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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2569

reporting requirements, contained in

Title 326 IAC 8–1–2, do not provide for

adequate enforcement of the graphic arts

rule. Region 5 has provided the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management with a copy of the June

1992 Model VOC Rules. The following

deficiencies must be corrected in order

for USEPA to take final action

approving the rule:

1. General

(a) The monitoring, recordkeeping

and reporting (MRR) requirements must

be made more comprehensive to include

more than: (1) Daily volume-weighted

averages of all coatings applied in a

coating or printing line; and (2) records

of daily usage of gallons of solids

coating and VOC content of each coating

or ink solvent. For instance, when a

source does not comply with daily

weighted averaging (i.e., when the

source complies with ‘‘complying

coatings or inks’’ such as low VOC

coating), then daily recordkeeping must

be kept which specifies both the VOC

content and the ink or coating

identification. Alternatively, when a

source complies by using control

devices, then records of monitoring

parameters and other information must

also be kept (See (B) Sources Using

Control Devices, below; See also, June

1992 Model VOC Rules).

(b) The MRR requirements, should

specify a period of time (i.e., 5 years)

during which records shall be

maintained at the facility. The rules

only require that: (1) The owner/

operator ‘‘keep records to demonstrate

compliance with the permit or

document restrictions’’ (326 IAC 8–1–1);

and (2) ‘‘records * * * shall be made

available upon request’’ (326 IAC 8–1–

2).

2. Sources Using Control Devices

The Indiana recordkeeping/reporting

rules do not contain the requirement for

the recordkeeping or reporting of new or

existing control devices. Records and

reports that should be maintained

include monitoring data, calibration and

maintenance logs, and logs of operating

time. Indiana rule 326 IAC 8–1–2(7)

only requires the maintenance of

records of daily usage of gallons of

solids coating, VOC content of each

coating or ink solvent, and daily

emissions in pounds of VOC (See June

1992 Model VOC Rules).

3. Exempt Sources

The Indiana rules do not require the

maintenance of records and reports for

exempt sources such as: Information

pertaining to the initial certification,

calculations demonstrating that total

potential emissions of VOC from all

flexographic and rotogravure printing

presses at the facility will be less than

the required limits for each year, the

maintenance of records for a period of

5 years, and the requirement that any

exceedances will be reported to the

Administrator within 30 days after the

exceedance occurs (See Model VOC

Rules). Exempt sources should

calculate: (1) Yearly potential emissions,

(2) yearly actual emissions, and (3) the

name, identification, VOC content, and

yearly volume of coatings/inks.

Based on EPA’s preliminary analysis

that the State’s submittal was

unapprovable, Indiana submitted to

USEPA, a letter dated December 14,

1994, committing to the necessary rule

revision. In accordance with an attached

schedule, Indiana expects a final rule to

be adopted and submitted to USEPA by

January 1996.

III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and

Solicitation of Public Comment

The USEPA has reviewed the Indiana

graphic arts rule against the June 1992

Model Rule and is proposing a

conditional approval because the State

has committed to correct the rule so that

it fully comports with the Federal

requirements described above. Upon a

final conditional approval by USEPA, if

the State ultimately fails to meet its

commitment to correct the deficiency,

noted herein, by January 31, 1996, the

date the State committed to in its

commitment letter, then USEPA’s action

for the State’s requested SIP revision

will automatically convert to a final

disapproval.

Public comments are solicited on the

requested SIP revision and on USEPA’s

proposed conditional approval. Public

comments received by February 9, 1995

will be considered in the development

of USEPA’s final rulemaking action.

This action 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 H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory 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.

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 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 State action. The Act

forbids USEPA 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–550 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL–5136–6]

Operating Permits Program Rule

Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for proposal to revise the operating

permits program regulations.

SUMMARY: On August 29, 1994, EPA

proposed in the Federal Register (59 FR

44460) revisions to the operating

permits regulations in part 70 of chapter

I of title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. The comment period

provided in that notice was 90 days,

closing on November 28, 1994. On

November 21, 1994, a Federal Register

notice was published (59 FR 59974)