Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Particulate Matter Limitations for Coating Operations, 21421-21424 [2014-08638]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory
action under Executive Order 13563,
which supplements and explicitly
reaffirms the principles, structures, and
definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866.
To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an
agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Apr 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this proposed priority
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this proposed
priority is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects and
Centers Programs have been well
established over the years, as projects
similar to the one envisioned by the
proposed priority have been completed
successfully. Establishing new RERCs
based on the proposed priority would
generate new knowledge through
research and development and improve
the lives of individuals with disabilities.
The RERC that would be established
under this proposed priority would
generate, disseminate, and promote the
use of new information that would
improve the options for individuals
with disabilities to fully participate in
their communities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21421
print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
contacting the Grants and Contracts
Services Team, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC
20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245–
7363.
If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS,
toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–08559 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0366; FRL–9909–48–
Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Particulate Matter Limitations for
Coating Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The particulate
matter (PM) rules that were submitted
consist of emission control requirements
for coating operations along with
exemptions from certain coating
operations that produce minimal PM
emissions. EPA is also proposing to take
no action on one section submitted by
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21422
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Indiana, as it pertains to a definition in
an unapproved portion of Indiana’s
Title V regulations. Indiana submitted
this request to approve PM rules on
April 27, 2012.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 16, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2012–0366, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–
0366. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Apr 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886–6524 before visiting the Region 5
office.
Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control
Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA’s analysis?
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and executive order reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the background for this
action?
On April 27, 2012, Indiana submitted
a request to revise its SIP under the
CAA to incorporate the revised rules.
Specifically, Indiana requested that EPA
approve the following sections as part of
the SIP: 326 Indiana Administrative
Code (IAC) 6–3–1, 326 IAC 6.5–1–1, 326
IAC 6.5–1–2, 326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326 IAC
6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–1, 326 IAC 6.8–
1–2, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5, and 326 IAC 6.8–
1–6. These provisions would replace
requirements that EPA has previously
been approved into the Indiana SIP.
EPA approved 326 IAC 6–3 on July 25,
2005 (70 FR 42495). EPA approved the
addition of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8
into the Indiana SIP on March 22, 2006
(71 FR 14383). EPA approved
subsequent revisions of sections of 326
IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the
Indiana SIP on April 30, 2008 (73 FR
23356).
Article 6 of 326 IAC contains
Indiana’s PM rules. Article 6.5 of 326
IAC contains statewide PM emission
limitations except for Lake County and
Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM
emission limits for Lake County sources.
The language Indiana added in 326
IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)
is very similar to the language in 326
IAC 6–3–2(d). As noted, EPA approved
326 IAC 6–3 including 326 IAC 6–3–
2(d) on July 25, 2005 (70 FR 42495).
III. What is EPA’s analysis?
Indiana made the same revisions to
the rules of 326 IAC 6.5–1 and 326 IAC
6.8–1. Thus, EPA analyzed the revisions
to the same rules and sections of 326
IAC 6.5–1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1 together
and concluded that the changes were
acceptable in both regulations.
A. Applicability: 326 IAC 6–3–1; 326
IAC 6.5–1–1; 326 IAC 6.8–1–1
In 326 IAC 6–3–1, Indiana revised two
sections. Indiana submitted a revision to
326 IAC 6–3–1(b)(13) to reference the
definition of trivial activities as found in
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
326 IAC 2–7–1, part of Indiana’s Title V
rules. The definition of ‘‘trivial
activities’’ is not currently in either
Indiana’s Title V permitting program or
SIP. For that reason, EPA is proposing
to take no action at this time on the
revision of 326 IAC 6–3–1(b)(13). It
should be noted that the term ‘‘trivial
activities’’ is not contained in any of the
regulations that EPA is approving in this
action.
Indiana moved a phrase in 326 IAC 6–
3–1(c) to improve clarity. There is no
material change from what is approved
into the Indiana SIP and thus EPA is
proposing approval of the 326 IAC 6–3–
1(c) revision.
Indiana revised both 326 IAC 6.5–1–
1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1 by adding a new
subsection (c) that exempts certain
surface coating operations from PM
emission limits. The exempt processes
are dip coating, roll coating, flow
coating, and brush coating. The primary
emissions of concern from surface
coating are the volatile organic
compound emissions that arise from
solvent evaporation. PM emissions from
coatings primarily are from overspray,
the fine coating droplets that are not
applied as desired. Overspray, the
portion of coating solids that does not
land on the item and is exhausted as PM
emissions, is common on spray coating
operations but is not an issue with the
four exempt coating methods: Dip
coating, roll coating, flow coating, and
brush coating. EPA expects minimal PM
emission will occur from the exempted
coating methods and thus is proposing
to approve the exemptions.
Indiana also included in 326 IAC 6.5–
1–1(c) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1(c) an
exemption from the PM limits for
facilities that use less than five gallons
of coating per day. EPA is satisfied that
facilities that use less than five gallons
of coating daily will have de minimis
PM emissions because of the limited
potential for overspray. Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve the exemptions
from PM limits in these cases.
The remaining changes to 326 IAC
6.5–1–1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1 are simply
updates to the section references from
the version approved into the Indiana
SIP. For example, 326 IAC 6.5–1–1(c)
became 326 IAC 6.5–1–1(d) and 326 IAC
6.8–1–1(c) became 326 IAC 6.8–1–1(d)
following the addition of a new section
(c) in both articles.
B. Particulate Emission Limitations,
Modifications by Commissioner: 326
IAC 6.5–1–2; 326 IAC 6.8–1–2
Indiana also revised both 326 IAC
6.5–1–2 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2. Indiana
made revisions by rewording and
moving phrases to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(a),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Apr 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
(b), (c), (d), and (e). Identical revisions
were made to 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(a), (b),
(c), (d), and (e). The changes to the
revised sections are insubstantial when
compared to the approved sections.
Indiana added requirements for PM
emission controls on surface coating
operations in 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and
326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h). Sources are
required to operate a dry particulate
filter, a water wash, or an equivalent PM
control device. If overspray occurs, 326
IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–
2(h)(2) require the source to inspect and
repair the control device or adjust
operations to eliminate the overspray
within four hours. The source must
keep a record of its action to remedy the
overspray. Select sources are allowed
under 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(3) and 326
IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(3) to follow the control
device inspection and repair
requirements in its permit if overspray
is detected in place of the general
control device inspection and repair
requirements in 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2)
and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(2). As usual, the
most stringent requirement applies and
thus the permit requirements must be at
least as stringent as the requirements in
326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8–
1–2(h)(2). EPA finds that the addition of
the PM emission control requirement for
coating operations to be satisfactory and
thus is proposing approval. The
requirements of these sections will
require any sources lacking the
requirement to take corrective action
once overspray is detected. Overspray is
sign that the control equipment is not
properly operating.
Indiana further added, at 326 IAC 6.5–
1–2(h)(4) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(4), a
provision that if a facility increases its
use of coatings to exceed five gallons
per day, it is no longer exempt from the
regulation; and Indiana must require
appropriate PM emissions controls,
even if the source subsequently reduces
its coating use back to using less than
five gallons of coating per day. Indiana’s
Federally approved permitting rules
require each source to keep records for
ensuring compliance with applicable
emission limits. Therefore, each source
will be required in its permits (title V or
Federally enforceable state operating
permit) to maintain records of its
coating usage to establish applicability
according to the criteria in 326 IAC 6.5–
1–2(h)(4) or 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(4).
Indiana renamed 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)
to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(i) and 326 IAC 6.5–
1–2(i) to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(j) following
the addition of the new 326 IAC 6.5–1–
2(h). Identical section renaming was
also made in 326 IAC 6.8–1–2. EPA is
proposing to approve the addition of
326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21423
2(h) along with the revision to the other
sections of 326 IAC 6.5–1–2 and 326
IAC 6.8–1–2 into the Indiana SIP.
C. Control Strategies and SIP Revisions:
326 IAC 6.5–1–5; 326 IAC 6.5–1–6; 326
IAC 6.8–1–5; 326 IAC 6.8–1–6
References to other rule sections in
326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326 IAC 6.5–1–6, 326
IAC 6.8–1–5, and 326 IAC 6.8–1–6 were
updated to reflect the revised section
and subsection numbering in the
referenced rules. The revisions improve
the clarity of the rules with clear
language and current references without
changing the PM limits or any
requirements that have previously been
approved. 326 IAC 6.5–1–6 and 326 IAC
6.8–1–6 specifically require that any
exemptions or provisions granted by the
state in sections 2(a), 2(g), 2(i), 2(j), 4,
and 5 of the rule shall be submitted to
EPA as revisions to the SIP. Thus, EPA
is proposing to approve the
modifications to 326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326
IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5, and 326
IAC 6.8–1–6 into the Indiana SIP.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve into the
Indiana SIP revisions to PM rules
submitted by Indiana on April 27, 2012.
These revisions add PM control
requirements for coating operations. The
other primary revisions provide PM
limit exemptions for coating operations
that produce minimal PM emissions.
The remaining modifications are clerical
revisions that increase the lucidity of
the rules without altering the PM limits.
Specifically, EPA is proposing
approval of 326 IAC 6–3–1(c), 326 IAC
6.5–1–1, 326 IAC 6.5–1–2, 326 IAC 6.5–
1–5, 326 IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–
1, 326 IAC 6.8–1–2, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5,
and 326 IAC 6.8–1–6. EPA is proposing
to take no action on 326 IAC 6–3–1(b).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
21424
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014–08638 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Apr 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0241; FRL–9909–49–
Region 8]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; South
Dakota; Revisions to South Dakota
Administrative Code; Permit: New and
Modified Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of South Dakota
on June 14, 2010, June 20, 2011, and
July 29, 2013. All three SIP revisions
revise the Administrative Rules of South
Dakota (ARSD) that pertain to the
issuance of South Dakota air quality
permits; in addition the June 14, 2010
submittal revises certain definitions and
dates of incorporation by reference. The
June 14, 2010 revisions contain new,
amended and renumbered rules; the
June 20, 2011 revisions contain new
rules, and the July 29, 2013 revisions
contain amended rules. In this proposed
rulemaking, we are taking action on the
entire June 14, 2010 submittal, except
for those portions of the submittal
which do not belong in the SIP. We are
also taking action on portions of the
June 20, 2011 submittal that were not
acted on in other rulemaking regarding
greenhouse gases and the State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program. We are taking action on
portions of the July 29, 2013 submittal
that supersede portions of the two
previous submittals; the remainder of
the July 29, 2013 submittal will be acted
on at a later date. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 16, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2014–0241, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director,
Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–
0241. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA, without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21421-21424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08638]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0366; FRL-9909-48-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Particulate Matter Limitations for Coating Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The particulate matter (PM) rules that were
submitted consist of emission control requirements for coating
operations along with exemptions from certain coating operations that
produce minimal PM emissions. EPA is also proposing to take no action
on one section submitted by
[[Page 21422]]
Indiana, as it pertains to a definition in an unapproved portion of
Indiana's Title V regulations. Indiana submitted this request to
approve PM rules on April 27, 2012.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0366, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0366. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and executive order reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the background for this action?
On April 27, 2012, Indiana submitted a request to revise its SIP
under the CAA to incorporate the revised rules. Specifically, Indiana
requested that EPA approve the following sections as part of the SIP:
326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 6-3-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC
6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, 326 IAC
6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6. These provisions would
replace requirements that EPA has previously been approved into the
Indiana SIP. EPA approved 326 IAC 6-3 on July 25, 2005 (70 FR 42495).
EPA approved the addition of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the
Indiana SIP on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14383). EPA approved subsequent
revisions of sections of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the Indiana
SIP on April 30, 2008 (73 FR 23356).
Article 6 of 326 IAC contains Indiana's PM rules. Article 6.5 of
326 IAC contains statewide PM emission limitations except for Lake
County and Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM emission limits for
Lake County sources.
The language Indiana added in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-
2(h) is very similar to the language in 326 IAC 6-3-2(d). As noted, EPA
approved 326 IAC 6-3 including 326 IAC 6-3-2(d) on July 25, 2005 (70 FR
42495).
III. What is EPA's analysis?
Indiana made the same revisions to the rules of 326 IAC 6.5-1 and
326 IAC 6.8-1. Thus, EPA analyzed the revisions to the same rules and
sections of 326 IAC 6.5-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1 together and concluded that
the changes were acceptable in both regulations.
A. Applicability: 326 IAC 6-3-1; 326 IAC 6.5-1-1; 326 IAC 6.8-1-1
In 326 IAC 6-3-1, Indiana revised two sections. Indiana submitted a
revision to 326 IAC 6-3-1(b)(13) to reference the definition of trivial
activities as found in
[[Page 21423]]
326 IAC 2-7-1, part of Indiana's Title V rules. The definition of
``trivial activities'' is not currently in either Indiana's Title V
permitting program or SIP. For that reason, EPA is proposing to take no
action at this time on the revision of 326 IAC 6-3-1(b)(13). It should
be noted that the term ``trivial activities'' is not contained in any
of the regulations that EPA is approving in this action.
Indiana moved a phrase in 326 IAC 6-3-1(c) to improve clarity.
There is no material change from what is approved into the Indiana SIP
and thus EPA is proposing approval of the 326 IAC 6-3-1(c) revision.
Indiana revised both 326 IAC 6.5-1-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1 by adding
a new subsection (c) that exempts certain surface coating operations
from PM emission limits. The exempt processes are dip coating, roll
coating, flow coating, and brush coating. The primary emissions of
concern from surface coating are the volatile organic compound
emissions that arise from solvent evaporation. PM emissions from
coatings primarily are from overspray, the fine coating droplets that
are not applied as desired. Overspray, the portion of coating solids
that does not land on the item and is exhausted as PM emissions, is
common on spray coating operations but is not an issue with the four
exempt coating methods: Dip coating, roll coating, flow coating, and
brush coating. EPA expects minimal PM emission will occur from the
exempted coating methods and thus is proposing to approve the
exemptions.
Indiana also included in 326 IAC 6.5-1-1(c) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(c)
an exemption from the PM limits for facilities that use less than five
gallons of coating per day. EPA is satisfied that facilities that use
less than five gallons of coating daily will have de minimis PM
emissions because of the limited potential for overspray. Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve the exemptions from PM limits in these cases.
The remaining changes to 326 IAC 6.5-1-1 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1 are
simply updates to the section references from the version approved into
the Indiana SIP. For example, 326 IAC 6.5-1-1(c) became 326 IAC 6.5-1-
1(d) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(c) became 326 IAC 6.8-1-1(d) following the
addition of a new section (c) in both articles.
B. Particulate Emission Limitations, Modifications by Commissioner: 326
IAC 6.5-1-2; 326 IAC 6.8-1-2
Indiana also revised both 326 IAC 6.5-1-2 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2.
Indiana made revisions by rewording and moving phrases to 326 IAC 6.5-
1-2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). Identical revisions were made to 326
IAC 6.8-1-2(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). The changes to the revised
sections are insubstantial when compared to the approved sections.
Indiana added requirements for PM emission controls on surface
coating operations in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h).
Sources are required to operate a dry particulate filter, a water wash,
or an equivalent PM control device. If overspray occurs, 326 IAC 6.5-1-
2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2) require the source to inspect and
repair the control device or adjust operations to eliminate the
overspray within four hours. The source must keep a record of its
action to remedy the overspray. Select sources are allowed under 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(3) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(3) to follow the control
device inspection and repair requirements in its permit if overspray is
detected in place of the general control device inspection and repair
requirements in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2). As
usual, the most stringent requirement applies and thus the permit
requirements must be at least as stringent as the requirements in 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(2). EPA finds that the
addition of the PM emission control requirement for coating operations
to be satisfactory and thus is proposing approval. The requirements of
these sections will require any sources lacking the requirement to take
corrective action once overspray is detected. Overspray is sign that
the control equipment is not properly operating.
Indiana further added, at 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(4) and 326 IAC 6.8-1-
2(h)(4), a provision that if a facility increases its use of coatings
to exceed five gallons per day, it is no longer exempt from the
regulation; and Indiana must require appropriate PM emissions controls,
even if the source subsequently reduces its coating use back to using
less than five gallons of coating per day. Indiana's Federally approved
permitting rules require each source to keep records for ensuring
compliance with applicable emission limits. Therefore, each source will
be required in its permits (title V or Federally enforceable state
operating permit) to maintain records of its coating usage to establish
applicability according to the criteria in 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)(4) or 326
IAC 6.8-1-2(h)(4).
Indiana renamed 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h) to 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(i) and 326
IAC 6.5-1-2(i) to 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(j) following the addition of the new
326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h). Identical section renaming was also made in 326 IAC
6.8-1-2. EPA is proposing to approve the addition of 326 IAC 6.5-1-2(h)
and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2(h) along with the revision to the other sections of
326 IAC 6.5-1-2 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-2 into the Indiana SIP.
C. Control Strategies and SIP Revisions: 326 IAC 6.5-1-5; 326 IAC 6.5-
1-6; 326 IAC 6.8-1-5; 326 IAC 6.8-1-6
References to other rule sections in 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-
1-6, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6 were updated to reflect the
revised section and subsection numbering in the referenced rules. The
revisions improve the clarity of the rules with clear language and
current references without changing the PM limits or any requirements
that have previously been approved. 326 IAC 6.5-1-6 and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6
specifically require that any exemptions or provisions granted by the
state in sections 2(a), 2(g), 2(i), 2(j), 4, and 5 of the rule shall be
submitted to EPA as revisions to the SIP. Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve the modifications to 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC
6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6 into the Indiana SIP.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve into the Indiana SIP revisions to PM
rules submitted by Indiana on April 27, 2012. These revisions add PM
control requirements for coating operations. The other primary
revisions provide PM limit exemptions for coating operations that
produce minimal PM emissions. The remaining modifications are clerical
revisions that increase the lucidity of the rules without altering the
PM limits.
Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of 326 IAC 6-3-1(c), 326
IAC 6.5-1-1, 326 IAC 6.5-1-2, 326 IAC 6.5-1-5, 326 IAC 6.5-1-6, 326 IAC
6.8-1-1, 326 IAC 6.8-1-2, 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, and 326 IAC 6.8-1-6. EPA is
proposing to take no action on 326 IAC 6-3-1(b).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under
[[Page 21424]]
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-08638 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P