Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2565

‘‘exterior body spray’’ and ‘‘letterpress

coating’’,

• Specifies VOC limits for letterpress

coatings, other coil coatings, and end

sealing compounds applied to pet food

and non-food containers,

• Removes portions containing Air

Pollution Control Officer Discretion,

• Requires air pollution control

systems installed to include emissions

collection systems with an overall

capture and control device efficiency of

at least 85 percent by weight,

• Adds recordkeeping requirements

for solvent usage and sources using

noncomplying coatings,

• Allows the measurement of VOC

content in letterpress coatings to be

determined using SDCAPCD’s Method

24D,

• Requires the measurement of VOC

content in noncomplying coatings to be

conducted in accordance with EPA

Methods 18 and 25 or 25A,

• Includes requirements when

perfluorocarbon (PFC) compounds and

other exempt compounds are present in

the coating, cleaning, or surface

preparation material.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal Container

Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD

Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal

Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

Operations, are being proposed for

approval under section 110(k)(3) of the

CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and Part D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

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. 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 sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–521 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WI45–01–6501; FRL–5136–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: USEPA proposing to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision, for the Milwaukee ozone

nonattainment area (Kenosha,

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,

Washington, and Waukesha counties),

as submitted by the State of Wisconsin.

The purpose of the revision is to offset

any growth in emissions from growth in

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or

number of vehicle trips, and to attain

reduction in motor vehicle emissions, in

combination with other measures, as

needed to comply with Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP) milestones of the

Clean Air Act (Act). Wisconsin

submitted the implementation plan

revision to satisfy the statutory

mandates, found in section 182 of the

Act, which requires the State to submit

a SIP revision that identifies and adopts

specific enforceable Transportation

Control Measures (TCM) to offset any

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT, or number of vehicle trips, in

severe ozone nonattainment areas.

The rationale for this proposed

approval is set forth below; additional

information is available at the address

indicated below.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before February

9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the Wisconsin SIP revision

request and USEPA’s analysis are

available for inspection at the following

address: (It is recommended that you

telephone Michael Leslie at (312) 353–

6680 before visiting the Region 5

Office.) U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of the Wisconsin SIP revision

request is available for inspection at the

office of: Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR–443),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Leslie, Air Toxics and

Radiation Branch, Regulation

Development Section (AT–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act

requires States that contain severe ozone

nonattainment areas to adopt

transportation control measures and

transportation control strategies to offset

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT or number of vehicle trips and to

attain reductions in motor vehicle

emissions (in combination with other

measures) as needed to comply with the

Act’s RFP milestones and attainment

requirements. The requirements for

establishing a VMT Offset program are

set forth in 182(d)(1)(A) and discussed

in the General Preamble to Title I of the

Act (57 FR 13498 April 16, 1992).

For certain program required under

the Act (including VMT-Offset), USEPA

had earlier adopted a policy pursuant to

section 110(k)(4) of the Act to

conditionally approve SIPs that

committed to provide the USEPA by a
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

date certain. That interpretation was

challenged in the Natural Resources

Defense Council v. Browner

consolidated lawsuits brought in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit. In a full

opinion dated May 6,1994 (and in a

March 8, 1994 and April 22, 1994

Amended order issued earlier) the court

found that USEPA’s conditional

approval interpretation exceeded

USEPA’s statutory authority. While the

court opinion did not specifically

address the VMT offset program in its

opinion or orders, USEPA believes that

the courts general conclusion that the

Agency’s construction of the conditional

approval provision was unlawful, and

precludes USEPA from taking action to

approve any submitted VMT offset

committal sip revision request.

On October 4, 1993 the USEPA

published a proposed rule (58 FR

51593) to conditionally approve

Wisconsin’s commitment for the VMT

Offset requirement. In light of the court

opinion, USEPA has decided not to go

forward with the conditional approval

of the VMT Offset committal SIPs, but

believes that it would be appropriate to

interpret the VMT Offset provisions of

the Act to account for how States can

practicably comply with each of the

provision’s elements, as discussed in

detail below.

The VMT Offset provision requires

that States submit by November 15,

1992 specific enforceable TCMs and

Strategies to offset any growth in

emissions from growth VMT or number

of vehicle trips, sufficient enough to

allow total area emissions to comply

with the RFP and attainment

requirements of the Act. The USEPA has

observed that these three elements (i.e.

offsetting growth in mobile source

emissions, attainment of the RFP

reduction, and attainment of the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) create a timing problem of

which Congress was perhaps not fully

aware. As discussed in USEPA’s April

16, 1992 General Preamble to Title I,

ozone areas affected by this provision

were not otherwise required to submit

SIPs that show attainment of the 1996

15 percent Rate-of-Progress (ROP)

milestone until November 15, 1993 and

likewise are not required to demonstrate

post-1996 RFP and attainment of the

NAAQS until November 15, 1994. The

SIP revisions due on November 15, 1993

and November 15, 1994 are broader in

scope than growth in VMT or vehicle

trips in that they necessarily address

emissions trends and control measures

for non motor vehicle emissions sources

and, in the case of attainment

demonstrations, complex

photochemical modeling studies.

The USEPA does not believe that

Congress intended the VMT Offset

provisions to advance the dates for these

broader submissions. Further, USEPA

believes that the November 15, 1992

date would not allow sufficient time for

States to have fully developed specific

sets of measures that would comply

with all of the elements of the VMT

Offset requirements of section

182(d)(1)(A) over the long term.

Consequently, USEPA believes it would

be appropriate to interpret the Act to

provide the following alternative set of

staged deadlines for submittal of the

elements of the VMT Offset SIP.

II. Review Criteria

Section 182(d)(1)(A) sets forth three

elements that must be met by a VMT

Offset SIP. Under USEPA’s alternative

interpretation, the three required

elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) are

separable, and can be divided into three

separate submissions that could be

submitted on different dates. Section

179(a) of the Act, in establishing how

USEPA would be required to apply

mandatory sanctions if a State fails to

submit a full SIP, also provides that the

sanctions clock starts if a State fails to

submit one or more SIP elements, as

determined by the Administrator. The

USEPA believes that this language

provides USEPA the authority to

determine that the different elements of

the SIP submissions are separable.

Moreover, given the continued timing

problems addressed above, USEPA

believes it is appropriate to allow States

to separate the VMT Offset SIP into

three elements, each to be submitted at

different times: (1) The initial

requirement to submit TCMs that offset

growth in emissions; (2) the requirement

to comply with the 15 percent periodic

reduction requirement of the Act; and

(3) the requirement to comply with the

post-1996 periodic reduction and

attainment requirements of the Act.

Under this approach, the first

element, the emissions growth offset

element, was due on November 15,

1992. The USEPA believes this element

is not necessarily dependent on the

development of the other elements. The

State could submit the emissions growth

offset element independent of an

analysis of that element’s consistency

with the RFP or attainment

requirements of the Act. Emissions

trends from other sources need not be

considered to show compliance with

this offset element. As submitting this

element does not implicate the timing

problem of advancing the deadlines for

RFP and attainment demonstrations,

USEPA does not believe it is necessary

to extend the statutory deadline for

submittal of the emissions growth offset

element. The first element requires that

a State submit a revision that

demonstrates the trend in motor vehicle

emissions from a 1990 baseline to the

year for attaining the NAAQS for ozone.

As described in the General Preamble,

the purpose is to prevent growth in

motor vehicle emissions from canceling

out the emissions reduction benefits of

the federally mandated programs in the

Act. The USEPA interprets section

182(d)(1)(A) to require that sufficient

measures be adopted so that projected

motor vehicle VOC emissions will never

be higher during the ozone season in 1

year, than during the ozone season in

the year before. When growth in VMT

and vehicle trips would otherwise cause

a motor vehicle emissions upturn, this

upturn must be prevented. The

emissions level at the point of potential

upturn becomes a ceiling on motor

vehicle emissions. This requirement

applies to projected emissions in the

years between the submission of the SIP

revision and the attainment deadline

and is above and beyond the separate

requirements for the RFP and

attainment demonstration.

The ceiling is therefore defined, up to

the point of upturn, as motor vehicle

emissions that would occur in the ozone

season of that year, with VMT growth,

if all measures for that area in that year

were implemented as required by the

Act. When this curve begins to turn up

due to growth in VMT or vehicle trips,

the ceiling becomes a fixed value. The

ceiling would include the effects of

Federal measures such as new motor

vehicle standards, Phase II Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) controls, and

reformulated gasoline, as well as Act

mandated SIP requirements such as

enhanced inspection and maintenance,

the clean-fuel vehicle fleet program, and

the employee commute options (ECO)

program. The ceiling would also include

the effect of forecasted growth in VMT

and vehicle trips in the absence of new

discretionary measures to reduce them.

Any VMT reduction measures or other

actions to reduce motor vehicle

emissions adopted since November 15,

1990 that are not specifically required

for the area by another provision of the

Act would not be included in the

calculation of the ceiling.

If projected motor vehicle emissions

for the ozone season in 1 year are not

higher than the projected motor vehicle

emissions during the previous year’s

ozone season, given the control

measures in the SIP, the VMT offset

requirement is satisfied.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2567

Projected motor vehicle emissions

must be held at or below the level of the

ceiling. Offset measures implemented

earlier than required and sufficient to

prevent an emissions upturn, will be

viewed as a temporary reduction in

emissions to a level below the ceiling

required by this provision. In this case,

the forecasted motor vehicle emissions

could increase from 1 year to the next,

as long as forecasted motor emissions

never exceed the ceiling.

Under the staged submittal approach,

the second element, which requires the

VMT offset SIP to be consistent with the

15 percent ROP reduction requirements

of the Act, was due on November 15,

1993 which is the same date on which

the 15 percent ROP SIP was due under

section 182(b)(1) of the Act. USEPA

believes that it is reasonable to extend

the deadline of this element to the date

on which the entire 15 percent periodic

reduction SIP was due under section

182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, since this allows

States to develop a more comprehensive

strategy to address the ROP requirement

and assure that the TCM elements of

that strategy required under section

182(d)(1)(A) are consistent with the

remainder of the ROP demonstration.

The third element requires the VMT

offset SIP to comply with the post-1996

RFP and attainment requirements of the

Act and to identify and adopt specific

enforceable transportation control

strategies and TCMs. The due date for

submittal of this element is extended to

November 15, 1994 under the staged

submittal approach. USEPA believes

that the deadline for this element can be

reasonably extended to November 15,

1994 because the broader post-1996 RFP

and attainment SIP demonstrations are

not due until that date. This extension

will enable the State to ensure that the

TCM elements of the broader submittals

are consistent with the States’ overall

post-1996 RFP and attainment

strategies. Indeed, it is arguably

impossible for a State to make the

showing for the third element until the

broader demonstrations have been

developed by the State, and extending

the submittal date will result in a better

program for reducing emissions in the

long term.

III. Summary of State Submittal

The State of Wisconsin has submitted

a SIP revision implementing the first

two required elements contained in

section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

Mobile source emissions are a

function of many specific factors

including vehicle fleet, age and mix, the

Reid Vapor Pressure ((RVP) fuel

volatility), and temperature. The

magnitude of mobile source emissions is

particularly a function of vehicle speeds

and the amount of VMT. To obtain

mobile source emissions, the usual

process is to multiply VMT by an

appropriate emission factor to derive an

estimate of total motor vehicle

emissions.

The State has met the requirement of

the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A)

by forecasting VMT from the year 1990

to the year 2007, and then estimating

mobile source emissions by applying

USEPA’s required mobile source

emissions factor model MOBILE5a to

generate the appropriate emissions

factors for the analysis. This analysis

shows a continued decrease in

emissions throughout the analysis

period without the implementation of

additional TCMs.

In developing the VMT offset

program, WDNR modeled a mobile

source control program for the offset

analysis which included: the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program, Phase II

RVP controls, Reformulated gasoline,

VMT reductions due to the

implementation of the ECO program, a

Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

program, and an Anti-Tampering

Program (ATP). WDNR generated

Emissions Factors (EF) for the analysis

using the USEPA mobile source

emissions factor model MOBILE5a.

The first step in the analysis of

projected mobile source emissions was

to project the area’s VMT from the 1990

levels to 2007. The 1990 level of VMT

(estimated to be 37,988,300 miles per

day) was developed for the 1990 base

year inventory, and was submitted to

USEPA on July 16, 1993 was prepared

by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional

Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the

Metropolitan Planning Organization for

the severe ozone nonattainment area.

The aggregate 1990 VMT level was then

projected to year 2007 level by using a

2.0 percent growth rate. This growth

rate corresponds to the growth rate used

in the ROP plan. The 2.0 percent per

year increase in VMT will result in a

total VMT growth of 40 percent for the

analysis period.

The aggregate VMT was adjusted for

the implementation of the ECO program.

In years 1996 and 1997 the ECO

program was assumed at two-thirds

effectiveness, yielding a 2-percent

reduction of VMT. In years 1998

through 2007 the ECO program was

assumed at full effectiveness, yielding a

3-percent reduction of VMT.

The next step in the analysis was to

develop an aggregate EF for each

analysis year. Four speeds were

modeled to obtain EFs for the analysis:

15 mph, 25 mph, 40 mph, and 62 mph.

These speeds were used to represent the

varied operating conditions which exist

for the severe ozone nonattainment area

roadway system. The percentages of

aggregate VMT for the speeds of 15

mph, 25 mph, 40 mph, and 62 mph,

were 10 percent, 30 percent, 39 percent,

and 21 percent, respectively. These

VMT percentages can be directly

translated into EF percentages, i.e., EF15

mph = 0.10 EFtotal, EF25 mph = 0.30 EFtotal,

EF40 mph = 0.39 EFtotal, EF62 mph = 0.21

EFtotal. Each of the generated emissions

factors were multiplied by the

appropriate EF percentage and then

added to yield an aggregate emissions

factor. The percentage of breakdown in

VMT as a percentage of total VMT is

based on the information included in

the 1990 base year inventory.

The aggregate average was multiplied

by an inventory adjustment factor of

1.0207 yielding a Final Emissions Factor

(FEF). This inventory adjustment was

performed so that the 1990 level of total

emissions in the VMT offset analysis

was consistent with 1990 base year

inventory (a total of 147.2 tons/day for

the six severe ozone nonattainment

counties). Finally, the amount of VOC

emissions per year was calculated by

multiplying the FEF and the aggregate

VMT adjusted for ECO implementation.

The State of Wisconsin’s submittal

predicts that the growth in VMT in the

Milwaukee severe ozone area will not

result in a mobile source emissions

upturn. This prediction of a continued

decline in mobile source emissions

beyond the attainment year

demonstrates satisfaction of the first

element.

Wisconsin submitted a 15-percent

ROP SIP for Milwaukee severe ozone to

the USEPA in November 1993, but the

submittal was found incomplete in a

letter dated January 21, 1994. Although

the ROP SIP contained feasible measure

that could add up to the required 15

percent reduction in emissions, the SIP

submittal was found incomplete

because it lacked enforceable

regulations. In the submittal, the State

indicated it would attain its 15 percent

reduction in VOCs by 1996 without

relying on TCMs. Consequently,

Wisconsin has shown that it does not

plan to submit specific enforceable

TCMs for the second VMT offset SIP

element.

The State is in the process of

developing fully enforceable regulations

that achieve a 15-percent reduction in

VOCs. The USEPA is proposing

approval of the second VMT offset SIP

element, but will not take final action

on this element until the State has

submitted a complete 15 percent ROP

plan and the USEPA is certain that it
2568 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

need not evaluate these TCMs for

purposes of the second element.

WDNR is currently working with the

State Department of Transportation,

SEWRPC, and the Lake Michigan

Regional States to assess the emissions

reductions and the need to implement

TCMs to meet the post-1996 RFP and

attainment demonstration for the area.

The State is required to submit a list of

TCMs used to meet the post-1996 and

attainment requirements of the Act by

November 15, 1994. This third element

of the VMT offset SIP will be the subject

of a future rulemaking.

II. Proposed Rulemaking

In this action, USEPA is proposing to

approve the first two elements of the

VMT offset SIP revision submitted by

the State of Wisconsin. It is noted that

the USEPA will not take final action on

the second element until the State has

submitted a complete 15 percent ROP

plan. The third element of the

Wisconsin VMT offset SIP will be the

subject of a future rulemaking. Public

comment is solicited on the request SIP

revision and USEPA’s proposed action.

Comments received by February 9, 1995

will be considered in the development

of USEPA’s final rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. USEPA

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.

Procedural Background

This document has been classified as

a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation.

Administrative Requirements

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D of the Act do

not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that this does not have a

significant impact on 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 State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See

Union Electric CO. v. U.S.E.P.A. , 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental Protection, Air

Pollution Control, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 19, 1994.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–551 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IN42–1–6344; FRL–5136–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On February 25, 1994, the

State of Indiana submitted regulations

as a revision to the ozone State

Implementation Plan (SIP), governing

the control of Volatile Organic

Compound (VOC) emissions from

graphic arts facilities, as part of the

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) Catch-up

requirements. Amendments to the

graphic arts operation regulation,

Indiana Administrative Code 326 IAC

8–8–5 are intended to require existing

graphic arts operations, which have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or

more of VOC, to comply with VOC

RACT regulations previously applicable

to graphic arts operations with the

potential to emit 100 tons per year or

more of VOC. However, the graphic arts

regulation contains insufficient

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. Because the State has

committed to correcting this deficiency

by January 31, 1996, USEPA is

proposing conditional approval of this

SIP revision request. If the State fails to

correct the deficiency, the conditional

approval will convert to a disapproval.

DATES: Comments on this revision

request and on the proposed USEPA

action must be received by February 9,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision

request and USEPA’s analysis are

available for inspection at the following

address:

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division (AR–18J), 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

The State of Indiana submitted a

revision request for its Ozone SIP on

February 25, 1994, amending the

graphic arts rule. The amendments for

graphic arts (326 IAC 8–5–5) function to

reduce the source size applicability cutoff for graphic arts facilities located in

the severe ozone nonattainment area

(Lake and Porter Counties) from 100 to

25 tons of VOC per year (potential to

emit) as required by the Clean Air Act

(the Act), as amended in 1990. The

USEPA, on May 17, 1993, commented

on a draft version of this regulation,

noting several deficiencies, including

the lack of recordkeeping and reporting

requirements to show compliance with

the regulation required by section

182(b)(2) of the Act. The State of

Indiana responded with a copy of the

current recordkeeping and reporting

rule (8–1–1), and stated that USEPA had

not previously required any revisions of

the rule based on numerous recent

changes to the VOC Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules. The rules were adopted by the

Indiana Pollution Control Board on June

2, 1993.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The State of Indiana has corrected

most of the deficiencies noted in the

USEPA comments of May 17, 1993.

However, the recordkeeping and