Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29965

Metals—South plants. 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, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 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.

Subpart VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2420 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(110) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) Alternative Compliance Plans

submitted on November 4, 1986 by the

Virginia State Air Pollution Control

Board:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of November 4, 1986 from

the Virginia State Air Pollution Control

Board transmitting alternative

compliance plans for the Reynolds

Metals—Bellwood and South Plants,

Richmond, Virginia.

(B) The below-described Consent

Agreements and Orders between the

Commonwealth of Virginia and the

Reynolds Metals Company, effective

October 31, 1986:

(1) DSE–413A–86—Consent

Agreement and Order Addressing

Reynolds Metals Company’s Bellwood

Printing Plant (Registration No. 50260).

(2) DSE–412A–86—Consent

Agreement and Order Addressing

Reynolds Metals Company’s Richmond

Foil Plant (Registration No. 50534).

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of November 4, 1986

State submittal.

(B) Letter of February 12, 1987 from

the Virginia State Air Pollution Control

Board.

[FR Doc. 96–14967 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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 healthbased 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
29966 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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:

Coating category

VOC content limit

grams/

liter

lbs/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 subcategories 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 offsite.

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
29968 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 ruleexempt 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 noncompliant coating was used to be

reported to IDEM within 30 days, along

with the reasons for use of the noncompliant 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 noncompliance.

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
29970 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[NM 28–1–7312; FRL–5514–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of New Mexico;

Approval of the Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program, Emissions

Inventory, and Maintenance Plan;

Redesignation to Attainment;

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New

Mexico; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is redesignating to

attainment the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area. This action is in

response to a request from the Governor

of New Mexico on behalf of the

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

carbon monoxide nonattainment area.

The Governor’s request included a

revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for the administration of a

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program, a 1993 emissions inventory

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, and

an attainment maintenance plan. On

February 16, 1996, the EPA proposed

approval of the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo

County I/M program, 1993 periodic

emissions inventory, the maintenance

plan, and the request for redesignation,

because all met the requirements set

forth in the Clean Air Act (Act). This

final action promulgates the rule,

redesignating the area to attainment,

and incorporating the request into the

SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the addresses listed

below. The interested persons wanting

to examine these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least twenty-four

hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket Room

M1500), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, D. C. 20460

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–