[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