[Federal Register: June 24, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 121)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 34298-34300]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn98-17]


[[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