Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to its previously approved offset lithographic and letterpress printing volatile organic compound (VOC) rule. These rule revisions specify compliance dates for subject facilities using an add-on control device and recordkeeping requirements when a recipe log is maintained for each batch of fountain solution or cleaning solution. These rule revisions satisfy the requirements of reasonably available control technology (RACT) and the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA proposed these rules for approval on December 30, 2010, and received no comments.
This final rule is effective on May 6, 2011.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0259. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052.
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
No comments were received.
EPA is approving Ohio's revised offset lithographic and letterpress printing rule (OAC 3745–21–22), submitted to EPA on March 9, 2010, into the Ohio SIP. This VOC rule applies to offset lithographic and letterpress printing operations in Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit Counties. The primary purpose of this action is to allow an alternative for demonstrating compliance with add-on control requirements, and to specify recordkeeping requirements, when a recipe log is maintained for each batch of fountain solution or cleaning solution.
In EPA's December 30, 2010, proposal (75 FR 82363), we present a detailed legal and technical analysis of the State's submission. The reader is referred to that notice for additional background on the submission and the bases for EPA's approval.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(152) On March 9, 2010, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted revisions to its previously approved offset lithographic and letterpress printing volatile organic compound (VOC) rule for approval into its state implementation plan (SIP). This submittal revises certain compliance dates and recordkeeping requirements.
(i)
(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745–21–22 “Control of volatile organic compound emissions from offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing facilities.”, effective February 10, 2010.
(B) January 29, 2010, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio EPA.