Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

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