[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-10652] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: May 4, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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