[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5489-5490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2614]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI55-01-7263; FRL-5958-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Michigan;
Site-Specific SIP Revision for Leon Plastics, Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 24, 1996, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality submitted a revision to the State's Ozone State
Implementation Plan. This submittal requested federal approval of an
alternative to the State's federally approved R 336.632 Emission of
volatile organic compounds from existing automobile, truck, and
business machine plastic part coating lines or ``Rule 632.'' The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove this
alternative to the generally applicable Rule 632 because it is not
consistent with the Clean Air Act and applicable EPA policy.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
March 5, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are
available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 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. State Submittal
On September 7, 1994, EPA federally approved Michigan's R 336.632
Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile, truck,
and business machine plastic part coating lines or ``Rule 632.''
Michigan had adopted this rule to fulfill the State's requirement for
volatile organic compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for the purposes of attaining and maintaining the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone.
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 limit found in EPA's
Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document for this source category
(``Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine
Plastic Parts'').
The vinyl coating operations performed by Leon Plastics, Inc. are
subject to Michigan's Rule 632 and to the 5.0 VOC lb per gallon limit.
On September 24, 1996, the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) submitted to EPA a revision to the State's Ozone State
Implementation Plan. This submittal requested federal approval of an
alternative to the State's Rule 632 that applies to Leon Plastics.
Leon Plastics has been issued a permit (Permit to Install 94-87B)
by the State of Michigan that allows this facility to comply with the
applicable limit by allowing both cross-line average of two coating
lines, based on a 30 day average. Before this compliance methodology
can become federally enforceable, the
[[Page 5490]]
EPA must review it and approve it into the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Until such an approval is published in the
Federal Register, the general provisions of Rule 632 (including the 5.0
lb/gallon limit on a line-by-line basis) are applicable to the
processes at Leon Plastics on the Federal level.
The State of Michigan, on behalf of Leon Plastics, Inc., has
submitted to EPA a site-specific SIP revision requesting that the
State's permit now be approved into the Michigan SIP.
II. Review of State Submittal
While the submittal made by MDEQ does contain enough background
information that would seem to justify a site-specific alternative
RACT, the request for allowing this facility to comply with the
applicable limit by allowing both cross-line average of two coating
lines, based on a 30 day average is not acceptable.
The submittal contains information that indicates that the limit
that applies to the Finish Room operations may be inappropriate because
special consideration was not given for flexible interior vinyl parts
in EPA's ACT or in Michigan Rule 632. In EPA's ACT and under Rule 632
these products fall into the more generic category of ``air dried
interior automotive plastics coatings.''
An analysis of add-on controls was also included and this analysis
showed the cost of these controls to be unreasonable on a dollars per
ton of VOC removed basis.
Because the VOC content limit found in the federally enforceable
rule may be inappropriate and because add-on controls may be
unreasonable, an alternative RACT for the Finish Room seems justified.
However, the request for both a cross-line average and an extended
averaging time is not approvable.
The cross-line average may be acceptable under these conditions,
but the extended averaging time is not warranted with or without the
cross-line average. It is EPA's policy to allow greater than daily
averaging times only when recordkeeping cannot be performed on a daily
basis (see memo dated January 20, 1987 ``Determination of Economic
Feasibility'' from G.T. Helms, Chief of EPA's Control Programs
Operations Branch). Unless recordkeeping presents an insurmountable
problem, adjustments should be made in the RACT number, not in the
averaging time. Since this is not the case for Leon Plastics and
records can be kept to demonstrate compliance, or noncompliance, with
the VOC content limit, this submittal cannot be approved. Furthermore,
pursuant to the Seventh Circuit's decision in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v
Gorsuch, 742 F. 2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984), EPA is prohibited from
disapproving, in part approving, in part any submission if the result
would be to create a law that the State legislature would not have
enacted. Therefore, because the extended average time is not approvable
and cannot be separated from the cross-line averaging, EPA is proposing
to disapprove the entire submission.
III. Proposed 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
proposing to disapprove Michigan's SIP revision request because it is
inconsistent with the Act and the applicable policy set forth in this
document.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
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, EPA 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.
EPA's disapproval of the State's request under Section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the 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, EPA certifies that
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements and impose any new Federal requirements.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must undertake various actions in association with 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. This Federal action
approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, result from this
action.
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: January 23, 1998.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-2614 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
