[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29965-29970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14965]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN61-1-7230a; FRL-5509-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, the State of
Indiana submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to
the EPA establishing regulations for automobile refinishing operations
in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties, as part of the State's 15
percent (%) Rate of Progress (ROP) plan control strategies for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions. VOC is an air pollutant which
combines with oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere to form ground-level
ozone, commonly known as smog. Ozone pollution is of particular concern
because of its harmful effects upon lung tissue and breathing passages.
ROP plans are intended to bring areas which have been exceeding the
public health-based Federal ozone air quality standard closer to
attaining the ozone standard. This rule establishes VOC content limits
for suppliers and users of coating and surface preparation products
applied in motor vehicle/mobile equipment refinishing operations, as
well as requires subject refinishing facilities to meet certain work
practice standards to further reduce VOC. Indiana expects that the
control measures specified in this automobile refinishing SIP will
reduce VOC emissions by 4,679 pounds per day (lbs/day) in Lake and
Porter Counties and 1,172 lbs/day in Clark and Floyd Counties. This
rule is being approved because it meets all the applicable Federal
requirements.
DATES: The ``direct final'' rule is effective on August 12, 1996,
unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by July 15, 1996. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notification will be published in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Air and Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch, 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.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Submittal Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) 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% 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 the
implementation of control measures through revisions to the SIP, the
promulgation of federal rules, or the issuance of permits under Title V
of the Act, by November 15, 1996. Control measures implemented before
November 15, 1990, are precluded from counting toward the 15%
reduction. In addition, section 172(c)(9) requires moderate areas to
adopt contingency measures by November 15, 1993. The General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (April 28, 1992, 57 FR at 18070), states that the contingency
measures generally must provide reductions of 3% from the 1990 base-
year inventory, which can be met through additional SIP revisions.
Indiana has adopted and submitted automobile refinishing rules for
the control of VOC as a revision to the SIP for the purpose of meeting
the 15% ROP plan control measure requirement for Clark and Floyd
Counties, as well as meeting the contingency measure requirement for
Lake and Porter Counties. Determination of what emission credit the
State can take for these rules for purposes of the 15% ROP plan and
contingency measures will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking
action addressing the 15% ROP plan and measures as a whole.
On June 7, 1995, the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (IAPCB)
adopted the automobile refinishing rule. Public hearings on the rule
were held on January 11, 1995, April 5, 1995, and June 7, 1995, in
Indianapolis, Indiana. The rule was signed by the Secretary of State on
October 3, 1995, and became effective on November 2, 1995; it was
published in the Indiana State Register on November 1, 1995. The
Indiana
[[Page 29966]]
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) formally submitted the
automobile refinishing rule to EPA on September 19, 1995, as a revision
to the Indiana SIP for ozone; supplemental documentation to this
revision was submitted on November 8, 1995. EPA made a finding of
completeness in a letter dated February 9, 1996.
The September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, submittals include
the following rules:
326 Indiana Air Code (IAC) 8-10 Automobile Refinishing
(1) Applicability
(2) Definitions
(3) Requirements
(4) Means to limit volatile organic compound emissions
(5) Work practice standards
(6) Compliance procedures
(7) Test procedures
(8) Control system operation, maintenance, and monitoring
(9) Record keeping and reporting
The rule establishes, for Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties,
VOC content limits for motor vehicle/mobile equipment refinishing
coatings and surface preparation products which must be met by both the
suppliers of the coatings and products and the refinishers which use
them. As an alternative to using compliant coatings, owners or
operators of subject refinishing facilities can install and operate
add-on control systems, such as incinerators, carbon adsorbers, etc.,
which must achieve an overall reduction of VOC by 81% for compliance
with the rule. The rule also establishes certain work practice
standards for subject refinishers to further reduce VOC, including
equipment, housekeeping, and training requirements. Indiana based its
rules upon EPA's draft Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
automobile refinishing, Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) for
automobile refinishing, EPA's 1992 VOC model rules, as well as
automobile refinishing rules adopted in other states.
II. Evaluation of Submittal
As previously discussed, Indiana intends that this SIP revision
submittal will be one of the control measures which will satisfy 15%
ROP plan and contingency measure requirements under the Act.
A review of what emission reduction this SIP achieves for purposes
of the Indiana 15% ROP plans and contingency measures will be addressed
when EPA takes rulemaking action on the Lake and Porter 15% ROP and
contingency measures SIP, and the Clark and Floyd 15% ROP and
contingency measures SIP. (EPA will take rulemaking on the overall 15%
ROP and contingency measures in a subsequent rulemaking action(s).) It
should also be noted that Indiana's automobile refinishing rules are
not required to be reviewed for purposes of Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the Act, because no
automobile refinishing facility in Indiana has the potential to emit at
least 25 tons of VOC, which would qualify a major source for RACT
purposes.
In order to determine the approvability of the Indiana automobile
refinishing SIP, the rule was reviewed for its consistency with section
110 and part D of the Act, and its enforceability. Used in this
analysis were EPA policy guidance documents, including the draft CTG
for automobile refinishing; the ACT for automobile refinishing; the
June 1992, model VOC rules as they pertain to add-on control systems;
and a memorandum from G.T. Helms to the Air Branch Chiefs, dated August
10, 1990, on the subject of `` Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.'' A
discussion of the rule and EPA's rule analysis follows.
Applicability
The rule's applicability criteria in section 1 establishes that
manufacturers and suppliers of refinishing coatings used in the subject
counties, as well as the owners or operators of the facilities that
refinish motor vehicles or mobile equipment in those counties, are
subject to this rule. Activities exempt by section 1 from this rule are
aerosol coating, graphic design, and touch-up coating applications.
For purposes of this rule, ``motor vehicles'' is defined in section
2(31) to mean automobiles, buses, trucks, vans, motor homes,
recreational vehicles, and motorcycles. ``Mobile equipment'' is defined
in section 2(30) to mean any equipment which may be driven or drawn on
a roadway, including but not limited to the following: truck bodies;
truck trailers; cargo vaults; utility bodies; camper shells;
construction equipment such as mobile cranes, bulldozers, and concrete
mixers; farming equipment such as tractors, plows, and pesticide
sprayers; and miscellaneous equipment such as street cleaners, golf
carts, ground support vehicles, tow motors, and fork lifts.
The activities exempt from the requirement of the rule are defined
as follows. Section 2(2) defines ``aerosol coating products'' to mean a
mixture of resins, pigments, liquid solvents, and gaseous propellants,
packaged in a disposable can for hand-held application. Section 2(24)
defines ``graphic design application'' to mean the application of
logos, letters, numbers, and graphics to a painted surface, with or
without the use of a template. ``Touch-up coating'' is defined in
section 2(52) to mean a coating applied by brush or hand held,
nonrefillable aerosol can to repair minor surface damage and
imperfections.
The applicability criteria in section 1 clearly indicate the
industry and activities subject to the rule. The rule's applicability
criteria are, therefore, approvable.
Definitions
The rule's definitions in section 2, which are based upon similar
definitions in the ACT and draft CTG, accurately describe the subject
industry, the subject and exempt coating categories, and the applicable
control methods and equipment specified in the rule. These definitions
are, therefore, approvable.
Compliance Dates
Section 3 clearly identifies all the required components of the
rule and corresponding compliance dates. Each manufacturer or
distributor of coating or surface preparation products manufactured or
distributed for use in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties must
comply with the rule's applicable VOC content limits and compliance
procedures by November 1, 1995.
Any person commercially providing refinishing coatings or surface
preparation products for use in the four subject counties which were
manufactured after November 1, 1995, must meet the rule's applicable
VOC content and compliance procedures by February 1, 1996. Section 3
does allow the distribution of non-compliant coatings intended to be
used by sources which meet the rule requirements through an add-on
control system rather than through compliant coatings, if certain
compliance procedures are followed in section 6.
Section 3 further provides that any person applying any refinishing
coating or surface preparation product must meet the applicable control
requirements, work practice standards, compliance procedures, test
procedures, control system provisions, and record keeping and reporting
requirements of the rule, by May 1, 1996.
Finally, on and after May 1, 1996, section 3 prohibits any person
from soliciting or requiring any refinishing facility to use a
refinishing coating or surface preparation product that does not comply
with applicable VOC content limits contained in the rule,
[[Page 29967]]
unless that facility operates a compliant add-on control system. These
dates are all well within the November 15, 1996, deadline by which
rules must be implemented in order to be creditable toward the 15% ROP
plan.
Emission Limitations
The rule's VOC content limits for coatings and surface preparation
products are established in section 4, and are generally consistent
with option 1 limits specified in the ACT and draft CTG. The limits
specified in section 4 of the rule are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC content limit
-------------------
Coating category grams/ lbs/
liter gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment wash primer............................ 780 6.5
Precoat............................................. 660 5.5
Primer/Primer surfacer.............................. 576 4.8
Primer sealer....................................... 552 4.6
Topcoat:
Single and two stage.............................. 600 5.0
Three and four stage.............................. 624 5.2
Specialty........................................... 840 7.0
Surface Preparation Products (Plastic).............. 780 6.5
Surface Preparation Products (Other)................ 168 1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this rule, ``VOC content,'' is defined under
section 2(54) to mean the weight of VOC, less water, and less exempt
solvent, per unit volume, of coating or surface preparation product.
Subject refinishers must meet these VOC content limits on an as-applied
basis.
As an alternative to meeting the VOC content limits of this rule,
section 4 allows subject refinishers to operate a control system which
must achieve an overall reduction of VOC of at least 81% in order to be
in compliance. For purposes of this rule, overall control efficiency is
defined in section 2 as the product of the capture and control device
efficiencies of the control system. The capture efficiency is the
fraction of all VOC applied that is directed to a control device and
control device efficiency is the ratio of the pollution destroyed or
secured by a control device and the pollution introduced into the
control device, expressed as a fraction.
Section 4 also requires that the application of all specialty
coatings except anti-glare/safety coatings shall not exceed 5% by
volume of all coatings applied on a monthly basis, based upon a draft
CTG recommendation to assure that specialty coatings are not used as
substitutes for coatings which have more stringent emission limits.
``Specialty coatings'' is defined at section 2(45) to mean coatings
which are necessary due to unusual and uncommon job performance
requirements, including but not limited to, the following: weld-through
primers, adhesion promoters, uniform finish blenders, elastomeric
materials, gloss flatteners, bright metal trim repair, and multi-color
coatings. These sub-categories of specialty coatings are further
defined in section 2 of the rule.
Work Practice Standards
In addition to coating and surface preparation product emission
limits, subject owners or operators of refinishing facilities must
comply with certain work practice standards under section 5, which
include equipment, housekeeping, and training requirements, to further
reduce VOC. The rule's work practice standards require certain
equipment be used to apply coatings, to clean the coating applicators,
and to store waste solvent, coating, and other materials used in
surface preparation, coating application, and clean-up. These equipment
standards are based upon similar provisions in the ACT and draft CTG.
Section 5 specifies that coating applicators be cleaned in an
enclosed device that: (1) is closed during coating applicator equipment
cleaning operations except when depositing and removing objects to be
cleaned, (2) is closed during non-cleaning operations with the
exception of the device's maintenance and repair, (3) recirculates
cleaning solvent during the cleaning operation so that the solvent is
available for reuse on-site or for disposal off-site.
Section 5 also specifies that subject refinishers can only use the
following equipment for coating application: (1) High-Volume Low-
Pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, (2) electrostatic equipment, or (3)
any other coating application equipment that has been demonstrated, to
the satisfaction of IDEM, to be capable of achieving at least 65%
transfer efficiency. For purposes of this rule, ``HVLP spray'' is
defined under section 2(27) to mean technology used to apply coating to
a substrate by means of coating application equipment which operates
between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge air pressure measured
dynamically at the center of the air cap and at the air horns of the
spray system. ``Electrostatic application'' is defined under section
2(20) to mean the application to a substrate of charged atomized paint
droplets which are deposited by electrostatic attraction. Equipment
which matches any of the above definitions is acceptable to be used
under the rule. To determine whether applicator equipment other than
HVLP or electrostatic equipment meet the 65% transfer efficiency
requirement, the refinisher is required under section 5 to submit
sufficient data for IDEM to be able to determine accuracy of the
transfer efficiency claims. All coating applicators as well as
applicator cleaning devices are further required under section 5 to be
operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's
recommendations, and those recommendations shall be available for
inspection by IDEM or EPA upon request.
As for storage equipment requirements, section 5 specifies that
closed, gasket-sealed containers must be used exclusively to store
spent solvent, waste coating, spray booth filter, paper and cloth used
in surface preparation and surface cleanup, and used automotive fluids
until disposed of off-site.
In addition to equipment standards, section 5 requires subject
refinishers to adopt certain housekeeping practices, such as scheduling
operations of a similar nature to reduce VOC material and applying
coatings and surface preparation products in a manner that minimizes
overspray. Operators and owners of subject refinishing facilities must
also, under section 5, develop an annual training program using written
and hands-on procedures to properly instruct employees on how to
implement these housekeeping practices, how to properly use and
maintain the equipment required by section 5, prepare coatings for
application according to manufacturer's instructions so that coatings
meet applicable VOC content limits as applied, and comply with the
recordkeeping requirements of the rule. Untrained employees are allowed
to perform regulated activities for not more than 180 days.
Compliance Procedures, Record Keeping, and Reporting
VOC Content Limits
In order to demonstrate compliance with the VOC content limits of
the rule, section 6(a) requires refinishing product manufacturers to
keep, for each coating or surface preparation product supplied, the
following: (1) the product description; (2) the date of manufacture;
(3) the thinning instructions; (4) the VOC content in grams per liter
and pounds per gallon, as supplied and as applied after any thinning
recommended by the manufacturer; (5) a statement that the coating is,
or is not, in compliance with the VOC limits in section 4(b) of the
rule, and that if the coating is not in compliance, this rule
[[Page 29968]]
prohibits its application at a refinishing facility that does not
control VOC emissions with the application of a control system; and (6)
the name, address, telephone number, and signature of the person
purchasing the product. The manufacturer must also provide a document
containing this information to the owner or operator of the refinishing
facility.
Commercial providers of coating or surface preparation products in
the subject counties are required under section 6(b) to both provide to
the recipient and keep the following records of all such products
supplied in those counties: (1) the product description; (2) the amount
supplied; (3) the date supplied; (4) the VOC content in grams per liter
and pounds per gallon, as supplied and as applied after thinning
recommended by the manufacturer; and (5) the name, address, telephone
number, and signature of the person purchasing the product.
The owner or operator of a refinishing facility subject to this
rule is required under section 6(c) to submit to IDEM a statement
certifying that the facility has acquired and will continuously employ
coating or surface preparation products meeting the rule's VOC limits,
or that an add-on control system in compliance of this rule has been
installed, including a description of the control system. Further, the
owner or operator must meet coating and surface preparation record
keeping requirements under section 9 which includes keeping, for a
minimum of 3 years, records of each refinishing job performed, the job
identification number and the date or dates the job was performed, and
for each coating or surface preparation product used: (1) the records
of the category the coating or product falls under the rule; (2) the
quantity of coating or product used; (3) the VOC content of the coating
as supplied; (4) the name and identification of additives added; (5)
the quantity of additives added; (6) the VOC content of the additives;
and (7) for each surface preparation product, the type of substrate to
which the product is applied. Although the VOC policy memo ``Exemptions
for Low-Use Coatings'' recommends usage limitations and record keeping
of rule-exempt coatings in order to assure exempted coatings are not
used as substitutes for coatings subject to limits under the rule,
additional record keeping to cover the aerosol coating, graphic design
application coatings, and touch-up coatings exempted under section 1 of
the rule is not needed, because these coatings are typically dispensed
from small containers and are not capable of being used as substitutes
for the subject coatings.
Owners and operators must also, under section 9(a)(3), maintain
documents such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), product, or other
data sheets provided by the coating manufacturer, distributor, or
supplier, of the coatings or surface preparation products for a period
of 3 years following use of the product, which may be used by EPA or
IDEM to verify the VOC content, as supplied. Except when using a
control system, section 9(a)(4) requires any incidence in which a non-
compliant coating was used to be reported to IDEM within 30 days, along
with the reasons for use of the non-compliant coating and corrective
actions taken.
Owners and operators are allowed under section 7 to use data
provided with the coatings or surface preparation products formulation
information, such as the container label, the product data sheet, and
the MSDS sheet, in order to comply with the limits and record keeping;
however, section 7 provides that owners and operators of refinishing
facilities are nonetheless subject to the applicable test methods of
326 IAC 8-1-4 and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. 326 IAC 8-1-4, the
State's VOC rule testing procedures, 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.
IDEM and EPA are allowed under section 7 to require VOC content
verification of any coating or surface preparation product using EPA
Method 24. In the event of any inconsistency between Method 24 and
product formulation data used by the facility, section 7 provides that
Method 24 shall govern in determining compliance.
The record keeping/reporting requirements for subject facilities
are generally consistent with the draft CTG and assure compliance on an
as-applied basis. Additionally, the rule's requirements for
manufacturers and distributors to meet the coating limits should assure
sufficient supply of compliant coatings so that owners or operators of
refinishing facilities can comply with the rule. The compliance,
testing, and record keeping requirements for coatings and surface
preparation products are, therefore, approvable.
Add-on Control Systems
For demonstration of compliance with the control system
requirements, section 4 requires the source to perform an initial
compliance test of the system on or before May 1, 1996, in accordance
with the test method and requirements of section 7, which, as stated
before, include 40 CFR 60 Appendix A and 326 IAC 8-1-4. Section 4 also
requires an operating parameter value be established during the initial
compliance test, that, when measured through control system monitoring,
indicates compliance with the 81% overall control efficiency
requirement. Section 8(b) establishes the procedures for determining
and monitoring the operating parameter for each type of control device,
which are consistent with the 1992 VOC model rules. Section 7(c)
requires additional compliance tests every two years after the date of
the initial compliance test, whenever the control system is operated
under conditions different from those which were in place at the time
of the previous compliance test, and within 30 days of a written
request by IDEM or the EPA. These compliance tests are required to be
submitted to IDEM as required by section 7(c).
Section 4(c)(5) specifies that continuous compliance is
demonstrated when the operating parameter value remains within a
specified range from the operating parameter measured during the most
recent compliance test that demonstrated the facility was in
compliance. Section 9(b) requires that continuous monitoring records of
the control system's operating parameter measured shall be maintained,
as well as records of all 3 hour periods of operation when controls
systems exceed parameter deviations acceptable under section 4(c)(5).
Section 8(a) requires control systems be operated and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specification and instructions, with a
copy of these operating and maintenance procedures maintained as close
to the control system as possible for reference of personnel and
inspectors. The operation of the control system may be modified upon
written request of IDEM or EPA based on the results of the initial or
subsequent compliance test. Section 9(b) requires that a log of the
operating time of the facility and the facility's capture system,
control device, and monitoring equipment, along with a maintenance log
for the control system, and the monitoring equipment detailing all
routine and nonroutine maintenance performed. The log shall include the
dates and duration of any outages of the capture system, the control
device, or the monitoring system. Control system and monitoring record
keeping, shall, like coating record keeping, be kept for at least 3
years. Section 9(b)(7) requires that sources report within 30 days of
[[Page 29969]]
occurrence of maintenance or repairs on control system or monitoring
equipment, and any 3 hour period of operation where the acceptable
parameter range under section 4(c)(5) is exceeded, along with the
corrective action taken.
The above requirements are generally consistent with the 1992 VOC
model rules' compliance procedures and record keeping/reporting
requirements as they pertain to add-on control equipment, except that
the 1992 VOC model rules do not allow for acceptable operating
parameter deviations from the parameter value established through
compliance testing, and EPA has no technical support which demonstrates
that control systems still meet the 81% requirement when operating
under the rule's allowable performance deviations. However, because
compliant coatings will be readily available due to the rule's coating
supplier requirements, and add-on control equipment is cost prohibitive
for most autobody shops, EPA does not expect that many refinishing
facilities will comply with the Indiana rule through means of a control
system. Since control systems are expected to be rarely used by
Indiana's automobile refinishing facilities, EPA will not request
Indiana to remove the operating parameter deviation allowance for
approval. It should be noted that such acceptable parameter deviations
will not be acceptable in RACT rules without sufficient technical
support. Based on the above analysis, the compliance, testing, and
record keeping provisions for add-on control systems are approvable.
Work Practice Standards
The draft CTG recommends record keeping be required to assure
compliance with equipment standards under the rule, including
maintenance and repair records, and for equipment cleaners, records of
guns cleaned and solvent added and removed.
Although the Indiana rule does not identify specific record keeping
for equipment covered under the rule, inspection of coating
applicators, cleaning equipment, and storage containers used at a given
facility, along with the manufacturer's maintenance instructions
required to be available at the facility under the rule, should suffice
to indicate compliance with the equipment standards.
As for the Indiana rule's housekeeping and annual training
requirements, section 5 requires that the owner or operator keep for a
minimum of 3 years a list of persons, by name and activity, and the
topics in which they have been trained, and the date by which the
trainee completed each training topic, as well as a statement signed by
the trainer certifying each trainee who satisfactorily completed
training in the equipment, housekeeping, and record keeping
requirements of the rule as they apply to the specific job
responsibilities of the employee. These record keeping requirements are
approvable.
Enforcement
The Indiana Code (IC) 13-7-13-1, states that any person who
violates any provision of IC 13-1-1, IC 13-1-3, or IC 13-1-11, or any
regulation or standard adopted by one (1) of the boards (i.e., IAPCB),
or who violates any determination, permit, or order made or issued by
the commissioner (of IDEM) pursuant to IC 13-1-1, or IC 13-1-3, is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
per day of any violation. Because this submittal is a regulation
adopted by the IAPCB, a violation of which subjects the violator to
penalties under IC 13-7-13-1, and because a violation of the ozone SIP
would also subject a violator to enforcement under section 113 of the
Act by EPA, EPA finds that the submittal contains sufficient
enforcement authority for approval. In addition, IDEM has submitted a
civil penalty policy document which accounts for various factors in the
assessment of an appropriate civil penalty for noncompliance with IAPCB
rules, among them, the severity of the violation, intent of the
violator, and frequency of violations. EPA finds these criteria
sufficient to deter non-compliance.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
Based upon the analysis above, the EPA finds that Indiana's
regulation covering automobile refinishing operations, 326 IAC 8-10, as
submitted on September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, includes
enforceable state regulations consistent with Federal requirements. EPA
is, therefore, approving this SIP revision submittal.
IV. Procedural Background
A. Direct Final Action
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
EPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, EPA is publishing a separate document in
this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
August 12, 1996, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by
July 15, 1996. If EPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, EPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, EPA hereby advises the public that this
action will be effective on August 12, 1996.
B. 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.
C. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
EPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the EPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be
[[Page 29970]]
prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why this alternative is
not selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with
law.
This final rule only approves the incorporation of existing state
rules into the SIP and imposes no additional requirements. This rule is
estimated to result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector of less than $100 million in any one
year. EPA, therefore, has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or
specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative. Furthermore, because small
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this
rule, the EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments.
E. 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
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements a State has already imposed. 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 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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
F. 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 August 12, 1996. 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, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 13, 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)(106) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(106) On September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, Indiana
submitted automobile and mobile equipment refinishing rules for Clark,
Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties as a revision to the State
Implementation Plan. This rule requires suppliers and refinishers to
meet volatile organic compound content limits or equivalent control
measures for coatings used in automobile and mobile equipment
refinishing operations in the four counties, as well as establishing
certain coating applicator and equipment cleaning requirements.
(i) Incorporation by reference. 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-
10: Automobile refinishing, Section 1: Applicability, Section 2:
Definitions, Section 3: Requirements, Section 4: Means to limit
volatile organic compound emissions, Section 5: Work practice
standards, Section 6: Compliance procedures, Section 7: Test
procedures, Section 8: Control system operation, maintenance, and
monitoring, and Section 9: Record keeping and reporting. Adopted by the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board June 7, 1995. Filed with the
Secretary of State October 3, 1995. Published at Indiana Register,
Volume 19, Number 2, November 1, 1995. Effective November 2, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14965 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P