Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

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