[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3216-3220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1425]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN70-1a; FRL-5675-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 13, 1996, and June 27, 1996, the State of Indiana
submitted, as a requested revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone, 326 IAC 8-12, a rule controlling volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from shipbuilding and ship repair coating
operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties. This rule is
part of the State's 15% Rate-of-Progress (ROP) plan for reducing VOC
emissions in Clark and Floyd Counties. VOCs are air pollutants which
combine with oxides of nitrogen to form ground-level ozone, a pollutant
which can damage lung tissue and cause serious respiratory illness. ROP
plans are intended to help areas with ozone problems attain the public
health based Federal ozone air quality standard. Indiana expects that
the control measures required by this requested SIP revision will
reduce VOC emissions by 1,164 pounds per day in Clark and Floyd
Counties. In this action, EPA is approving the requested SIP revision
through a ``direct final'' rulemaking; the rationale for this approval
is set forth in the supplementary information section of this
rulemaking. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is proposing
approval and soliciting comment on this direct final action; if adverse
comments are received, EPA will withdraw the direct final and address
the comments received in a new final rule; otherwise, no further
rulemaking will occur on this requested SIP revision.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 24, 1997 unless adverse
comments are received by February 21, 1997. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments can be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the SIP revision request are available for inspection at
the following address: (It is recommended that you telephone Mark J.
Palermo at (312) 886-6082, before visiting the Region 5 office.) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act, as amended in 1990, requires all
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to achieve a 15% reduction
of 1990 emissions of VOC by November 15, 1996. In Indiana, Lake and
Porter Counties are classified as ``severe'' nonattainment for ozone,
while Clark and Floyd Counties are classified as ``moderate''
nonattainment. As such, these counties are subject to the 15%
[[Page 3217]]
ROP requirement. The Act specifies under section 182(b)(1)(C) that the
15% emission reduction claimed under the ROP plan must be achieved
through revisions to the SIP, the promulgation of federal rules, or
through permits under Title V of the Act, by November 15, 1996.
On September 6, 1995, the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
(IAPCB) adopted a shipbuilding and ship repair rule for purposes of
meeting the State's 15% ROP plan requirements. Public hearings on the
rule were held on June 7, 1995, and September 6, 1995, in Indianapolis,
Indiana. The rule was signed by the Secretary of State on April 1,
1996, and became effective on May 1, 1996; it was published in the
Indiana State Register on May 1, 1996. The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) formally submitted the rule to EPA on
February 13, 1996, as a revision to the Indiana ozone SIP; supplemental
documentation to this revision was submitted on June 27, 1996. EPA made
a finding of completeness in a letter dated July 5, 1996.
II. Summary of Rule
The February 13, 1996, and June 27, 1996, submittals include the
following rule:
326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8-12 Shipbuilding or Ship Repair
Operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties
(1) Applicability.
(2) Exemptions.
(3) Definitions.
(4) Volatile organic compound emissions limiting requirements.
(5) Compliance requirements.
(6) Test methods and procedures.
(7) Record keeping, notification, and reporting requirements.
A summary of the rule follows. For the complete requirements of
this SIP revision, interested parties should see the 326 IAC 8-12 rule.
326 IAC 8-12-1 Applicability
This section establishes which shipbuilding or ship repair
operations are subject to the rule. Beginning November 1, 1995,
shipbuilding or ship repair facilities which are (a) located in Clark
or Floyd County which have the potential to emit 100 tons per year
(TPY) of VOCs, or (b) located in Lake and Porter Counties which have
the potential to emit 25 TPY of VOCs, are subject to the requirements
of the rule.1 ``Shipbuilding and ship repair facility,'' as
defined under section 3(21) of the rule, means any facility that
builds, repairs, repaints, converts, or alters ships. Section 3(20)
defines ``ship'' to mean any marine or freshwater vessel made of steel
and used for military or commercial operations, including self-
propelled vessels, those propelled by other craft (barges), and
navigational aids (buoys), and includes, but is not limited to, all of
the following: (A) military and United States Coast Guard vessels, (B)
commercial cargo and passenger (cruise) ships, (C) ferries, (D) barges,
(E) tankers, (F) container ships, (G) patrol and pilot boats, and (H)
dredges. For purposes of the rule, offshore oil and gas drilling
platforms are not considered ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The applicability thresholds of 100 TPY potential to emit
for the Clark and Floyd Counties' moderate ozone nonattainment area,
and 25 TPY potential to emit for the Lake and Porter Counties'
severe ozone nonattainment area, are identical to the thresholds
used to define `` major sources'' under the Act (See section 302(j),
section 182(b)(2), and section 182(d) of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
326 IAC 8-12-2 Exemptions
This section exempts the following marine coatings from the rule's
VOC content limitations in section 4: (1) any marine coating used in
volumes of less than 20 gallons in any one calendar year, provided,
however, the total of all exempt coatings shall not exceed 400 gallons
in any 1 calendar year; (2) any marine coating applied using a hand-
held aerosol can; and (3) any marine coating used in a touch-up
operation. However, these coatings are nonetheless subject to all other
provisions contained in the rule, including record keeping requirements
under section 7.
326 IAC 8-12-3 Definitions
This section contains definitions which describe the terms used in
the Indiana rule for compliance purposes, particularly in regard to the
various coatings which are subject to limits under the rule.
326 IAC 8-12-4 Volatile organic compound emissions limiting
requirements
Section 4(a) requires that, on and after May 1, 1996, the owner or
operator of a subject facility must meet certain VOC content limits
when applying specialty coatings. Section 2(22) defines ``specialty
coatings'' to include the following coatings: air flask coating,
antenna coating, antifoulant coating, heat resistant coating, high-
gloss coating, high-temperature coating, inorganic zinc (high-build)
coating, military exterior coating, mist coating, navigational aids
coating, nonskid coating, nuclear coating, organic zinc coating,
pretreatment wash primer coating, repair and maintenance of
thermoplastic coating of commercial vessels, rubber camouflage coating,
sealant coating for thermal spray aluminum, special marking coating,
specialty interior coating, tack coating, undersea weapons systems
coating, water based weld-through (shop) preconstruction primer, and
weld-through (shop) preconstruction primer.
Section 4(a) also requires that, beginning May 1, 1996, subject
sources must meet certain VOC content limitations when applying general
use coatings from May 1 through September 30. The limitations for
specialty coatings apply year-round.
The VOC content limits for specialty and general use coatings are
as follows: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``VOC content'' is defined in section 2(25) of the Indiana
rule as the weight of VOC, per unit volume of any general use or
specialty coating or cleaning material, less water and less exempt
compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coating Lbs/gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Marking Coatings................. 4.08
Heat Resistant........................... 3.50
High Gloss............................... 3.50
High Temperature......................... 4.17
Weld-through (shop) preconstruction...... See below
All other specialty coatings............. 2.83
General use coating...................... 2.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No thinner shall be added to any general use coating when the
general use coating limit is in effect. Weld-through (shop)
preconstruction primers are required throughout the year to be water
based and meet a VOC content limit of 0.00 when applied. No cleaning
material shall be used in the primer application facility, and no
thinner shall be added to the primer. Additionally, if the owner or
operator determines that a water based weld-through (shop)
preconstruction primer can no longer be used due to an operational,
performance, or availability constraint, the rule provides that, as an
alternative to meeting the primer requirement, the owner or operator
can request IDEM for permission to comply by means of a control system
with an overall VOC reduction efficiency of 95 percent, subject to
certain provisions.
Section 4(b) requires that on and after May 1, 1996, subject
sources must use gasket-sealed containers to store used cleaning
accessories, new and spent coating, and solvent. Cleaning materials for
spray equipment, including spray lines, must be collected using
equipment which collect the cleaning materials when used and minimize
the materials evaporation into the atmosphere. All containers, tanks,
vats, drums, and piping systems must be free
[[Page 3218]]
of cracks, holes, or other defects, and must be closed unless materials
are being added or removed from them, and handling of the VOC-
containing materials shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes
drips and spills, and any spills shall be cleaned up promptly.
Section 4(c) requires that the owner or operator of a subject
source must meet certain training program requirements. On or before
January 1, 1996, the owner or operator must develop a written worker
training program. This program shall contain written procedures, and
hands-on demonstration, as appropriate, in order to instruct all
workers, including contractors, that engage in activities regulated
under the rule in how to comply with the rule when performing those
activities. All affected personnel shall be certified by the trainer to
have satisfactorily completed necessary training on or before May 1,
1996, with refresher training prior to May 1, annually. Untrained
employees can perform an activity covered under the training program
for no longer than 180 days. Records shall be kept by the owner or
operator of the training completed by each worker.
8-12-5 Compliance requirements
Section 5 provides that the VOC content emission limits for
coatings and cleaning materials contained in section 4 shall be
achieved each day on an as-applied basis for each operating day (as
defined by 326 IAC 8-12-3(18)), and that compliance with the work
practice standards of section 4 shall be achieved each operating day.
Compliance with VOC content limits shall be demonstrated using EPA
Method 24, contained in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, or, if certain
specified procedures are followed, a certificate from the coating
manufacturer indicating compliance. Under section 3(7), this
certification needs to attest to the VOC content as determined through
analysis by EPA Method 24, or through use of the forms and procedures
outlined in EPA publication EPA 450/3-84-019, revised June 1986. If any
discrepancy exists between the manufacturer's certification and EPA
Method 24, EPA Method 24 shall govern. (It should be noted that the
owner or operator retains liability should subsequent testing reveal a
violation).
326 IAC 8-12-6 Test methods and procedures
This section specifies that 326 IAC 8-1-4, EPA Method 24 (40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A), and section 5 of the rule shall be used to
determine compliance with the rule. 326 IAC 8-1-4, the State's VOC rule
testing procedures for coating and control system requirements, was
approved by EPA and incorporated in the Indiana SIP on March 6, 1992
(57 FR at 8082). 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A is Method 24, EPA's
established test method for determining VOC content in surface
coatings.
326 IAC 8-12-7 Record keeping, notification, and reporting requirements
Section 7(a) requires certain records be kept at a subject source
for a minimum of 3 years. Subsection (a)(1) requires certification of
annual employee training under the source's training program be kept.
Subsection (a)(2) requires certain information regarding each coating
used each working day of surface coating operation be recorded. Such
information includes: the coating identification (trade name,
manufacturer, coating category consistent with rule definitions, and
applicable VOC content requirement); the VOC content of the coating, as
supplied; certification of the VOC content of the supplied coating from
the coating manufacturer, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), or
product data sheet for each coating used; the volume of the coating
used; the thinner added to the coating, including thinner description,
VOC content, and volume added. It should be noted that this record
keeping requirement is applicable to coatings otherwise exempted from
VOC content limitations in section 2.
Subsection (a)(2) also requires that for each solvent used each
working day, subject sources must keep records of the solvent
description; solvent use (thinning or cleanup); VOC content; volume
used for thinning; and volume used for cleanup.
Subsection (a) (3) and (4) requires copies of the compliance plan
and quarterly compliance report required under subsection (b).
Subsection (b) requires that on or before January 1, 1996, each subject
source shall submit to IDEM for review a compliance plan which
addresses the source's required compliance procedures, training
program, record keeping procedures, and procedures to comply with the
rule's work practice standards. A source may revise its compliance plan
upon notifying IDEM in writing that a major change in the source's
operations has occurred. Beginning May 1, 1996, and within 60 days
after the end of each quarter, each subject source shall submit a
quarterly compliance report indicating the compliance status with the
rule's work practice standards, training program, emission standards,
compliance procedures, and provision of the compliance plan. Also
required to be included in the report is each instance of
noncompliance, the corrective action taken, and the reason for the
noncompliance. Reporting frequency may be changed to semiannually after
May 1, 1997, if a source requests such a change in writing, and IDEM
approves it.
III. Evaluation of Rule
As previously discussed, Indiana intends that this shipbuilding and
ship repair SIP revision submittal will be one of the control measures
which will satisfy 15% ROP plan requirements under the Act for Clark
and Floyd Counties. A review of the emission reduction credit claimed
for this rule for purposes of the Indiana 15% ROP plan will be
addressed when EPA takes rulemaking action on the Clark and Floyd 15%
ROP plan SIP. (EPA will take rulemaking on the overall 15% ROP plan in
a subsequent rulemaking action.)
On August 27, 1996, a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document
was published which recommends Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) control measures for shipbuilding and ship repair coating
operations (61 FR 44050).3 In turn, states with moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas are required under section 182(b)(2) to
submit a SIP revision providing regulations consistent with RACT for
VOC source categories that are covered by a CTG issued after enactment
of the Act's amendments of 1990, but prior to the time of attainment.
This Act requirement, however, is separate from the requirement under
section 182(b)(1) that states adopt and implement control measures to
achieve 15% VOC reduction; such control measures need not constitute
RACT to be creditable under the 15% ROP plan. Since the Indiana
shipbuilding and ship repair rule was submitted primarily for purposes
of the 15% ROP plan, was adopted and submitted before the CTG was
published, and tightens the stringency of the SIP, EPA is approving the
control measures contained in the Indiana rule at this time without
[[Page 3219]]
determining whether they satisfy RACT requirements under section
182(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A definition of RACT is cited in a General Preamble-
Supplement on CTGs, published at 44 FR at 53761 (September 17,
1979). RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available, considering
technological and economic feasibility. CTGs are documents intended
to assist the States in determining RACT. The CTGs provide
information on available air pollution control techniques and
provide recommendations on what the EPA considers the ``presumptive
norm'' for RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the remainder of the Indiana rule, EPA has reviewed the
rule's definitions, exemptions, compliance methods, testing, and record
keeping and recording requirement to determine whether the rule is
enforceable. The definitions provided under section 3 of the rule are
based upon definitions used in the promulgated national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for this industry (60
FR 64330, December 15, 1995). The rule's definitions adequately
describe the terms used in the rule for purposes of compliance, and
are, therefore, approvable.
As for the coating exemption provision under section 2, EPA has
requested that Indiana clarify what types of coating are covered under
section 2(3): ``Any marine coating used in a touch-up operation.'' IDEM
has stated in a September 3, 1996, letter that this exemption is
intended only to apply to coatings which are used to repair minor
surface damage and imperfections, and that this exemption does not
apply to primary coatings (primers, general use, and specialty
coatings) except when they are used in touch-up operations. The
exemption provisions under section 2 are approvable.
The provisions in section 5 which allow a source to demonstrate
compliance through a certificate issued by the manufacturer certifying
the VOC content of each batch of coating used are based upon similar
compliance procedures promulgated in the shipbuilding and ship repair
NESHAP. As was discussed before, this certification must, as provided
under section 3(7), attest to the VOC content as determined through
analysis by EPA Method 24, or through use of the forms and procedures
outlined in EPA publication EPA 450/3-84-019, revised June 1986. If any
discrepancy exists between the manufacturer's certification and EPA
Method 24, EPA Method 24 shall govern. Also section 5(5) provides that
IDEM or EPA may test or have tested any coating for VOC content using
EPA Method 24, and if any discrepancies exist between the
manufacturer's certification and EPA Method 24 test results, the Method
24 test results shall take precedence. These compliance procedures are
approvable.
The rule's daily record keeping and quarterly reporting
requirements under section 7 will assure that VOC content limits are
met as applied and that any thinning of coating will not result in non-
compliance, and that the work practice standards and training
requirements of the rule will be properly met. The rule's record
keeping and reporting requirements are approvable.
IV. Final Action
Indiana's rule covering ship building or ship repair operations,
326 IAC 8-12, as submitted on February 13, 1996, and June 27, 1996,
contain enforceable VOC control measures which tighten the stringency
of the Indiana ozone SIP for Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties.
On this basis, the rule is approvable. EPA, however, is not rulemaking
at this time as to whether this rule satisfies RACT requirements
pursuant to section 182(b)(2) of the Act.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective on March 24, 1997 unless, by February 21, 1997, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent rulemaking that
will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective on March 24, 1997.
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 the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq.,
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603
and 604. Alternatively, EPA 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, the Administrator
certifies 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 flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions
in association with 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. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under
state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is
[[Page 3220]]
not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 24, 1997. 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,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 24, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(113) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(113) On February 13, 1996, and June 27, 1996, Indiana submitted
rules for the control of volatile organic compound emissions from
shipbuilding and ship repair operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and
Porter Counties as a revision to the State Implementation Plan.
(i) Incorporation by reference. 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-
12: Shipbuilding or Ship Repair operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and
Porter Counties, Section 1: Applicability, Section 2: Exemptions,
Section 3: Definitions, Section 4: Volatile organic compound emissions
limiting requirements, Section 5: Compliance requirements, Section 6:
Test methods and procedures, and Section 7: Record keeping,
notification, and reporting requirements. Adopted by the Indiana Air
Pollution Control Board September 6, 1995. Filed with the Secretary of
State April 1, 1996. Published at Indiana Register, Volume 19, Number
8, May 1, 1996. Effective May 1, 1996.
[FR Doc. 97-1425 Filed 1-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
