Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN42-1-6344; FRL-5136-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 25, 1994, the State of Indiana submitted

regulations as a revision to the ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP),

governing the control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from

graphic arts facilities, as part of the Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) Catch-up requirements. Amendments to the graphic arts

operation regulation, Indiana Administrative Code 326 IAC 8-8-5 are

intended to require existing graphic arts operations, which have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of VOC, to comply with VOC

RACT regulations previously applicable to graphic arts operations with

the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of VOC. However, the

graphic arts regulation contains insufficient recordkeeping and

reporting requirements. 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 9, 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 State of Indiana submitted a revision request for its Ozone SIP

on February 25, 1994, amending the graphic arts rule. The amendments

for graphic arts (326 IAC 8-5-5) function to reduce the source size

applicability cut-off for graphic arts facilities located in the severe

ozone nonattainment area (Lake and Porter Counties) from 100 to 25 tons

of VOC per year (potential to emit) as required by the Clean Air Act

(the Act), as amended in 1990. The USEPA, on May 17, 1993, commented on

a draft version of this regulation, noting several deficiencies,

including the lack of recordkeeping and reporting requirements to show

compliance with the regulation required by section 182(b)(2) of the

Act. The State of Indiana responded with a copy of the current

recordkeeping and reporting rule (8-1-1), and stated that USEPA had not

previously required any revisions of the rule based on numerous recent

changes to the VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules. The rules were adopted by the Indiana Pollution Control Board on

June 2, 1993.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The State of Indiana has corrected most of the deficiencies noted

in the USEPA comments of May 17, 1993. However, the recordkeeping and

[[Page 2569]] reporting requirements, contained in Title 326 IAC 8-1-2,

do not provide for adequate enforcement of the graphic arts rule.

Region 5 has provided the Indiana Department of Environmental

Management with a copy of the June 1992 Model VOC Rules. The following

deficiencies must be corrected in order for USEPA to take final action

approving the rule:

1. General

(a) The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) requirements

must be made more comprehensive to include more than: (1) Daily volume-

weighted averages of all coatings applied in a coating or printing

line; and (2) records of daily usage of gallons of solids coating and

VOC content of each coating or ink solvent. For instance, when a source

does not comply with daily weighted averaging (i.e., when the source

complies with ``complying coatings or inks'' such as low VOC coating),

then daily recordkeeping must be kept which specifies both the VOC

content and the ink or coating identification. Alternatively, when a

source complies by using control devices, then records of monitoring

parameters and other information must also be kept (See (B) Sources

Using Control Devices, below; See also, June 1992 Model VOC Rules).

(b) The MRR requirements, should specify a period of time (i.e., 5

years) during which records shall be maintained at the facility. The

rules only require that: (1) The owner/operator ``keep records to

demonstrate compliance with the permit or document restrictions'' (326

IAC 8-1-1); and (2) ``records * * * shall be made available upon

request'' (326 IAC 8-1-2).

2. Sources Using Control Devices

The Indiana recordkeeping/reporting rules do not contain the

requirement for the recordkeeping or reporting of new or existing

control devices. Records and reports that should be maintained include

monitoring data, calibration and maintenance logs, and logs of

operating time. Indiana rule 326 IAC 8-1-2(7) only requires the

maintenance of records of daily usage of gallons of solids coating, VOC

content of each coating or ink solvent, and daily emissions in pounds

of VOC (See June 1992 Model VOC Rules).

3. Exempt Sources

The Indiana rules do not require the maintenance of records and

reports for exempt sources such as: Information pertaining to the

initial certification, calculations demonstrating that total potential

emissions of VOC from all flexographic and rotogravure printing presses

at the facility will be less than the required limits for each year,

the maintenance of records for a period of 5 years, and the requirement

that any exceedances will be reported to the Administrator within 30

days after the exceedance occurs (See Model VOC Rules). Exempt sources

should calculate: (1) Yearly potential emissions, (2) yearly actual

emissions, and (3) the name, identification, VOC content, and yearly

volume of coatings/inks.

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

The USEPA has reviewed the Indiana graphic arts rule against the

June 1992 Model Rule and is proposing a conditional approval because

the State has committed to correct the rule so that it fully comports

with the Federal requirements described above. Upon a final conditional

approval by USEPA, 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 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 9, 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. 95-550 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P