[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71031-71035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32371]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN114-1a; FRL-6500-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
Volatile Organic Compound Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 18, 1999, the State of Indiana submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request concerning amendments to
Indiana's automobile refinishing rules for Lake, Porter, Clark, and
Floyd Counties, and new Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) control
measures including Stage I gasoline vapor recovery and automobile
refinishing spray-gun requirements for Vanderburgh County. This
rulemaking action approves, using the direct final process, the Indiana
SIP revision request.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 18, 2000, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by January 19, 2000. If adverse comment is
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the revision request for this rulemaking action are
available for inspection at the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you
telephone Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082 before visiting the Region
5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is EPA approving in this rule?
II. Automobile Refinishing Amendments.
What are the existing SIP requirements for automobile
refinishing?
What changes did Indiana make to the automobile refinishing
rule?
Why are the changes approvable?
III. Vanderburgh County VOC Control Rules.
Why were VOC control rules submitted for Vanderburgh County?
What control measures do the rules require?
A. Stage I Gasoline Vapor Control
B. Automobile Refinishing Spray-gun Control
Why are the rules approvable?
IV. Rulemaking Action.
V. Administrative Requirements.
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13045
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are
used, we mean EPA.
I. What Is EPA Approving in This Rule?
We are approving amendments to Indiana's automobile refinishing
rules for Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties, and new rules for
Stage I gasoline vapor recovery and automobile refinishing spray-gun
requirements for Vanderburgh County. Our approval makes these rules
part of the federally enforceable SIP.
II. Automobile Refinishing Amendments
What Are the Existing SIP Requirements for Automobile Refinishing?
326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8-10 provides VOC control
requirements for facilities which refinish motor vehicles or mobile
equipment in Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties. The rule also
regulates the suppliers of refinishing coatings to those facilities.
EPA approved the rule
[[Page 71032]]
as a SIP revision on June 13, 1996 (61 FR 29965).
The rule contains VOC content limits for various refinishing
coatings and surface preparation products. There are also several work
practice requirements, including provisions for using certain coating
application equipment, equipment cleaners, and waste storage
containers. Refinishing facilities must also develop employee training
programs for reducing emissions of VOC at the facility.
What Changes Did Indiana Make to the Automobile Refinishing Rule?
Indiana has amended the automobile refinishing rule in three areas:
(1) It has changed recordkeeping requirements to be less burdensome
and more reflective of records currently being kept on solvent usage;
(2) It has created an exemption for facilities that refinish three
or fewer motor vehicles per calendar year; and,
(3) It has removed the requirement that containers holding waste
materials or solvent be gasket-sealed.
The Indiana rule, as originally adopted, required that refinishing
facilities keep records of each job performed, and for each coating or
surface preparation product, the identification of the product, the
quantity used, the VOC content as supplied, and the quantity and VOC
content of components added.
The originally adopted rule also required refinishing and surface
preparation product manufacturers to keep records of, and provide the
refinisher with, for each product supplied, the product identification,
the manufacturer's mixing instructions for the product, and the VOC
content as supplied and as applied after any thinning recommended by
the manufacturer. The commercial providers of the products were
required to keep records and provide the refinisher with the product
identification, the amount supplied, and the VOC content as supplied
and as applied after any thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
The amendments contained in the August 18, 1999, SIP submission
change the rule to require that refinishing facilities keep coating
records on a per-batch or per-job basis, and record the identification
and VOC content of the coating as supplied or packaged, along with the
quantity of coating used in making the mix or the mix ratio used, and
the identification and quantity of components added or the mix ratio
used. For surface preparation products, the refinishing facilities must
keep monthly records of the identification, volume, and VOC content of
products used.
Requirements for suppliers of refinishing or surface preparation
products have also changed. Manufacturers and commercial providers must
provide to the refinisher and keep a record of, for each product
supplied, the product identification, the VOC content as packaged or as
supplied, and the VOC content as applied in accordance with the
manufacturer's mixing instructions. The rule specifies, for multi-stage
systems, certain formats for indicating the as applied VOC content of
coatings. These formats are consistent with the formats the industry
typically uses in providing product information to the refinshers.
As noted above, the remaining amendments to the rule include an
exemption for facilities that refinish three or fewer motor vehicles
per calendar year, and a change to the work practice provisions of the
rule regarding storage requirements for solvents and refinishing job
waste. Under the amended rule, refinishing facilities no longer need to
keep solvents and wastes in gasket-sealed containers, but facilities
must still store solvents and wastes in closed containers.
Why Are the Changes Approvable?
Section 110(l) of the Act requires that any revisions to the SIP
must not interfere with an area's attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress (as defined
under section 171 of the Act), and any other requirement under the Act.
Indiana's automobile refinishing rule has been credited as a control
measure to reduce VOC emissions under Indiana's 15% Rate-Of-Progress
(ROP) plans for Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties (see 62 FR
38457, and 62 FR 24815). Indiana is also relying on the VOC emission
reduction from this rule to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in these
counties. Therefore, to be approvable, the amendments to this rule must
not lead to an increase in VOC that would affect either the 15% ROP
plans, or attainment of the NAAQS.
On September 11, 1998, we promulgated a national rule establishing
VOC limits for refinishing coatings sold nation-wide, beginning on
January 11, 1999 (63 FR 48806). The federal rule covers the coating
categories regulated under the State rule, and the limits are as
stringent as, or tighter than, the limits specified in the State rule.
The federal rule's requirements ensure that refinishing coatings, when
applied after preparation according to the manufacturer's mixing
instructions, are meeting the applicable VOC content limits in the
Indiana rule.
The changes to the recordkeeping requirements of the automobile
refinishing rule will not lead to an increase in VOC emissions, due to
the impact of the national autobody coating rule. In addition,
automobile refinishers must strictly follow the coating manufacturer
mixing instructions. The refinishers are dependent on using these
instructions to properly use computerized mixing equipment, to obtain
customer satisfaction with the color match of the finished job, and to
properly adhere to the conditions of the coating manufacturer's
warranty. Therefore, refinishers will not increase the VOC content of
coatings by adding solvents or other additives beyond the levels
required by the manufacturer mixing instructions.
The change to monthly recordkeeping for surface coating preparation
is acceptable because, unlike coatings, no thinning is involved with
the application of surface preparation products which would increase
the VOC content of the products beyond what is required under the rule.
Therefore, no daily records of surface preparation products used and
components added, as was required under the originally adopted rule, is
necessary to ensure compliance with the rule's VOC content limits.
We expect no impact to the nonattainment areas' ozone
concentrations or ROP plans due to the exemption for refinishing
facilities which refinish three or fewer motor vehicles or mobile
equipment per calendar year. Nearly all of the refinishers that have
been covered since the adoption of the rule are not eligible for this
limited exemption. We also expect no impact in VOC emissions from the
removal of the gasket-sealed requirement for closed waste storage
containers. We have no data showing gasket-sealed containers reduce VOC
emissions any more effectively than by simply keeping containers
closed.
In conclusion, because the amendments to Indiana's automobile
refinishing rule will not lead to an increase in VOC emissions that
would affect either the ROP plans, or the attainment of the ozone
standard for Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties, the amendments
are approvable.
III. Vanderburgh County VOC Control Rules
Why Were VOC Control Rules Submitted for Vanderburgh County?
Interested citizens and businesses formed a group known as Action
[[Page 71033]]
Committee for Ozone Reduction Now (ACORN), to identify control measures
which would reduce VOC emissions in Vanderburgh County, and ensure the
county's maintenance of the NAAQS for ground-level ozone.
VOC is a precursor of ozone, an air pollutant which causes health
problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function, and
sensitizes the lungs to other irritants.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) followed
ACORN's recommendations in adopting control measures for Vanderburgh
County and submitting the measures as a SIP revision.
What Control Measures do the Rules Require?
A. Stage I Gasoline Vapor Control
On September 4, 1987, EPA approved Indiana's regulations requiring
that certain gasoline stations, and the tank trucks that transport
gasoline to those stations, be equipped with what is referred to as
Stage I vapor recovery systems (see 52 FR 33590). The regulations are
codified under 326 IAC 8-4-6. Stage I requires that storage tanks at
gas stations and transport trucks operate devices that capture gasoline
vapors which would otherwise escape during the loading and unloading of
fuel.
This SIP submission amends the applicability of the Stage I
requirement to include all gasoline stations located in Vanderburgh
County. Specifically, gasoline stations in Vanderburgh County must
comply with the requirements under 326 IAC 8-4-6(a) through 6(c), and
6(h). Under these regulations, no owner or operator of a gasoline
dispensing facility shall allow the transfer of gasoline between any
transport and any storage tank unless such tank is equipped with the
following:
(1) A submerged fill pipe;
(2) Either a pressure relief valve set to release at no less than
0.7 pounds per square inch or an orifice of 0.5 inch in diameter; and,
(3) A vapor balance system connected between the tank and the
transport, which is operated according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
If the owner or employees of a gasoline dispensing facility are not
present during loading, it shall be the responsibility of the operator
of the transport to make certain the vapor balance system is connected
between the transport and the storage tank and the vapor balance system
is operating according to the manufacturer's specifications.
B. Automobile Refinishing Spray-Gun Control
The submittal also amends the automobile refinishing rule, 326 IAC
8-10, to expand the applicability of the rule's coating applicator
requirements to automobile refinishing facilities in Vanderburgh
County. On and after May 1, 1999, facilities must use one or a
combination of the following equipment for coating application:
(1) Electrostatic equipment;
(2) High-volume, low-pressure spray equipment;
(3) Any other coating application equipment that has been
demonstrated, by the owner or operator, to IDEM to be capable of
achieving at least 65% transfer efficiency.
The refinishing facility must also develop an employee training
program on methods to reduce VOC at the facility, in accordance with
the criteria for such a program as specified in the rule.
Why Are the Rules Approvable?
The rules included in the August 18, 1999, submittal expand the
applicability to Vanderburgh County of rules that have already been
approved by EPA. Because these rules strengthen the SIP, these rules
are approvable.
IV. Rulemaking Action
In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the August 18, 1999, SIP
revision request regarding automobile refinishing amendments for Lake,
Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties, and VOC control rules for
Vanderburgh County. 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 written comments be filed. This action will
be effective without further notice unless EPA receives relevant
adverse written comment by January 19, 2000. Should the Agency receive
such comments, it will publish a final rule informing the public that
this action will not take effect. 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
February 18, 2000.
V. Administrative Requirements.
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces E.O.
12612 (Federalism) and E.O. 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). E.O. 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the E.O. to include regulations that have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under E.O.
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications,
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the E.O. do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of the Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
[[Page 71034]]
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 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 create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to 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 the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. 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 to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. Petitions for Judicial 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 February 18, 2000. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 4, 1999.
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 5.
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 et seq.
Subpart P--Indiana
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(126) and
(c)(127) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 71035]]
(126) On August 18, 1999, Indiana submitted amendments to the
State's automobile refinishing rule for Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd
Counties.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-10: Automobile Refinishing,
Section 1: Applicability, Section 5: Work practice standards, Section
6: Compliance procedures, Section 9: Recordkeeping and reporting.
Adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board February 4, 1998.
Filed with the Secretary of State July 14, 1998. Published at Indiana
Register, Volume 21, Number 12, page 4518, September 1, 1998. Effective
August 13, 1998.
(127) On August 18, 1999, Indiana submitted rules for controlling
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions in Vanderburgh County. The
rules contain control requirements for Stage I gasoline vapor recovery
equipment, and a requirement for automobile refinishers to use special
coating application equipment (automobile refinishing spray guns) to
reduce VOC.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-4: Petroleum Sources, Section
1: Applicability, Subsection (c). Adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board November 4, 1998. Filed with the Secretary of State April
23, 1999. Published at Indiana Register, Volume 22, Number 9, June 1,
1999. Effective May 23, 1999.
(B) 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-10: Automobile Refinishing,
Section 1: Applicability, Section 3: Requirements. Adopted by the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board November 4, 1998. Filed with the
Secretary of State April 23, 1999. Published at Indiana Register,
Volume 22, Number 9, June 1, 1999. Effective May 23, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99-32371 Filed 12-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
