Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings, 57469-57473 [2016-20016]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–19888 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0523; FRL–9950–84–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana;
Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision
to the Indiana State Implementation
Plan (SIP), a submittal by the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) dated July 17,
2015. The submittal contains a new
volatile organic compound (VOC) limit
for antifoulant coatings used in
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities
located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter
counties. The submittal also includes a
demonstration that this revision satisfies
the anti-backsliding provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The submittal
additionally removes obsolete dates and
clarifies a citation.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 22, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0523 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489,
svingen.eric@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 is the background of this SIP
revision?
II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP
revision?
On July 17, 2015, IDEM submitted to
EPA a request to incorporate into
Indiana’s SIP a revised version of 326
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8–
12–4, ‘‘Volatile organic compound
emissions limiting requirements,’’ with
an effective date of June 21, 2015.
Indiana’s rulemaking adds, at 326 IAC
8–12–4(a)(1)(D), a VOC limit of 3.33 lbs
VOC per gallon for antifoulant coatings
used in shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake,
and Porter counties. In 326 IAC 8–12–
3(22)(C), an ‘‘antifoulant specialty
coating’’ is defined as any coating that
is applied to the underwater portion of
a vessel to prevent or reduce the
attachment of biological organisms and
that is registered with the EPA as a
pesticide under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The
same definition is provided in EPA’s
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR
44050, August 27, 1996). Clark and
Floyd counties are part of the Louisville,
KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and Lake and Porter
counties are part of the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57469
maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Before IDEM added the revised VOC
limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon in 326
IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(D), antifoulant
coatings were limited by the specialty
coating limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon
at 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(E), which IDEM
has moved to 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(F) in
this revision. The revised limit of 3.33
lbs VOC per gallon is consistent with
the limit in Table 1–1 of EPA’s
Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
Document: Surface Coating Operations
at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities (EPA–453/R–94–032, April
1994). In addition, it is consistent with
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II.
EPA’s CTG identifies the limit from the
ACT as Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), and states that the
NESHAP can be used as a model rule for
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.
In Indiana’s rulemaking, 326 IAC 8–
12–4 is also revised to remove obsolete
dates and clarify a reference to EPA’s
NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating) at 40 CFR 63,
subpart II.
This SIP revision relies on offsets
generated by the Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings
rule at 326 IAC 8–14 to compensate for
the increase in allowable VOC
emissions.
II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
Revisions to SIP-approved control
measures must meet the requirements
of, among other statutory provisions,
section 110(l) of the CAA in order to be
approved by EPA. Section 110(l), known
as EPA’s anti-backsliding provision,
states:
‘‘The Administrator shall not approve
a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.’’
In the absence of an attainment
demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable
NAAQS or requirement of the CAA
under section 110(l), states may
substitute equivalent emissions
reductions to compensate for any
change to a SIP-approved program, as
long as actual emissions are not
increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions
reductions mean reductions which are
equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure
approved in the SIP. To show that
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
57470
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
compensating emissions reductions are
equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The
compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions
reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the
change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status
quo level of emissions in the air. As
described in EPA’s memorandum
‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic
Incentive Programs’’ published in
January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001), the
equivalent emissions reductions must
also be permanent, enforceable,
quantifiable, and surplus to be approved
into the SIP.
Indiana’s revisions to 326 IAC 8–12–
4 increase the allowable VOC content of
antifoulant coatings used in
shipbuilding or ship repair facilities
from 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon to 3.33 lbs
VOC per gallon. VOCs contribute to the
formation of ground-level ozone. Thus,
the potential increase in VOC needs to
be offset with equivalent (or greater)
emissions reductions from another VOC
control measure in order to demonstrate
non-interference with the 1997 ozone
NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Indiana’s SIP submittal includes a 110(l)
demonstration that relies on equivalent
emission reductions to compensate for
allowable emission increases resulting
from the new VOC limit for antifoulant
coatings.
326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(D) currently
applies to only one source, Jeffboat LLC,
which operates a stationary
shipbuilding and repair facility at 1030
E. Market St., Jeffersonville, Indiana,
and is permitted under Title V
Operating Permit T019–29304–0006.
Jeffboat is located within Clark County
and the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. IDEM’s
110(l) demonstration consists of a
calculation of the maximum possible
increase in VOC emissions from this
source under the revised emission limit,
followed by an identification of
available offsets from the AIM rule at
326 IAC 8–14.
Indiana’s submittal includes
calculations illustrating the maximum
possible increase in VOC emissions
resulting from revisions to 326 IAC 8–
12–4. Based on the maximum number of
barges requiring antifoulant coatings,
Jeffboat may use up to 2,580 gallons per
year of coatings. At the original limit of
2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating, the
source may emit 3.65 tons VOC per
year. In order to correctly determine the
difference in resulting emissions, the
original and revised limits must be
compared on a solids basis; 2.83 lbs
VOC per gallon coating equates to 4.6
lbs VOC per gallon solids, and 3.33 lbs
VOC per gallon coating equates to 6.08
lbs VOC per gallon solids. From these
figures, the revised limit is 32% higher
than the original limit. A 32% increase
from 3.65 tons VOC per year amounts to
an increase in emissions of 1.17 tons
VOC per year, or 0.004167 tons VOC per
summer day. IDEM’s section 110(l)
demonstration states that offsets of this
amount from Indiana’s AIM coatings
rule are needed to compensate for the
increase in allowable emissions.
IDEM’s calculations are more
conservative than the approach
recommended by EPA. Because Jeffboat
operates six days per week, or 312 days
per year, 1.17 tons VOC per year
amounts to 0.00375 tons VOC per
summer day. However, in this
rulemaking, IDEM has requested to
offset the revised limit in 326 IAC 8–12–
4 with credits from Indiana’s AIM rule
in the amount of 0.004167 tons VOC per
summer day.
Indiana’s AIM rule goes above and
beyond the Federal AIM rule by
adopting a rule that is similar to the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
model rule ‘‘Architectural & Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings’’ updated
October 13, 2014. According to a 2006
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) white paper, the OTC model
rule provides an up to 60.5% reduction
in VOC emissions compared to
uncontrolled 2002 base case emissions,
while the Federal AIM rule alone only
provides a 20% reduction compared to
base case.
The Indiana AIM rule was approved
into the SIP on August 30, 2012 (77 FR
52606). Indiana was not required to
adopt an AIM coatings rule, but did so
as a multi-state effort to help reduce
ozone levels at the regional level.
Indiana did not adopt the AIM rule to
comply with any Indiana SIP planning
requirements and has not taken credit
for it in air quality plans, nor has it been
included in maintenance year horizons
or rate of further progress (RFP)
inventories. Therefore, these SIP
approved AIM limits can be used as
offsets for other purposes, such as this
SIP revision.
Table 1 shows additional reductions
available due to the OTC model rule and
Indiana AIM rule. In the table, emission
estimates are based on 2011 National
Emission Inventory (NEI) data, which is
the most recent NEI data currently
available. Total reductions, as well as
summer day calculations based on
average daily emissions using a
multiplier of 1.3, are based on the
LADCO white paper. Indiana’s 110(l)
demonstration shows available offsets
from the AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC
per summer day.
TABLE 1—CLARK AND FLOYD COUNTIES OFFSET ANALYSIS
Additional
reduction
Clark ......................
Clark ......................
Clark ......................
128.97
0.14
33.24
0.4594
0.0005
0.1184
0.388
0.564
0.605
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.24
0.46
0.51
0.108
0.0002
0.060
3.53
87.26
0.08
22.49
0.0126
0.3108
0.0003
0.0801
0.605
0.388
0.564
0.605
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.51
0.24
0.46
0.51
0.006
0.073
0.000
0.041
Floyd .....................
Architectural ..........
Traffic Markings ....
Industrial Maintenance.
Special Purpose ...
Architectural ..........
Traffic Markings ....
Industrial Maintenance.
Special Purpose ...
2.39
0.0085
0.605
0.2
0.51
0.004
Total ...............
...............................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.292
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Ton/summday
Federal AIM
reduction
Coating category
Clark
Floyd
Floyd
Floyd
Tons/year
Total
reductions
(AIM and
OTC)
County
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Offset
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
IDEM’s section 110(l) demonstration
identifies available offsets from
Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC
per summer day, and Indiana’s revisions
to 326 IAC 8–12–4 require offsets of less
than 0.004167 tons VOC per summer
day. Therefore, the VOC emissions
increase associated with the revisions of
326 IAC 8–12–4 are more than offset by
the VOC emission reductions attributed
to reductions in AIM coatings
emissions.
In an earlier submittal, Indiana
requested to use a separate portion of
available offsets from Indiana’s AIM
rule to offset removal of Stage II gasoline
vapor recovery requirements for the
years 2014 and 2015. EPA finalized
approval of that SIP submittal on June
9, 2016 (81 FR 37160). For the year
2014, EPA’s final rulemaking relevant to
the Stage II rule uses offsets from
Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.001829695 tons
VOC per summer day, and for 2015, that
same rulemaking uses offsets from
Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.002250149 tons
VOC per summer day. That rulemaking
relevant to Stage II uses no offsets for
2016 or future years.
Indiana’s revised version of 326 IAC
8–12–4 has an effective date of June 21,
2015, so offsets are necessary for 2015
and future years. For 2015, IDEM
identifies available offsets from
Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC
per summer day, EPA’s proposed
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses
offsets of 0.002250149 tons VOC per
summer day, and this rulemaking
relevant to 326 IAC 8–12–4 uses offsets
of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day.
Therefore, offsets from Indiana’s AIM
rule of 0.285582851 tons VOC per
summer day remain available for future
use. For 2016 and future years, IDEM
identifies available offsets from
Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC
per summer day, EPA’s proposed
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no
offsets, and this rulemaking relevant to
326 IAC 8–12–4 uses offsets of 0.004167
tons VOC per summer day. Therefore,
offsets from Indiana’s AIM rule of
0.287833 tons VOC per summer day
remain available for future use.
Based on the use of permanent,
enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus
emissions reductions achieved through
the offsets from VOC reductions in AIM
coatings emissions in Clark and Floyd
counties, EPA has concluded that the
revisions of 326 IAC 8–12–4 do not
interfere with southeast Indiana’s ability
to demonstrate compliance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
EPA also examined whether the
revisions of 326 IAC 8–12–4 will
interfere with attainment of any other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
air quality standards. Lake and Porter
counties are designated attainment for
all standards other than ozone,
including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide. Clark and Floyd counties are
designated attainment for all standards
other than ozone and particulate
matter.1 For the reasons discussed
above, EPA has no reason to believe that
the revisions will cause the areas to
become nonattainment for any of these
pollutants. In addition, EPA believes
that the revisions will not interfere with
the areas’ ability to meet any other CAA
requirement.
Based on the above discussion and
the state’s section 110(l) demonstration,
EPA has concluded that the revisions to
326 IAC 8–12–4 will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance in the
Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or the
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and would not interfere with
any other applicable requirement of the
CAA, and thus, are approvable under
CAA section 110(l). Also, as stated in
the previous section, the antifouling
coating limit satisfies RACT.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA finds that the revision will not
interfere with any applicable CAA
requirement. For that reason, EPA is
approving, as a revision to the Indiana
ozone SIP, a revised version of 326 IAC
8–12–4 submitted by IDEM on July 17,
2015.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
1 Clark and Floyd counties are currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. While VOC is
one of the precursors for particulate matter
(NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that in
the southeast, which includes the Louisville, KY-IN
maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
emissions of direct PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur
oxides are more significant to ambient summertime
PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of nitrogen
oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Journal of
Environmental Engineering-Quantifying the sources
of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze
in the Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009),
available at: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/
journal-ofenvironmental-management. Currently,
Clark and Floyd counties are not designated
nonattainment for any of the other criteria
pollutants (i.e. sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
lead or carbon monoxide) and those pollutants are
not affected by the removal of Stage II requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57471
effective October 24, 2016 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by September
22, 2016. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
October 24, 2016.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Indiana Regulations
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA
for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.2
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office
(please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more
information).
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
2 62
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
23AUR1
57472
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. 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, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry for
8–12–4 under ‘‘Article 8. Volatile
Organic Compound Rules’’ ‘‘Rule 12.
Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations
in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter
Counties’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.770
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS
Indiana citation
Indiana effective
date
Subject
*
*
*
*
EPA Approval date
*
Notes
*
*
*
*
Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules
*
*
*
*
*
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties:
*
8–12–4 .............................
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
*
Volatile organic compound emissions limiting requirements.
*
14:39 Aug 22, 2016
*
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
*
06/21/2015
*
08/23/2016, [insert Federal Register citation].
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
*
23AUR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–20016 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 79
[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 16–17]
Closed Captioning of Video
Programming; Telecommunications for
the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.,
Petition for Rulemaking
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) allocates the
responsibilities of video programming
distributors (VPDs) and video
programmers with respect to the
provision and quality of closed captions
on television programming, with each
entity responsible for closed captioning
issues that are primarily within its
control; amends the Commission’s
captioning complaint procedures to
include video programmers in the
handling of complaints; and requires
video programmers to register contact
information and certify compliance with
captioning obligations directly with the
Commission.
DATES: Effective September 22, 2016,
except for 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (9),
(i)(1) through (3), (j)(1) and (4), (k)(1)(iv),
and (m) of the Commission’s rules,
which contain information collection
requirements that are not effective until
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date
for those sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot
Greenwald, Disability Rights Office,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, at phone: (202) 418–2235 or
email: Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Closed
Captioning of Video Programming;
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for
Rulemaking Second Report and Order
(Second Report and Order), document
FCC 16–17, adopted on February 18,
2016, and released on February 19,
2016. The full text of document FCC 16–
17 will be available for public
inspection and copying via ECFS, and
during regular business hours at the
FCC Reference Information Center,
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:39 Aug 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Document FCC 16–17 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rightsoffice-headlines. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
Document FCC 16–17 contains new
and modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, will invite the
general public to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in document FCC 16–17 as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13.
In addition, the Commission notes that,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the
Commission previously sought
comment on how the Commission might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’ See Closed Captioning of
Video Programming;
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for
Rulemaking, Report and Order,
Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, published at
79 FR 17093, March 27, 2014 (Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and 79
FR 17911, March 31, 2014 (Report and
Order) (references are to the Closed
Captioning Quality Order when
discussing parts of the Report and
Order, and to the Closed Captioning
Quality Further Notice when discussing
parts of the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking).
Synopsis
1. Closed captioning is a technology
that provides visual access to the audio
content of video programs by displaying
this content as printed words on the
television screen. In 1997, the
Commission, acting pursuant to section
713 of the Communications Act (the
Act), 47 U.S.C. 713, adopted rules
regarding closed captioning on
television. On February 24, 2014, the
Commission adopted the Closed
Captioning Quality Order in which,
among other things, it placed
responsibility for compliance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57473
non-technical closed captioning quality
standards on (VPDs) while
simultaneously releasing the Closed
Captioning Quality Further Notice to
seek comment on, among other issues,
extending some of the responsibilities
for complying with the closed
captioning quality standards to other
entities involved in the production and
delivery of video programming. On
December 15, 2014, the Commission
released a Second Further Notice
seeking to supplement the record in this
proceeding in response to comments
received on the Closed Captioning
Quality Further Notice. Closed
Captioning of Video Programming;
Telecommunications for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for
Rulemaking, Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, published at 79
FR 78768, December 31, 2014 (Closed
Captioning Quality Second Further
Notice).
2. Responsibilities of VPDs and Video
Programmers. In its 1997 Closed
Captioning Report and Order, the
Commission placed sole responsibility
for compliance with its television closed
captioning rules on VPDs. Closed
Captioning and Video Description of
Video Programming, Implementation of
Section 305 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Video Programming
Accessibility, Report and Order,
published at 62 FR 48487, September
16, 1997 (1997 Closed Captioning
Report and Order). At that time, the
Commission concluded that holding
VPDs responsible would most
expeditiously increase the availability of
television programming with closed
captions and promote efficiency in the
Commission’s monitoring and
enforcement of its captioning rules. At
the same time, the Commission
recognized the Commission’s
jurisdiction, under section 713 of the
Act, over both video programming
providers and owners to ensure the
provision of closed captioning of video
programming, and noted its expectation
that both ‘‘owners and producers will be
involved in the captioning process.’’
3. In the Closed Captioning Quality
Order, the Commission similarly placed
the responsibility for compliance with
the non-technical closed captioning
quality standards on VPDs. However,
recognizing that the creation and
delivery of quality closed captioning is
not solely within the control of VPDs
and that video programmers play a
‘‘critical role’’ in providing closed
captions to viewers, the Commission
stated that it would allow a VPD to
satisfy its obligations with respect to the
caption quality rules by obtaining or
making best efforts to obtain
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57469-57473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0523; FRL-9950-84-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), a submittal by
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated July
17, 2015. The submittal contains a new volatile organic compound (VOC)
limit for antifoulant coatings used in shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter counties. The
submittal also includes a demonstration that this revision satisfies
the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
submittal additionally removes obsolete dates and clarifies a citation.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 24, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 22, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0523 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489,
svingen.eric@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 is the background of this SIP revision?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of this SIP revision?
On July 17, 2015, IDEM submitted to EPA a request to incorporate
into Indiana's SIP a revised version of 326 Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC) 8-12-4, ``Volatile organic compound emissions limiting
requirements,'' with an effective date of June 21, 2015.
Indiana's rulemaking adds, at 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D), a VOC limit
of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon for antifoulant coatings used in
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake,
and Porter counties. In 326 IAC 8-12-3(22)(C), an ``antifoulant
specialty coating'' is defined as any coating that is applied to the
underwater portion of a vessel to prevent or reduce the attachment of
biological organisms and that is registered with the EPA as a pesticide
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The same
definition is provided in EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 44050,
August 27, 1996). Clark and Floyd counties are part of the Louisville,
KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), and Lake and Porter counties are part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Before IDEM added the revised VOC limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon
in 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D), antifoulant coatings were limited by the
specialty coating limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon at 326 IAC 8-12-
4(a)(1)(E), which IDEM has moved to 326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(F) in this
revision. The revised limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon is consistent
with the limit in Table 1-1 of EPA's Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) Document: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Facilities (EPA-453/R-94-032, April 1994). In addition, it is
consistent with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. EPA's CTG identifies the limit from the
ACT as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), and states that
the NESHAP can be used as a model rule for shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities.
In Indiana's rulemaking, 326 IAC 8-12-4 is also revised to remove
obsolete dates and clarify a reference to EPA's NESHAP for Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) at 40 CFR 63, subpart II.
This SIP revision relies on offsets generated by the Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule at 326 IAC 8-14 to
compensate for the increase in allowable VOC emissions.
II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of, among other statutory provisions, section 110(l) of
the CAA in order to be approved by EPA. Section 110(l), known as EPA's
anti-backsliding provision, states:
``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.''
In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), states may substitute equivalent emissions reductions
to compensate for any change to a SIP-approved program, as long as
actual emissions are not increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions
mean reductions which are equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that
[[Page 57470]]
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emissions in the
air. As described in EPA's memorandum ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs'' published in January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-
001), the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into the SIP.
Indiana's revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4 increase the allowable VOC
content of antifoulant coatings used in shipbuilding or ship repair
facilities from 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon to 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon.
VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. Thus, the
potential increase in VOC needs to be offset with equivalent (or
greater) emissions reductions from another VOC control measure in order
to demonstrate non-interference with the 1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Indiana's SIP submittal includes a 110(l) demonstration that
relies on equivalent emission reductions to compensate for allowable
emission increases resulting from the new VOC limit for antifoulant
coatings.
326 IAC 8-12-4(a)(1)(D) currently applies to only one source,
Jeffboat LLC, which operates a stationary shipbuilding and repair
facility at 1030 E. Market St., Jeffersonville, Indiana, and is
permitted under Title V Operating Permit T019-29304-0006. Jeffboat is
located within Clark County and the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. IDEM's 110(l) demonstration consists of a
calculation of the maximum possible increase in VOC emissions from this
source under the revised emission limit, followed by an identification
of available offsets from the AIM rule at 326 IAC 8-14.
Indiana's submittal includes calculations illustrating the maximum
possible increase in VOC emissions resulting from revisions to 326 IAC
8-12-4. Based on the maximum number of barges requiring antifoulant
coatings, Jeffboat may use up to 2,580 gallons per year of coatings. At
the original limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating, the source may
emit 3.65 tons VOC per year. In order to correctly determine the
difference in resulting emissions, the original and revised limits must
be compared on a solids basis; 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating equates
to 4.6 lbs VOC per gallon solids, and 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon coating
equates to 6.08 lbs VOC per gallon solids. From these figures, the
revised limit is 32% higher than the original limit. A 32% increase
from 3.65 tons VOC per year amounts to an increase in emissions of 1.17
tons VOC per year, or 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day. IDEM's section
110(l) demonstration states that offsets of this amount from Indiana's
AIM coatings rule are needed to compensate for the increase in
allowable emissions.
IDEM's calculations are more conservative than the approach
recommended by EPA. Because Jeffboat operates six days per week, or 312
days per year, 1.17 tons VOC per year amounts to 0.00375 tons VOC per
summer day. However, in this rulemaking, IDEM has requested to offset
the revised limit in 326 IAC 8-12-4 with credits from Indiana's AIM
rule in the amount of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day.
Indiana's AIM rule goes above and beyond the Federal AIM rule by
adopting a rule that is similar to the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
model rule ``Architectural & Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings''
updated October 13, 2014. According to a 2006 Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO) white paper, the OTC model rule provides
an up to 60.5% reduction in VOC emissions compared to uncontrolled 2002
base case emissions, while the Federal AIM rule alone only provides a
20% reduction compared to base case.
The Indiana AIM rule was approved into the SIP on August 30, 2012
(77 FR 52606). Indiana was not required to adopt an AIM coatings rule,
but did so as a multi-state effort to help reduce ozone levels at the
regional level. Indiana did not adopt the AIM rule to comply with any
Indiana SIP planning requirements and has not taken credit for it in
air quality plans, nor has it been included in maintenance year
horizons or rate of further progress (RFP) inventories. Therefore,
these SIP approved AIM limits can be used as offsets for other
purposes, such as this SIP revision.
Table 1 shows additional reductions available due to the OTC model
rule and Indiana AIM rule. In the table, emission estimates are based
on 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI) data, which is the most
recent NEI data currently available. Total reductions, as well as
summer day calculations based on average daily emissions using a
multiplier of 1.3, are based on the LADCO white paper. Indiana's 110(l)
demonstration shows available offsets from the AIM rule of 0.292 tons
VOC per summer day.
Table 1--Clark and Floyd Counties Offset Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
County Coating category Tons/year Ton/summday reductions Federal AIM Additional Offset
(AIM and OTC) reduction reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark............................. Architectural....... 128.97 0.4594 0.388 0.2 0.24 0.108
Clark............................. Traffic Markings.... 0.14 0.0005 0.564 0.2 0.46 0.0002
Clark............................. Industrial 33.24 0.1184 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.060
Maintenance.
Clark............................. Special Purpose..... 3.53 0.0126 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.006
Floyd............................. Architectural....... 87.26 0.3108 0.388 0.2 0.24 0.073
Floyd............................. Traffic Markings.... 0.08 0.0003 0.564 0.2 0.46 0.000
Floyd............................. Industrial 22.49 0.0801 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.041
Maintenance.
Floyd............................. Special Purpose..... 2.39 0.0085 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... .................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 0.292
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57471]]
IDEM's section 110(l) demonstration identifies available offsets
from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC per summer day, and Indiana's
revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4 require offsets of less than 0.004167 tons
VOC per summer day. Therefore, the VOC emissions increase associated
with the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 are more than offset by the VOC
emission reductions attributed to reductions in AIM coatings emissions.
In an earlier submittal, Indiana requested to use a separate
portion of available offsets from Indiana's AIM rule to offset removal
of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery requirements for the years 2014 and
2015. EPA finalized approval of that SIP submittal on June 9, 2016 (81
FR 37160). For the year 2014, EPA's final rulemaking relevant to the
Stage II rule uses offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.001829695 tons
VOC per summer day, and for 2015, that same rulemaking uses offsets
from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.002250149 tons VOC per summer day. That
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no offsets for 2016 or future
years.
Indiana's revised version of 326 IAC 8-12-4 has an effective date
of June 21, 2015, so offsets are necessary for 2015 and future years.
For 2015, IDEM identifies available offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of
0.292 tons VOC per summer day, EPA's proposed rulemaking relevant to
Stage II uses offsets of 0.002250149 tons VOC per summer day, and this
rulemaking relevant to 326 IAC 8-12-4 uses offsets of 0.004167 tons VOC
per summer day. Therefore, offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of
0.285582851 tons VOC per summer day remain available for future use.
For 2016 and future years, IDEM identifies available offsets from
Indiana's AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC per summer day, EPA's proposed
rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no offsets, and this rulemaking
relevant to 326 IAC 8-12-4 uses offsets of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer
day. Therefore, offsets from Indiana's AIM rule of 0.287833 tons VOC
per summer day remain available for future use.
Based on the use of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous,
surplus emissions reductions achieved through the offsets from VOC
reductions in AIM coatings emissions in Clark and Floyd counties, EPA
has concluded that the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 do not interfere
with southeast Indiana's ability to demonstrate compliance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA also examined whether the revisions of 326 IAC 8-12-4 will
interfere with attainment of any other air quality standards. Lake and
Porter counties are designated attainment for all standards other than
ozone, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Clark and Floyd
counties are designated attainment for all standards other than ozone
and particulate matter.\1\ For the reasons discussed above, EPA has no
reason to believe that the revisions will cause the areas to become
nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In addition, EPA believes
that the revisions will not interfere with the areas' ability to meet
any other CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clark and Floyd counties are currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standard. While VOC is one of the precursors for
particulate matter (NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that in
the southeast, which includes the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, emissions of direct PM2.5 and
the precursor sulfur oxides are more significant to ambient
summertime PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of
nitrogen oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Journal of
Environmental Engineering-Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine
particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United
States (June 24, 2009), available at: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management.
Currently, Clark and Floyd counties are not designated nonattainment
for any of the other criteria pollutants (i.e. sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, lead or carbon monoxide) and those pollutants are
not affected by the removal of Stage II requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above discussion and the state's section 110(l)
demonstration, EPA has concluded that the revisions to 326 IAC 8-12-4
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance in the Louisville,
KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN maintenance area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA, and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Also, as
stated in the previous section, the antifouling coating limit satisfies
RACT.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA finds that the revision will not interfere with any applicable
CAA requirement. For that reason, EPA is approving, as a revision to
the Indiana ozone SIP, a revised version of 326 IAC 8-12-4 submitted by
IDEM on July 17, 2015.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 24,
2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 22, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective
October 24, 2016.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\2\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57472]]
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 Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 24, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for 8-12-4 under ``Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound
Rules'' ``Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark,
Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana effective
Indiana citation Subject date EPA Approval date Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8-12-4.......................... Volatile organic 06/21/2015 08/23/2016, ...................
compound [insert Federal
emissions Register
limiting citation].
requirements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57473]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-20016 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
