Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Michigan; Site-Specific SIP Revision for Leon Plastics, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI55-02-7263; FRL-6114-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Michigan;

Site-Specific SIP Revision for Leon Plastics, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking finalizes the Environmental Protection

Agency's (EPA's) disapproval of the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality's site-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision for Leon Plastics, Inc. A site-specific SIP revision request

was made by the State of Michigan on behalf of Leon Plastics. This

site-specific SIP would allow coating lines at the Leon Plastics

facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan to demonstrate compliance with

requirements based in the Clean Air Act through cross-line averaging

over a 30-day period instead of on a line-by-line, daily basis. The EPA

proposed to disapprove this request on February 3, 1998. During the

comment period, comments were submitted and the EPA is responding to

these comments.

DATES: This disapproval is effective July 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Douglas Aburano at (312)

353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 353-6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 3, 1998, EPA proposed to disapprove the site-specific

SIP revision for Leon Plastics, Inc. (63 FR 5489). This proposed

disapproval was based on the fact that the submittal did not contain

adequate justification for a greater than daily averaging and, thus,

did not warrant approving a greater than daily averaging approach

combined with cross-line averaging.

Following are the comments submitted during the public comment

period and EPA's response to those comments.

II. Public Comments/Response to Comments

General Comment: EPA has policy other than that cited which

supports the requested SIP revision.

This general comment is broken down into the two comments that

follow.

Comment 1: EPA Policy which authorizes the requested SIP revision.

The commentor states that, ``EPA's January 20, 1984 policy

memorandum entitled `Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission

Limits' supports the SIP revision. This policy statement recognizes

that application of RACT for each emission point taken individually may

not be economically or technically feasible on a daily basis. One of

the motivations for allowing more than daily averaging is `variability

or lack of predictability in a source's daily operation.' ''

Response to Comment 1: The policy memorandum referred to by the

commentor might be interpreted to allow greater than daily averaging

due to ``variability or lack or predictability in a source's

operation,'' but a policy memorandum dated January 20, 1987 that

modifies the 1984 memorandum states, ``Long term averaging should never

be employed to disguise the fact that a RACT emission limitation is

being relaxed. Unless recordkeeping presents an insurmountable problem,

adjustments should be made in the RACT number, not in the averaging

time.''

The January 20, 1987 memorandum was the basis for the proposed

disapproval published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1998.

Comment 2: The EPA has granted monthly averaging to the very

customers to whom Leon Plastics supplies flexible vinyl parts.

Response to Comment 2: EPA has not granted monthly averaging to the

automotive industry. EPA believes that this comment refers the document

entitled, ``Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-duty Truck Topcoat

Operations'' (EPA-450/3-88-018, December 1988). First, this protocol

applies to a different source category than does Rule 632. Second,

while this protocol allows recordkeeping of coating usage on a monthly

basis, it requires the production usage records to be kept on a daily

basis. This methodology will prorate the coating usage down to a daily

basis to determine compliance with a daily limit. It does not allow an

extended averaging time as the commentor indicates.

Comment 3: EPA has breached its duty of good faith; detrimental

reliance. Specifically, the commentor states that Leon Plastics was

told that the air use permit terms and conditions were being discussed

with EPA. The commentor goes further to indicate that EPA indicated

that a cross-line average with extended averaging time would be

approvable.

Response to Comment 3: The EPA had no discussions regarding this

site-specific SIP revision request prior to its submittal in September

1996. EPA never indicated that a cross-line average with extended

averaging time could be approvable for this source. If there had been

prior discussions, EPA would have expressed a preference for a site-

specific SIP revision request that would not have involved cross-line

averaging or extended averaging but simply a request for a higher VOC

limit for the line experiencing difficulty in complying with the

applicable limit of 5.0 lb/gal. This type of request was mentioned in

the February 3, 1998 proposed disapproval.

Comment 4: Alternatively, EPA should approve a site-specific SIP

amendment for the coating. Leon Plastics requests, as an alternative to

the pending SIP revision, a 6.3 pounds of VOCs per gallon of coating,

as applied, minus water, limit for its flexible vinyl coatings.

Response to Comment 4: EPA mentioned this as a potential resolution

to this situation in lieu of the site-specific SIP revision that is

being disapproved. In the February 3, 1998 proposed disapproval, EPA

stated that, ``an alternative RACT for the Finish Room seems

justified.''

While an alternative RACT limit would be a variance from the 5.0

lb/gal limit found in Michigan's Rule 632, EPA would compare the

subsequent SIP submittal material to information relating to EPA's

suggested limit that applies to ``soft coatings.'' This limit, as found

in EPA's Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document for ``Surface

Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic

Parts'' Table 4-1A, is 5.9 lb/gal. Judging from background materials

included as part of the site-specific submittal that is being

disapproved today, EPA is led to believe that the coating being used by

Leon Plastics may be considered a ``soft coating'' which is a separate

coating category unto itself in EPA's ACT, but a category not found in

Michigan's Rule 632.

If the appropriate justification documenting the need for a higher

VOC

[[Page 34299]]

limit as RACT was submitted as part of a site-specific SIP revision

requesting a higher limit on the Finish Room line, EPA would approve

such a request. However, this comment cannot be a substitute for a

formal SIP revision request and the SIP revision request that has been

made is not approvable.

Comment 5: The proposed disapproval categorically states that the

vinyl coating operations performed by Leon Plastics Inc. are subject to

Michigan's Rule 632 and to the 5.0 lbs. VOC per gallon limit on air

dried interior coatings. Leon Plastics would note, however, that no

Control Techniques Guidance (CTG) document supporting the 5.0 number

was cited in the proposed disallowance. Leon Plastics is now seeking a

clarification that Rule 632 does not apply to the coating of flexible

vinyl automotive parts.

Response to Comment 5: Under Michigan's Rule 632, that has been

approved into Michigan's federally enforceable SIP, the vinyl coating

operations performed by Leon Plastics are considered under the general

category of ``Air-dried coating-- interior parts'' and are, therefore,

subject to the 5.0 lb/gal limit.

A CTG was not cited as the basis for disapproval because CTGs and

ACTs are only guidance documents used in the development of

regulations. As discussed above, the basis for disapproval is that the

revision proposing greater than daily averaging combined with cross-

line averaging is not an acceptable alternative to the approved SIP.

EPA's ACT for Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and

Business Machine Plastic Parts does have a limit for ``soft coatings''

of 5.9 lb/gal. This limit was not adopted by the State of Michigan. If

it had been, it is possible that the coating used by Leon Plastics

would be considered a ``soft coating'' and would then be subject to the

5.9 lb/gal limit rather than the 5.0 lb/gal limit.

Comment 6: No consideration was given to flexible vinyl parts in

adopting Rule 632; therefore there is no technical basis for Rule 632

to apply. The proposed disapproval erroneously states that Rule 632

emission levels are based upon suggested VOC limits on EPA's control

techniques document. However, Table 66 of Rule 632 was effective

January 1, 1993 a full 13 months before the ACT was even issued.

Response to Comment 6: It is true there is no specific category

referred to as ``flexible vinyl parts'' in Michigan's Rule 632. As

previously mentioned, EPA's ACT for Surface Coating of Automotive/

Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts may address the

coating of these parts under the category of ``soft coatings'' which

has a higher VOC limit than the more general category of ``Air-dried

coating--interior parts'' which appears in Michigan's Rule 632.

The proposed disapproval did not state that Michigan's rule was

based on EPA's ACT. It stated that, ``Rule 632 limits the VOC content

of air dried interior automotive plastics coatings to 5.0 lbs of VOC

per gallon of coating minus water. This limit reflects the suggested

VOC content found in EPA's ACT for this category.'' The fact that

Michigan's Rule 632 may have been adopted prior to EPA's issuance of an

ACT for this category does not change EPA's rationale for approving

Rule 632. The limits found in Rule 632 are considered comparable to

(i.e., at least as stringent as) those found in EPA's ACT. Michigan's

decision not to adopt the higher limit for ``soft coatings'' as

described in EPA's ACT, does not make the rule disapprovable.

Michigan's rule simply is more stringent because, under Rule 632,

``soft coatings'' are subject to the more general ``Air-dried coating--

interior parts'' with a limit of 5.0 lb/gal rather than being subject

to the 5.9 lb/gal limit.

Comment 7: It is believed the current Michigan rule and RACT

standard do not address VOC content of air dried interior flexible

vinyl coatings, but only coatings used for air dried interior rigid

plastics.

Response to Comment 7: While EPA's ACT does not recognize ``air

dried interior flexible vinyl coatings'' as a category, the coatings

used at Leon Plastics may be considered ``soft coatings'' which are

considered specialty coatings and have a higher VOC limit than do other

``air dried interior automotive coatings.'' Michigan did not

incorporate this higher limit into their Rule 632.

In any event, Leon Plastics may request a site-specific RACT limit

for any coating line not meeting the general limit found in Michigan's

rule. If there is adequate justification submitted with this request, a

higher limit could be given to that coating line.

Comment 8: There is no definition of flexible vinyl as a plastic in

Rule 632 or elsewhere. There is no definition of ``plastic automotive

parts.'' There apparently is no CTG on coating plastic automotive parts

which would delineate whether or not EPA or MDEQ ever considered

flexible vinyl substrates to be included or excluded from ``plastic

automotive parts.'' Therefore, Rule 632 should not be applied to the

coating of flexible vinyl interior automotive parts with air dried

coatings.

Response to Comment 8: Rule 632 states that the emission limits

shall apply to the ``coating of plastic parts of automobiles and

trucks.'' In Michigan Rule R 336.1103 Definitions; C, the coating of

plastic parts of automobiles and trucks means the coating of any

plastic part that is or shall be assembled with other parts to form an

automobile or truck.

The general definition of plastic is any of various nonmetallic

compounds, synthetically produced, usually from organic compounds by

polymerization, of which vinyl is a subset. Rules usually do not

contain definitions for words or phrases that are commonly used or have

generally accepted standard definitions, such as plastic and vinyl.

Since vinyl is considered a plastic and these coated parts are

assembled with other parts to form an automobile or truck, Rule 632

does apply to the process line in question.

While it is true there is no CTG on coating of plastic automotive

parts, EPA's ACT, which has been mentioned previously, does contain a

coating category within which flexible vinyl substrates may be

included. This coating category is called ``soft coating'' and has a

limit of 5.9 lb/gal. While this category is not included in Michigan's

Rule 632, EPA would approve a properly promulgated and supported SIP

revision to include it or a site-specific SIP revision for source that

apply ``soft coatings'' at a 5.9 lb/gal limit. However, since

Michigan's Rule 632 does not have this specific category, the coating

operations at Leon Plastics fall under the more general category of

``air-dried coating--interior parts'' with the lower limit of 5.0 lb/

gal.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

To determine the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the

rule for consistency with the requirements of section 110 and part D of

the Act. In addition, EPA has reviewed the Michigan submittal in

accordance with EPA policy guidance documents, including: EPA's policy

memorandum dated January 20, 1987 from G. T. Helms, Chief of EPA's

control Programs Operations Branch, entitled, ``Determination of

Economic Feasibility''. Upon completing this review, the EPA is

disapproving Michigan's SIP revision request because it is inconsistent

with the Act and the applicable policy set forth in this document.

[[Page 34300]]

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

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

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

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

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection

of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because

it is not an ``economically significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because this disapproval only

affects one source, Leon Plastics, Inc. Therefore, I certify that this

action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Furthermore, as explained in this action, the

request does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA

cannot approve the request. EPA has no option but to disapprove the

submittal.

EPA's disapproval of the State request under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State

enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this

disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-

effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this disapproval action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This Federal disapproval action imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 891 the

following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules

relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA

is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under

section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: June 12, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-16672 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P