[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34298-34300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16672]
[[Page 34298]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
