Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53193 

nondiscriminatory grounds. The 

prohibition applies when the adverse 

action occurs because the employee has 

engaged in protected activities. An 

employee’s engagement in protected 

activities does not automatically render 

him or her immune from discharge or 

discipline for legitimate reasons or from 

adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations. 

(e)(1) Each contractor or 

subcontractor shall prominently post 

the provisions of this policy at DOEowned facilities. This form must be 

posted at locations sufficient to permit 

employees protected by this section to 

observe a copy on the way to or from 

their place of work. 

(f) No agreement affecting the 

compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment, including an 

agreement to settle a complaint filed by 

an employee with either the Department 

of Labor pursuant to section 211 of the 

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, or pursuant to a proceeding 

initiated under the provisions of 10 

CFR Part 708 may contain any 

provision which would prohibit, 

restrict, or otherwise discourage an 

employee from participating in 

protected activity as defined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

including, but not limited to, providing 

information to the DOE or to his or her 

employer on potential violations or 

other matters within DOE’s regulatory 

responsibilities. 

2. Hanford Challenge calls upon DOE 

to reestablish the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Environment, Safety and 

Health (EH) within the DOE, and give 

EH the authority and the resources to set 

DOE policy on the issue of all agency 

and contractor employee concerns. 

Specifically, the EH Assistant 

Secretary— 

• Should report directly to the 

Secretary of Energy, and should seek to 

standardize DOE policy across the 

complex. 

• Should be given adequate funding 

and staffing and the authority to 

implement policy, conduct 

investigations, levy sanctions, and 

order corrective actions to abate 

violations. 

• Should institute rules, procedures 

and regulations incentivizing DOE 

managers and supervisory personnel as 

well as contractor and subcontractor 

employers to maintain a safety 

conscious work environment where 

employees are free to raise employee 

concerns without fear of reprisal. 

• Should incentivize facilities to 

conduct independent and reliable 

employee surveys to measure whether 

employees feel free to raise concerns 

free of reprisal on a company-bycompany basis (including at DOE) to 

use as a basis for determining whether 

corrective actions should be 

undertaken. 

EH should be responsible primarily 

for setting and enforcing Departmental 

policy. Other duties should include— 

• Developing language to insert into 

the Department of Energy Acquisition 

Regulations incentivizing contractors to 

maintain a safety conscious work 

environment; 

• Developing posters and employee 

communication vehicles to distribute 

for posting around the complex; 

• Inspecting and evaluating each 

facility in the complex to ascertain that 

the standards set by the DOE in the area 

of employee concerns are being reached; 

• Investigating and correcting 

extraordinary cases of hostile and 

chilled work environments, high-profile 

cases, or facilities experiencing a large 

number of discrimination complaints 

alleging reprisals for raising concerns. 

A revitalized and effective EH is of 

paramount importance for achieving 

employee protection and safer work 

environments. 

3. Amend existing contract(s) at its 

nuclear weapons production and 

former nuclear materials production 

sites to incentivize the establishment 

and maintenance of a safety-conscious 

work environment, and to put 

contractors on notice that the contract 

can be conditioned, suspended and/or 

revoked upon a finding by the DOE that 

a company has engaged in a pattern 

and practice of whistleblower reprisals 

or has failed to maintain a safetyconscious work environment; 

This proposal follows the lead of the 

NRC, which has put licensees on notice 

that the license to operate the facility 

hinges upon maintaining a retaliationfree work environment. As the 

Department moves away from the 

Management and Operating (M&O) 

contracting model, and towards the 

performance-based contracts, there is a 

greater need to spell out DOE’s policies 

in relation to prohibition against 

reprisals in contract language to tie 

specific awards to this performance. 

Contractual financial incentives and 

penalties are necessary to encourage a 

climate free of reprisals. A substantial 

portion of every DOE contract in the 

nuclear complex should depend upon 

employee freedom to report and resolve 

employee concerns. 

4. Address ‘‘hot spots’’ where the 

chilling effect now exists, based upon 

the investigative reports of the Labor 

Department, Office of Special Counsel, 

MSPB, OCEP, or OHA and where there 

may be a strong perception among 

employees that there will be reprisal. 

Corrective actions could include: 

Æ Training of supervisory employees 

and workers by employee concerns 

experts; 

Æ Developing guidelines for use of 

the ‘‘holding period’’ concept 

recommended by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission for contested 

proposed job actions; 

Æ Instituting a ‘‘personal 

accountability’’ rule to hold individual 

managers accountable for reprisals. 

Conclusion 

The current Rulemaking proposal 

seeks to bring the agency’s actions and 

policies in line with its statutory 

mandate to protect the public health 

and safety by requiring the 

establishment of policies, rules and 

practices that encourage employees of 

the Department and its contractors to 

raise and resolve employee concerns, 

especially when such concerns impact 

health and safety, security, or the 

environment. Our proposal draws 

heavily from the practices of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

seeks to adopt such policies for use at 

the Department. 

We urge swift consideration and 

thorough deliberation of our proposal, 

and look forward to a response from 

your office. 

[FR Doc. E9–24929 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0704; FRL–8969–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Control Measures for Lake and Porter 

Counties in Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2009, the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted several 

volatile organic compound (VOC) rules 

for approval into its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose 

of these rules is to satisfy the VOC 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the Lake and 

Porter portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake 

County, IL-IN, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. These rules are 

approvable because they satisfy the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

control and enforceability requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (Act), including 

Indiana’s requirement to adopt VOC 

RACT rules for the Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents issued by 

EPA in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0704, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0704. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Steven Rosenthal at (312) 

886–6052 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

III. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

IV. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Indiana’s 

Submitted VOC Rules and Negative 

Declaration? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is proposing to approve several 

new VOC rules into Indiana’s SIP 

because they are consistent with the 

Act, including its VOC RACT 

requirements. These include source 

categories for which IDEM had 

previously indicated it had no sources 

(negative declarations) and rules 

intended to satisfy CTGs issued in 2006, 

2007 and 2008. EPA is also approving 

a negative declaration for the 2008 CTG 

‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials’’ in which IDEM documents 

that it has no sources subject to this 

CTG. 

III. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

The primary purpose of these rules is 

to satisfy the requirement in section 

182(b) of part D of title I of the Act that 

VOC RACT rules be adopted for ozone 

nonattainment areas. This would 

include the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

IL–IN, 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

These rules satisfy the requirement for 

VOC RACT rules for existing, pre-2006, 

CTG and major non-CTG source 

categories which were due on 

September 15, 2006, as well as the 

requirement to adopt VOC RACT rules 

for the CTG documents issued by EPA 

in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Section 

182(b)(2)(A) of the Act provides that for 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, States must revise 

their SIPs to include RACT for each 

category of VOC sources covered by a 

CTG document issued between 

November 15, 1990, and the date of 

attainment. 

On March 24, 2008 (73 FR 15416), 

EPA made a finding that Indiana failed 

to submit those VOC RACT rules which 

were due on September 15, 2006, for the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN, 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. Indiana 

submitted the fully adopted required 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53195 

VOC RACT rules to EPA on September 

4, 2009. Failure to submit a complete 

VOC RACT submittal would have 

triggered the offset sanction identified 

in section 179(b)(2) of the Act on 

September 24, 2009, and the highway 

funding sanction in accordance with 

section 179(b)(1) of the Act on March 

24, 2010. 

EPA would be required by section 

110(c) of the Act to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if it 

has not approved these VOC RACT rules 

into Indiana’s SIP by March 24, 2010. 

Finalization of the action proposed here 

would end any obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP addressing this VOC 

RACT requirement. 

IV. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Indiana’s 

Submitted VOC Rules and Negative 

Declaration? 

Indiana’s VOC rules for Lake and 

Porter Counties are consistent with the 

Act and EPA VOC RACT guidance, and 

are all approvable. A brief description of 

the rules that IDEM has submitted is 

provided below. This description 

contains information on the 

applicability cutoffs, control 

requirements and the relevant EPA VOC 

RACT guidance. These rules all have 

appropriate compliance test methods 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Compliance with these rules is required 

by April 11, 2011. 

(A) 326 IAC 8–2–2—Automobile and 

Light Duty Truck Coating Operations 

This rule requires application of new 

coating limits, development of work 

practice plans for coating and cleaning 

operations, and is applicable to facilities 

with uncontrolled emissions exceeding 

15 pounds per day of VOC. These 

revised requirements are based on and 

consistent with the 2008 CTG document 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings.’’ IDEM’s 

Compliance methods, in 326 IAC 8–1– 

2, have also been revised to reference 

EPA’s 2008 revised Automobile Topcoat 

Protocol in the document ‘‘Protocol for 

Determining the Daily Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Rate of 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat 

Operations.’’ 

(B) 326 IAC 8–2–5—Paper Coating 

This rule has been revised to add 

more stringent coating limits that apply 

to individual coating lines with 

potential emissions of at least 25 tons 

per year. The new limits can either be 

achieved through the use of low VOC 

compliant coatings or installation of 

VOC control devices to achieve a 90 

percent overall VOC control efficiency, 

or a combination of the two options that 

is equivalent to the low VOC coating 

limit. Additional solvent cleaning work 

practices apply to facilities emitting at 

least 15 pounds per day of uncontrolled 

VOC emissions from all coating lines 

and related cleaning activities at the 

facility. These revisions are based on 

and consistent with EPA’s 2007 CTG 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Paper, Film and Foil Coatings.’’ 

(C) 326 IAC 8–2–6 Metal Furniture 

Coating Operations 

This rule has been revised to add 

more stringent coating limits by coating 

type for metal furniture coating facilities 

in which actual VOC emissions equal or 

exceed 15 pounds per day, before addon controls. As an alternative to 

complying with low VOC coating limits, 

compliance can be achieved with a 

capture and control device that achieves 

an overall control efficiency of at least 

90 percent or by using a combination of 

lower VOC coatings and add-on control 

that is equivalent to the low VOC 

coating limit. There are also application 

equipment standards, including the use 

of high volume low-pressure (HVLP) 

spray equipment and other application 

methods equivalent to or better than 

HVLP. Work practices must be 

implemented that minimize VOC 

emissions from mixing operations and 

storage tanks and handling operations 

for cleaning and coating related 

materials. These revisions are based on 

and consistent with EPA’s 2007 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Metal Furniture Coatings.’’ 

(D) 326 IAC 8–2–7 Large Appliance 

Coating Operations 

This rule has been revised to add 

more stringent coating limits by coating 

type for large appliance coating facilities 

in which actual VOC emissions equal or 

exceed 15 pounds per day, before addon controls. As an alternative to 

complying with low VOC coating limits, 

compliance can be achieved with a 

capture and control device that achieves 

an overall control efficiency of at least 

90 percent or by using a combination of 

lower VOC coatings and add-on control 

that is equivalent to the low VOC 

coating limit. There are also application 

equipment standards, including the use 

of HVLP spray equipment and other 

application methods equivalent to or 

better than HVLP. Work practices must 

be implemented that minimize VOC 

emissions from mixing operations and 

storage tanks and handling operations 

for cleaning and coating related 

materials. These revisions are based on 

and consistent with EPA’s 2007 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Large Appliance Coatings.’’ 

(E) 326 IAC 8–2–9 Miscellaneous Metal 

and Plastic Parts Coating Operation 

This rule has been revised to add VOC 

limits for a number of different 

miscellaneous metals and plastic parts 

coating limitations at facilities in which 

actual VOC emissions equal or exceed 

15 pounds per day, before add-on 

controls, from all such coating 

operations. The categories covered 

include metal parts and products (not 

covered by another metal coating rule 

for a specific source category, e.g. can 

coating), plastic parts and products, 

automotive/transportation coatings, 

business machines, motor vehicle 

materials, and pleasure craft surface 

coating. As alternatives to complying 

with low VOC coating limits, 

compliance can be achieved with a 

capture and control device that achieves 

an overall control efficiency of at least 

90 percent or by using a combination of 

lower VOC coatings and add-on control 

that is equivalent to the low VOC 

coating limit. The two low-VOC options 

also require the use of specific 

application methods, including the use 

of HVLP spray equipment and other 

application methods equivalent to or 

better than HVLP. Work practices must 

be implemented that minimize VOC 

emissions from mixing operations and 

storage tanks and handling operations 

for cleaning and coating related 

materials. These revisions are based on 

and consistent with EPA’s 2008 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings.’’ 

(F) 326 IAC 8–2–10 Flat Wood Panel 

This rule has been revised to add 

more stringent coating limits by coating 

type for flat wood panel manufacturing 

facilities in which actual VOC emissions 

equal or exceed 15 pounds per day, 

before add-on controls. As an alternative 

to complying with low VOC coating 

limits, compliance can be achieved with 

a capture and control device that 

achieves an overall control efficiency of 

at least 90 percent or by using a 

combination of lower VOC coatings and 

add-on control that is equivalent to the 

low VOC coating limit. Work practices 

must be implemented that minimize 

VOC emissions from mixing operations 

and storage tanks and handling 

operations for cleaning and coating 

related materials. These revisions are 

based on and consistent with EPA’s 

2006 ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings.’’ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(G) 326 IAC 8–5–5 Flexible Package 

Printing 

IDEM’s Graphic Arts rule has been 

revised to include work practices to 

minimize VOC emissions from cleaning 

operations from all sources in which the 

total VOC emissions from all flexible 

printing lines equal or exceed 15 

pounds per day, before add-on controls. 

This rule has also been revised to 

include more stringent capture and 

control systems for flexible packaging 

printing presses at facilities with 

potential emissions of 25 tons or greater 

per year, prior to controls, from inks, 

coatings, and adhesives combined. The 

overall control requirements vary from 

65 percent to 80 percent depending on 

the installation date of the press and by 

the first installation date of the add-on 

control device controlling the flexible 

packaging printing press. This rule is 

based on and consistent with EPA’s 

2006 ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Flexible Package Printing.’’ 

(H) 326 IAC 8–16 Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress Printing 

This new rule applies to offset 

lithographic and letterpress printing 

operations that emit three tons or more 

of VOC per 12-month rolling average 

before controls. Those lithographic 

presses that exceed this cutoff must 

control the fountain solution by 

reducing the VOC content and alcohol 

content of the fountain solution. Also, 

both lithographic and letterpresses that 

exceed this cutoff must restrict the use 

of cleaning materials that exceed both a 

70 percent VOC content and a VOC 

composite pressure vapor pressure of 10 

millimeters of Mercury (mmHg). 

Individual heatset web offset 

lithographic printing presses and 

heatset web letterpresses with potential 

emissions from the dryer ink of 25 tons 

of VOC per year or greater must operate 

a control system that reduces emissions 

from each dryer by 90 percent or 95 

percent, if installed on or after January 

1, 2010, or maintain a maximum VOC 

outlet concentration of 20 parts per 

million by volume. Any presses that are 

claimed to be exempt must keep records 

documenting that their emissions are 

below the applicability cutoffs. These 

revisions are based on and consistent 

with EPA’s 2006 CTG ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing.’’ 

(I) 326 IAC 8–17 Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning Operations 

This new rule applies to sources that 

emit three tons of VOC (or more) per 12- 

month rolling average from all solvent 

cleaning operations. This rule limits the 

VOC content of specific solvent cleaning 

operations, including a general product 

cleaning limit of 0.42 pounds per gallon. 

As an alternative to these VOC content 

limits, sources may use solvents for 

industrial cleaning operations that have 

a VOC composite partial vapor pressure 

at or below 8 mmHG. This rule also 

specifies the types of cleaning devices 

and methods that can be used, including 

wipe cleaning, the use of closed 

containers as well as nonatomized 

solvent flow. Atomizing any solvent is 

generally prohibited. Work practices are 

required to minimize VOC emissions 

from the use, handling, storage, and 

disposal of cleaning solvents and shop 

towels. This rule is based on and 

consistent with EPA’s 2006 ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents.’’ 

(J) 326 IAC 8–22 Miscellaneous 

Industrial Adhesives 

This new rule applies to sources that 

emit three tons of VOC (or more) per 12- 

month rolling average from all 

miscellaneous industrial adhesive 

application processes and related 

cleaning activities, before consideration 

of controls. This rule contains VOC 

content limits for adhesives and 

adhesive primers and specific limits 

based upon the substrate. Compliance 

with these adhesive and adhesive 

primer limits can also be achieved by 

the use of add-on control equipment if 

it achieves an overall capture and 

control efficiency of at least 85 percent 

and if the add-on control equipment is 

continuously monitored. This rule also 

specifies work practices to minimize 

VOC emissions from mixing operations, 

storage tanks and handling operations 

for adhesives, adhesive primers and 

cleaning materials. Specific application 

methods, including the use of HVLP 

spray equipment and other application 

methods equivalent to or better than 

HVLP, are also required. There are also 

specific recordkeeping requirements for 

sources subject to the coating limits and 

add-on control requirements and for 

exempt sources. This rule is based on 

and consistent with EPA’s 2008 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives.’’ 

(K) 326 IAC 8–18 Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(SOCMI) Air Oxidation, Distillation, and 

Reactor Processes 

This new rule applies to (1) any vent 

stream originating from an air oxidation 

process unit that produces one or more 

of the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 

60.617, which is a list of chemicals 

affected by the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for SOCMI Air 

Oxidation Unit Processes and (2) any 

vent stream originating from a reactor or 

distillation process unit that produces 

one or more of the chemicals listed in 

Appendix A of the 1993 CTG ‘‘Control 

of VOC Emissions from Reactor 

Processes and Distillation Operations in 

(SOCMI).’’ SOCMI refers to those 

facilities which produce organic 

compounds through industrial 

synthesis. The control measures in this 

rule largely involve the destruction of 

VOC emissions by combustion devices 

such as boilers, incinerators or flares. 

EPA has issued both NSPS and CTGs for 

the control of VOCs from SOCMI air 

oxidation, distillation and reactor 

operations. IDEM has incorporated 

portions of the NSPS SOCMI 

requirements into its rule because they 

reflect the requirements in the CTGs and 

are already in a regulatory framework. 

This rule is based on and consistent 

with the 1984 CTG ‘‘Control of VOC 

Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes 

in Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry’’ and the 1993 

CTG ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions from 

Reactor Processes and Distillation 

Operations in (SOCMI).’’ 

(L) 326 IAC 8–19 Control of VOC 

Emissions From Process Vents in Batch 

Operations 

This new rule applies to process vents 

associated with batch operations at 

sources identified by specified standard 

industrial classification codes at sources 

that have the potential to emit greater 

than or equal to 100 tons per year of 

VOC from batch processing operations 

and any other non-CTG source category 

combined. Unit operations with 

uncontrolled total annual emissions of 

less than or equal to 500 pounds per 

year of VOCs and batch process trains 

containing process vents that have, in 

the aggregate, uncontrolled total annual 

emissions of less than 30,000 pounds 

per year of VOCs from all products 

manufactured in the batch process train 

are exempt from the control 

requirements in this rule. Any unit 

operations and batch process trains with 

an average flow rate (the lower the flow 

rate the lower the control cost) below 

the value calculated by the applicability 

equations in this rule must reduce 

uncontrolled VOC emissions from such 

unit operations and process trains by at 

least 90 percent or to 20 parts per 

million volume. This rule is based on 

and consistent with the 1994 ‘‘Control 

of VOC Emissions from Batch Process 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)’’ 

document. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53197 

(M) 326 IAC 8–20 Industrial 

Wastewater 

This new rule applies to sources that 

have potential VOC emissions greater 

than or equal to 100 tons per year from 

industrial wastewater operations and 

any other non-CTG source category 

without a final CTG, such as batch 

operations. The VOC emissions from 

industrial wastewater collection and 

treatment processes evaporate from the 

waste stream when exposed to the 

ambient air. Consequently, the VOC 

RACT requirements consist of 

implementing technologies and work 

practice standards that combine to 

substantially suppress the exposure of 

the VOC-laden waste stream to the 

ambient air. More specifically, the 

requirements include: 

(1) Oil-water separators must be 

provided with either a floating cover 

equipped with seals or a fixed cover, 

equipped with a closed vent system 

vented to a pollution control device; 

(2) All sewer lines must be completely 

enclosed so that no liquid surface is 

exposed to the air; 

(3) All process drains must be 

equipped with water seal controls or a 

cover or vented to a process or through 

a closed vent system to a control device; 

and 

(4) All junction boxes must be 

equipped with a tightly fitting solid 

cover or vented to a process or to a 

control device. 

This rule is based on and consistent 

with EPA’s 1992 draft CTG ‘‘Control of 

VOC Emissions from Industrial 

Wastewater’’ and EPA’s 1994 

‘‘Industrial Wastewater ACT.’’ 

(N) 326 IAC 8–21 Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework Operations 

This new rule applies to coating 

application and cleaning at aerospace 

manufacturing and rework operations at 

sources that have the potential to emit 

25 tons of VOC per year from all coating 

and cleaning operations combined. This 

rule consists primarily of aerospace 

coating limits for primers, topcoats, 

chemical milling maskants and for a 

number of specialty coatings, including 

adhesives and maskants. There are also 

application equipment standards, 

including the use of HVLP spray 

equipment and other application 

methods equivalent to or better than 

HVLP as well as solvent cleaning work 

practices. Air pollution control 

equipment with an overall capture and 

control efficiency of 81 percent can be 

used as an alternative to the VOC 

content coating limits. This rule is based 

on and consistent with EPA’s 1997 CTG 

‘‘Control of VOC Emissions from 

Coating Operations at Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework 

Operations.’’ 

(O) Negative Declaration for Fiberglass 

Boat Manufacturing Materials 

On May 26, 2009, Indiana submitted 

a Negative Declaration for Fiberglass 

Boat Manufacturing Materials. This 

source category is the subject of a 2008 

CTG. IDEM has determined that there 

are no subject sources (i.e., that 

construct the molds or tools that are 

used to build the separate parts of 

fiberglass boats) from this source 

category in Lake and Porter Counties. In 

order to determine if any such sources 

were located within the two-county 

area, IDEM reviewed the following 

sources of information: 

(1) Indiana’s inventory of sources in 

Lake and Porter Counties subject to the 

Boat Manufacturing National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

(2) The emission inventory database 

that identifies companies and emission 

units within the two county area. 

(3) Indiana’s Computer Assisted 

Approval and Tracking System that 

identifies companies within Lake and 

Porter Counties that are registered in 

IDEM’s permitting system. 

(4) The Harris Directory that provides 

Standard Industrial Classification 

information for Boat Building and 

Repairing. 

(5) Two business search engines, 

Websters Online and Manta. 

After reviewing all of the above 

sources of information, Indiana did not 

find any company that would be subject 

to the 2008 CTG ‘‘Control Technique 

Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials.’’ EPA agrees 

that IDEM did a thorough evaluation of 

whether there were any potentially 

subject sources and is proposing to 

approve the negative declaration for this 

source category. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Act, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Act; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–24925 Filed 10–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS