[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2718-2719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN 45-1-6618; FRL-5138-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: An important component of the Indiana State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) consists of a two-part
VOC definition. For purposes of remaining consistent with Federal
regulations, the State of Indiana submitted a revision to the SIP which
incorporates the current Federal VOC definition requirements contained
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51 except that, unlike
the Federal definition, the Indiana rule contains the exclusion of
``vegetable oils.'' Because the State has committed to correcting this
deficiency by January 31, 1996, USEPA is proposing conditional approval
of this SIP revision request. If the State fails to correct the
deficiency, the conditional approval will convert to a disapproval.
DATES: Comments on this revision request and on the proposed USEPA
action must be received by February 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are
available for inspection at the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended
that you telephone Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353-1151, before visiting
the Region 5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353-1151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
The VOC definition, adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board on June 2, 1993, is in two parts, located under Title 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 1-2-48 (for nonphotochemically reactive
hydrocarbon) and 326 IAC 1-2-90 (for VOC). The definition, at 326 IAC
1-2-48.1, is amended to add five halocarbon compounds and four classes
of perfluorocarbons to the list of organic compounds considered to be
``negligibly reactive'' in the formation of Ozone. In 326 IAC 1-2-90.1,
Indiana amends the definition by excluding five carbon compounds that
have negligible photochemical reactivity. These amendments, as
described, comport with the Federal requirements.
Indiana has also added an exclusion of vegetable oils to the VOC
definition, which makes it inconsistent with the revised Federal
definition of VOC promulgated as part of the February 3, 1992 (57 FR
3945) final rule. 40 CFR 51.100(s). The exclusion of vegetable oils is
based on comments and material presented at a State hearing on March
22, 1993. During the hearing, representatives from Frito-Lay, National
Food Processors Association, Corn Refiners Association, and Institute
of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc., provided a 1991 USEPA report
entitled, ``The Impact of Declaring Soybean Oil Exempt from VOC
Regulations on the Coatings Program.'' Also included, in support of the
exclusion, was an August 21, 1990, Memorandum from the Director of
USEPA's Air Quality Management Division, to the Director of the Air,
Pesticides, and Toxics Management Divisions, Region IV.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
USEPA does not recognize the exclusion of vegetable oils from the
definition of VOC, because this exclusion was not contained in the
February 3, 1992 final rule (57 FR 3945). To the extent that the August
21, 1990 Memorandum and the 1991 USEPA report, cited above, are
inconsistent with the February 3, 1992 rule, they are superseded by the
February 3, 1992 final rule.
Vegetable processing sources cannot be exempted from the VOC
definition rule, as proposed by the State of Indiana. Subject sources,
however, may be able to seek source category exemptions under the
generic non-Control Technology Guideline (non-CTG sources) RACT rule,
if supported by documentation acceptable to the USEPA.
Based on EPA's preliminary analysis that the State's submittal was
unapprovable, Indiana submitted to USEPA, a letter dated December 14,
1994, committing to the necessary rule revision. In accordance with an
attached schedule, Indiana expects a final rule to be adopted and
submitted to USEPA by January 1996.
III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment
USEPA is proposing a conditional approval of the Indiana VOC
definition rule because the State has committed to correct the rule so
that it fully comports with USEPA requirements as established in the
February 3, 1992, final rule. Upon a final conditional approval by EPA,
if the State ultimately fails to meet its commitment to correct the
deficiency, noted herein, by January 31, 1996, the date the State
committed to in its commitment letter, then USEPA's action for the
State's requested
[[Page 2719]]
SIP revision will automatically convert to a final disapproval.
Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on
USEPA's proposed conditional approval. Public comments received by
February 10, 1995 will be considered in the development of USEPA's
final rulemaking action.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: December 29, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-690 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
