RACT study and other technical support was reviewed in great

detail by USEPA staff, and during the review process, many issues

arose. These issues were resolved through discussions with OEPA staff

and submittal of further technical support by the OEPA.

In an attempt to clarify the emissions picture at BP Oil, USEPA

staff performed a detailed comparison between Ohio's 1990 base year

inventory (currently under USEPA review) and the ``de minimis,''

``negligible,'' and ``minor'' sources described in the RACT study. This

comparison resulted in the identification of a number of sources in the

inventory which appeared to require RACT evaluation. These sources were

discussed one by one with OEPA staff, who, in summary, stated that most

of the sources were subject to CTG regulations in Chapter 09. The USEPA

accepts the State's assessment of these sources regarding their being

subject to CTG regulations, and, therefore, USEPA staff did no further

investigation of these sources. Ultimately, only the sources discussed

in the USEPA's November 7, 1994, comments for the public record

remained unresolved. On November 8, 1994, the USEPA received a letter

from the OEPA stating that the 1990 base year inventory is in error in

that the sources in question are not really VOC sources; therefore, no

RACT evaluation is necessary. USEPA staff reviewing the inventory were

notified of the errors and given a copy of the OEPA letter.

The USEPA finds Rule 09(UU) to be approvable.

RACT Studies

In response to the non-CTG RACT requirements of sections

182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2) of the amended CAA, Ohio submitted RACT

studies for ten facilities for which no rule development was performed.

The OEPA concluded that the existing controls at these facilities

constitute RACT and are federally enforceable. Two of the ten RACT

studies were evaluated for the current rulemaking action: (1) the Sun

Refining and Marketing Company in the Toledo nonattainment area, and

(2) the General Motors Company (GMC) Delco Chassis Division in the

Dayton nonattainment area. The evaluations and recommendations for

these studies can be found in two USEPA TSDs, dated August 23, 1994

(Sun), and September 7, 1994 (GMC Delco). In summary, for Sun Oil, the

USEPA believes that the existing controls at Sun Oil are federally

enforceable and that they constitute RACT for this facility. For GMC

Delco, the USEPA believes that the existing controls constitute RACT;

however, at the time of the June 1993 submittal, they were not

federally enforceable. The OEPA was made aware of this deficiency

through several letters cited in the list of references in the February

1995 USEPA TSD. The February 1995 submittal includes a modified permit-

to-install, which upon approval by the USEPA into the Ohio ozone SIP,

fulfils the requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the amended CAA. The

USEPA is approving the modified permit-to-install into the Dayton area

ozone SIP as RACT.

General Preamble Issues

The General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13497, April 16, 1992) gives guidance

for implementation of Title I. For section 182(b)(2), the General

Preamble states that States must submit negative declarations for those

source categories for which they are not adopting CTG-based

regulations, even if such negative declarations have been made for an

earlier SIP (57 FR 13512). A negative declaration is a statement that,

for a given source category, there are no facilities with sources in

that source category in any of the Counties subject to the requirement.

Ohio's June 7, 1993, submittal contains negative declarations for the

source categories of polypropylene or high density polyethylene resin

manufacturing, natural gas/gasoline processing plants, and surface

coating of flat wood paneling. Ohio previously submitted negative

declarations for the resin manufacturing and gas processing categories

in 1986. The OEPA has resubmitted those declarations and reconfirmed

that there are no facilities in Ohio subject to RACT in these

categories. There is one plant in Ohio with a hardboard paneling

finishing line, which was constructed after the issuance of the CTG for

surface coating of flat wood paneling. The source, Abitibi-Price

Corporation, is subject to a federally enforceable permit-to-install

with requirements that are equivalent to the CTG requirements. The

USEPA is approving that permit-to-install into the ozone SIP as RACT.

States must include in the section 182(b)(2) submittal a list of

major sources that the State has identified as being potentially

subject to post-enactment CTG documents to be issued for the source

categories listed in Appendix E to the General Preamble. Supplement to

the General Preamble (57 FR 18070, 18077, April 28, 1992). The State

was again notified of this necessity in a January 15, 1993, letter from

Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, to Governor George Voinovich.

This source list was not included in the June 7, 1993, submittal to the

USEPA. The omission of the list from the June 1993 submittal was

communicated to Ohio in an August 26, 1993, letter. On July 27, 1994,

the USEPA Region 5 office received by facsimile a list of facilities,

the source categories to which they belong, with the year of any RACT

study that has been done. On February 21, 1995, the State submitted an

updated list. The USEPA considers this list to satisfy the Appendix E

guidelines pertaining to the list of sources due November 15, 1992.

Stage II

On October 20, 1994, a direct final rulemaking notice was published

(59 FR 52911) partially approving the Stage II rule submitted on June

7, 1993. That rulemaking codified OAC 3745-21-09(DDD), the emissions

standards portion of the rule. While the October 1994 notice discussed

the compliance schedule and the test methods for Stage II, codification

of these portions of the rule was inadvertently omitted. The USEPA is

now approving OAC 3745-21-04(C)(64), the Stage II compliance schedule,

and OAC 3745-21-10 (Q), (R), (S), and Appendices A, B, and C, the Stage

II test methods, as submitted on June 7, 1993, into the Ohio ozone SIP.

III. Rulemaking Action

The USEPA has evaluated the State's submittal for consistency with

the Act, USEPA regulations, and USEPA policy.

The USEPA has determined that the submitted CTG rules meet the

Act's [[Page 15240]] requirements, and with this action approves, under

section 110(k)(3), the following rules:

OAC 3745-21-01: (D)(6), (D)(8), (D)(45), (M)(8).

OAC 3745-21-04: (B); (C)(3)(c), (C)(4)(b), (C)(5)(b), (C)(6)(b), (C)(8)

(b) and (c), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10)(b), (C)(19) (b), (c) and (d),

(C)(28)(b), (C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44), (C)(45),

(C)(47), (C)(55), (C)(64) as submitted on June 7, 1993, (C)(65).

OAC 3745-21-09: (A), (C) through (L), (N) through (T), (X), (Y), (Z),

(BB), (CC), (DD), (UU), Appendix A; (B) with the exception of (B)(3)

(d) and (e) for the Cincinnati and Cleveland nonattainment areas; (U)

with the exception of (U)(1)(h) statewide and (U)(2)(e)(ii) for the

Cincinnati and Cleveland nonattainment areas.

OAC 3745-21-10: (A), (B), (C), (E), (O), as submitted in February 1995,

and (Q), (R), (S), and Appendices A, B, and C as submitted in June

1993.

The Cincinnati and Cleveland nonattainment areas include the Ohio

Counties of Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton,

Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit, and Warren.

OAC 3745-21-01 (H), (Q), and (T); 3745-21-04(C) (38), (39), (42),

(44), (45), (47), (49), (51) through (63), and (66), and (64) as

submitted in June 1993; 3745-21-09 (FF) through (TT) and (VV) through

(DDD); and 3745-21-10 (Q), (R), (S), and Appendices A and B as

submitted in February 1995 are being addressed in separate rulemaking

actions. Ohio requested that the USEPA not consider certain paragraphs

for approval into the ozone SIP, including OAC 3745-21-09(B)(3) (d) and

(e) and 09(U)(2)(e)(ii) for the Cleveland and Cincinnati nonattainment

areas and 09(U)(1)(h) statewide. For these paragraphs, the appropriate

previously approved rules stand as the federally approved SIP. The

State included non-revised existing rules in the submittal, and such

rules remain part of the current federally approved Ohio ozone SIP as

they stand; therefore, no Federal rulemaking action is necessary.

The submitted permit-to-install for GMC Delco is approved into the

Ohio ozone SIP.

The negative declarations made by Ohio for the source categories of

high density polyethylene or polypropylene resin manufacturing, natural

gas/gasoline processing plants, and surface coating of flat wood

paneling are approved into the Ohio ozone SIP. The submitted permit-to-

install for the Abitibi-Price Corporation is approved into the Ohio

ozone SIP.

Submittal of a list of major stationary sources which will be

subject to post-enactment CTG's for the source categories listed in

Appendix E to the General Preamble are a necessary part of any

submittal intended to satisfy section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. The USEPA

is approving into the Ohio ozone SIP the list of facilities submitted

on February 21, 1995.

IV. Comment and Approval Procedure

The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

the USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. However, the USEPA is publishing a

separate document in this Federal Register publication, which

constitutes a ``proposed approval'' of the requested SIP revision and

clarifies that the rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely

adverse or critical comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval

shall be effective on May 22, 1995, unless the USEPA receives adverse

or critical comments by April 24, 1995.

If the USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the

approval discussed above, the USEPA will withdraw this approval before

its effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register notice

which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will

then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking notice. Please be aware

that the USEPA will institute a second comment period on this action

only if warranted by revisions to the rulemaking based on the comments

received.

Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at

this time. If no such comments are received, the USEPA hereby advises

the public that this action will be effective on May 22, 1995.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in

light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the

USEPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the

impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, the USEPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,

preparation of regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids the USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. section 7410(a)(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 22, 1995. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

[[Page 15241]] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart KK--Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) and

revising paragraph (c)(104) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(103) On June 7, 1993, and February 17, 1995, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The revisions include one new non-

Control Technique Guideline volatile organic compound (VOC) rule,

corrections to existing VOC rules, and two permits-to-install.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) OEPA Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-21-01,

Definitions, Paragraphs (B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(6), (D)(6), (D)(8),

(D)(22), (D)(45), (D)(48), (D)(58), (M)(8); effective January 17, 1995.

(B) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-04, Attainment Dates and Compliance Time

Schedules, Paragraphs (B), (C)(3)(c), (C)(4)(b), (C)(5)(b), (C)(6)(b),

(C)(8) (b) and (c), (C)(9)(b), (C)(10)(b), (C)(19) (b), (c), and (d),

(C)(28)(b), (C)(38), (C)(39), (C)(42), (C)(43), (C)(44), (C)(45),

(C)(47), (C)(55), (C)(65); effective January 17, 1995.

(C) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Stationary Sources, Paragraphs (A), (C) through

(L), (N) through (T), (X), (Y), (Z), (BB), (CC), (DD), (UU), Appendix

A; effective January 17, 1995.

(D) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Stationary Sources, Paragraph (B) except

(B)(3)(d) and (e) for the Ohio Counties of Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont,

Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit, and

Warren; effective January 17, 1995.

(E) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Stationary Sources, Paragraph (U) except

(U)(1)(h) statewide and (U)(2)(e)(ii) for the Ohio Counties of

Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain,

Medina, Portage, Summit, and Warren; effective January 17, 1995.

(F) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-10, Compliance Test Methods and

Procedures, Paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (E), (O); effective January 17,

1995.

(G) Permit to Install, Application Number 04-204, for Abitibi-Price

Corporation, APS Premise Number 0448011192. The date of issuance is

July 7, 1983.

(H) Permit to Install, Application Number 08-3273, for General

Motors Corporation Delco Chassis Division, APS Premise Number

0857040935. The date of issuance is February 13, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) On June 7, 1993, the OEPA submitted negative declarations for

the source categories of polypropylene or high density polyethylene

resin manufacturing, natural gas/gasoline processing plants, and

surface coating of flat wood paneling. These negative declarations are

approved into the Ohio ozone SIP.

(B) On February 21, 1995, the OEPA submitted a list of facilities

subject to the post-enactment source categories listed in Appendix E to

the General Preamble. 57 FR 18070, 18077 (April 28, 1992). This list is

approved into the Ohio ozone SIP.

(104) On June 7, 1993, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) submitted a revision request to Ohio's ozone SIP for approval of

the State's Stage II vapor recovery program. The Stage II program

requirements apply to sources in the following areas: Cincinnati-

Hamilton; Cleveland-Akron-Lorain; and Dayton-Springfield.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) OEPA Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-21-04, Attainment

Dates and Compliance Time Schedules, Paragraph (C)(64); effective date

March 31, 1993.

(B) OEPA OAC Rule 3745-21-10, Compliance Test Methods and

Procedures, Paragraphs (Q), (R), (S), Appendices A, B, C; effective

date March 31, 1993.

Sec. 52.1885 [Amended]

3. Section 52.1885 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(b).

[FR Doc. 95-7100 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P