[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23604-23607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10997]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN152-1a; FRL-7481-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to volatile organic compound 
(VOC) regulations in 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8-1-2. 
Indiana submitted a request for this State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision on October 21, 2002, and provided additional material to EPA 
on January 10, 2003. This revision affects miscellaneous metal coating 
operations performing dip or flow coating. One change would enable dip 
and flow coating operators to use a rolling 30-day average to meet VOC 
content limits, instead of the current daily compliance requirement. 
EPA has determined that the extended averaging period is more practical 
for these sources because of the difficulties associated with 
intermittently adding solvent and the higher transfer efficiency 
associated with dip and flow coating operations. Solvent is 
intermittently added to the coating tank to maintain proper viscosity. 
Dip and flow coating generally has a higher transfer

[[Page 23605]]

efficiency, which results in lower emissions, than spray coating. 
Indiana also added new equivalent emission limits for dip and flow 
coating, and made some additional, minor revisions. For the reasons 
discussed below, EPA is approving this submission.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 7, 2003, unless the EPA receives 
relevant adverse written comments by June 4, 2003. If adverse comment 
is received, the 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: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    You may inspect copies of Indiana's submittal at: Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone: (312) 886-6524, E-Mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is Indiana's current requirement?
II. What are the changes from the current rule?
III. What is the EPA's analysis of the submission?
IV. What are the environmental effects of these actions?
V. What rulemaking actions are the EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Is Indiana's Current Requirement?

    The revisions to Indiana's SIP apply solely to dip and flow coating 
operations. Dip coating operations dip parts into a tank containing the 
coating to coat them. In flow coating, the coating pours over the parts 
to coat them. Both dip and flow coatings have better transfer 
efficiencies than any type of spray coating. Transfer efficiency is the 
volume of solids deposited over the volume of solids used. The high 
transfer efficiencies of both dip and flow coatings mean that waste and 
VOC emissions are minimal. Under 326 IAC 8-1-2, dip and flow coating 
facilities have been required to use daily averaging to meet VOC 
content limits.
    Dip or flow coating operations were required to use the equivalent 
emission limits in terms of mass per volume of solids deposited. Now 
they can use equivalent emission limits in terms of mass per volume of 
solids. The difference is that the former includes the transfer 
efficiency in calculating the limits. A transfer efficiency of 60% was 
used. Since dip and flow coating have high transfer efficiencies, 
complying with the new equivalent emission limits is easier for these 
sources. The underlying VOC content limits used to calculate the 
equivalent emission limits remain unchanged.

II. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?

    Under the revisions submitted by Indiana, owners and operators of 
dip coating and flow coating operations can now use the VOC content 
averaging method detailed in 326 IAC 8-1-2 (a)(9)(B), while provides 
for a rolling 30-day average. The average includes the VOC content from 
all coating and solvent added during the 30-day period.
    Indiana also added new equivalent emission limits at 326 IAC 8-1-2 
(a)(9)(A) for dip and flow coating operations. For these sources, the 
new limits replace the general miscellaneous metal coating limits found 
at 326 IAC 8-1-2 (a)(5)(C). Equivalent emission limits are expressed in 
terms of mass VOC per volume of coating solids, which is necessary to 
implement the VOC content averaging method. The equivalent emission 
limits for dip or flow coating are 1.22 kilograms VOC per liter of 
solids (kg/l) (10.2 pounds VOC per gallon (lb/gal)) for clear coatings, 
0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) for air dried and extreme performance, and 6.1 
kg/l (5.1 lb/gal) for all other coatings.
    Indiana also made several minor revisions to 326 IAC 8-1-2. Most of 
these revisions are simple rewording or adding a word or phrase for 
clarity to portions of the rule. The equivalent emission limits for 
miscellaneous metal coating have been moved from 326 IAC 8-1-2 
(a)(9)(A) to (a)(5)(C). Indiana also establishes a baseline solvent 
density of 7.36 pounds of VOC per gallon in 326 IAC 8-1-2 (b)(1).
    The revisions to 326 IAC 8-1-2 were adopted on August 7, 2002, by 
the Air Pollution Control Board. The rule was filed with the Secretary 
of State on November 15, 2002, and effective on December 15, 2002. It 
was published in 26 Indiana Register 1073 on January 1, 2003.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Submission?

    According to Indiana, the current requirement to determine 
compliance on a daily average basis was inconsistent with certain 
procedures required for proper operation of dip and flow facilities. In 
order to maintain proper coating viscosity, so that the coating will be 
applied correctly, solvent thinner (generally all VOCs) has to be 
intermittently added and there are practical difficulties with 
allocating the thinner to a specific day because it is not directly 
applied to the metal part, as in spray coating.
    In addition, dip and flow coating operations have higher transfer 
efficiency, which results in lower emissions, than spray painting. 
Therefore, the 30-day rolling average approach is reasonable because of 
the difficulties associated with intermittently adding solvent thinner 
and the higher transfer efficiency associated with dip and flow coating 
operations.
    The new equivalent emission limits for dip or flow coating 
operations are consistent with the recommended emission limits in EPA 
guidance for surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. 
The baseline solvent density of 7.36 lb VOC/gal in 326 IAC 8-1-2 (b)(1) 
is acceptable. This is the average solvent density, so it will provide 
a reasonable emission limit. The actual solvent density is required in 
326 IAC 8-1-2 (b)(2) to calculate the actual emissions. The other rule 
revisions are acceptable as they help clarify the rule.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?

    Reactions involving VOC and nitrogen oxides in warm air form 
tropospheric (ground level) ozone. Ozone decreases lung function, 
causing chest pain and coughing. It can aggravate asthma and other 
respiratory diseases. The highest concentrations of ozone occur in the 
warm months of the year. Children playing outside and healthy adults 
who work or exercise outside also may be harmed by elevated ozone 
levels. Ozone also reduces vegetation growth and reproduction.
    The revisions to 326 IAC 8-1-2 make it more practical for sources 
to continue using dip or flow coating. Dip and flow coating generally 
has a higher transfer efficiency than spray coating, which results in 
lower VOC emissions. Therefore, these revisions should not have an 
adverse impact on air quality.

[[Page 23606]]

V. What Rulemaking Actions Are the EPA Taking?

    The EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to 
VOC emissions regulations for Indiana miscellaneous metal coating 
operations using dip or flow coating contained in 326 IAC 8-1-2. These 
revisions consist of changing the averaging period for dip and flow 
coating facilities, adding equivalent emission limits, creating a 
baseline solvent density, and rewording several portions of the rule. 
For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes these revisions are 
reasonable and consistent with the Act.
    We are publishing this action without a prior proposal because we 
view these as noncontroversial revisions and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the 
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. 
This rule will be effective on July 7, 2003 without further notice 
unless we receive relevant adverse written comment by June 4, 2003. If 
the EPA receives adverse written comment, we will publish a final rule 
informing the public that this rule will not take effect. We will 
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed rule. The EPA does not intend to institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on these 
actions must do so at this time.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does 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 Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 July 7, 2003. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 2, 2003.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

[[Page 23607]]

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(158) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (158) On October 21, 2002 and January 10, 2003, Indiana submitted 
revised volatile organic compound regulations for dip and flow coating 
operations. The revisions include replacing daily compliance with a 
rolling thirty day average and adding new equivalent emission limits.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    Amendments to Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution 
Control Board, Article 8: Volatile Organic Compound Rules, Rule 1: 
General Provisions, Section 2: Compliance Methods. Filed with the 
Secretary of State on November 15, 2002, and effective on December 15, 
2002. Published in 26 Indiana Register 1073 on January 1, 2003.
[FR Doc. 03-10997 Filed 5-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P