43260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

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 final 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 final 

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 

(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 final priority only 

on 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 regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does 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 Program have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

final priority have been completed 

successfully. The new DRRP will 

generate and promote the use of new 

information that is intended to improve 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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: July 22, 2014. 

Melody Musgrove, 

Director, Office of Special Education 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17604 Filed 7–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0214; FRL–9914–24– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Solvent Degreasing Operations Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 43261 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a request 

submitted by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

March 14, 2013, to revise the Indiana 

state implementation plan (SIP) solvent 

degreasing operation rule. The state’s 

submission seeks to extend vapor 

pressure limitations (previously 

applying to four counties) state-wide, 

add certain exemptions and streamline 

the rule by repealing and consolidating 

certain provisions. There is also a 

revised definition for ‘‘cold cleaner 

degreaser.’’ 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective September 23, 2014, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 25, 2014. 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–2013–0214, 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–2013– 

0214. 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. 

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 Charles Hatten, 

Environmental Engineer, (312) 886– 

6031 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@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 for this action? 

II. What revision did the State request be 

incorporated into the SIP? 

III. What action is EPA taking today and what 

is the basis for this action? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On March 14, 2013, the IDEM 

submitted a request to revise 326 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), 

Article 8, Rule 3, organic solvent 

degreasing operation (326 IAC 8–3) in 

Indiana’s SIP. Revisions to this rule 

would: Extend the solvent low pressure 

requirement for cold cleaner degreasers 

to the entire state; add certain 

exemptions and streamline the rule by 

repealing and consolidating certain 

provisions. Revisions to the Definitions 

regulation would revise the definition 

for ‘‘cold cleaner degreaser’’ (326 IAC 1– 

2–18.5). 

On October 5, 2012, IDEM published 

a ‘‘Notice of Public Information’’ in 

several newspapers, and on their Web 

site at http://www.in.gov/idem/

5474.htm, providing a 30-day public 

comment period on the proposed 

revision to its SIP concerning organic 

solvent degreasing operations. The 

notice also informed the public that a 

hearing was scheduled for November 7, 

2012. A public hearing was held on 

November 7, 2012. IDEM did not receive 

any comments. 

This revised regulation applies to any 

person operating a degreaser using 

solvents that contain one or more 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

located in the state. VOCs contribute to 

the formation of ozone. 

Solvent degreasing operations are an 

integral part of many industries as 

solvents or solvent vapors are used to 

remove water soluble contaminants, 

such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon 

deposits, fluxes, and tars from metal, 

plastic, glass, and other surfaces. 

Emissions of VOCs occur as a result of 

evaporation from storage and handling, 

and use of fresh and spent solvents. 

Solvents that are not recycled or 

disposed of may eventually be emitted 

to the atmosphere. Solvent degreasing 

operations may utilize one of the three 

methods of cleaning an article: (1) Use 

of cold cleaner degreaser, (2) an open 

top degreaser, or (3) the use of a 

conveyor degreaser system. 

II. What revision did the State request 

be incorporated into the SIP? 

IDEM has requested the following 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP: 

Rule 326 IAC 8–3, ‘‘Organic Solvent 

Degreasing Operation’’ 

IDEM revised 326 IAC 8–3 as follows: 

(1) Exemptions were added to 326 IAC 

8–3–1, (2) sections 326 IAC 8–3–5, 326 

IAC 8–3–6, and 326 IAC 8–3–7 were 

repealed and consolidated into sections 

326 IAC 8–3–2, 326 IAC 8–3–3, and 326 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
43262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

IAC 8–3–4, and (3) the one (1) 

millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) solvent 

vapor pressure restriction for cold 

cleaner degreasers was made state-wide. 

The applicability section of 326 IAC 8– 

3–1, states that it applies to the 

following: (1) All persons owning or 

operating degreasers using solvents that 

contain one or more VOCs located in the 

state, (2) any person who sells, offers for 

sale, uses, or manufactures solvents that 

contain one or more VOCs for use in 

cold cleaner degreasers. These changes 

are consistent with the approved SIP. 

IDEM also revised the applicability of 

326 IAC 8–3–1 by adding certain 

exemptions. Section (d) of 326 IAC 8– 

3 states that the solvent degreasing 

operations and control requirements 

identified in 326 IAC 8–3–2 through 326 

IAC 8–3–4 do not apply to degreasers 

that: (1) Are required to operate and 

comply with 326 IAC 20–6–1 that 

incorporates by reference the National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR 63, 

subpart T—for halogenated solvent 

cleaning (which controls both 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and VOC 

emissions; (2) use solvents that contains 

less than one percent VOC by weight. 

Also, the rule states that the solvent 

material requirements in section 8 of 

326 IAC 8–3, do not apply to degreasers 

that: (1) Are required to operate and 

comply with 326 IAC 20–15–1 that 

incorporates by reference the NESHAP 

at 40 CFR 63, subpart GG—for aerospace 

manufacturing & rework facilities not 

located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, or Porter 

County; or (2) use solvents that contain 

less than one percent VOC by weight. 

These changes are acceptable and 

approvable into Indiana’s SIP for the 

following reasons: (1) The NESHAP in 

40 CFR 63, subpart T—for halogenated 

solvent cleaning has similar operational 

requirements to those in 326 IAC 8–3– 

2 thru 8–4, (2) the aerospace 

manufacturing exemption from the 1 

mm Hg vapor pressure limitation does 

not relax this requirement where it 

previously applied in Clark, Floyd, 

Lake, and Porter counties and (3) 

sources that primarily use water-borne 

solvents for cleaning, containing less 

than one percent VOC by weight, will 

emit less VOCs than those using VOCs 

that comply with the operational 

requirements of this rule. 

In order to streamline the structure of 

the rule, IDEM repealed sections 326 

IAC 8–3–5, 326 IAC 8–3–6, and 326 IAC 

8–3–7 to consolidate rule requirements 

into sections 326 IAC 8–3–2 (Cold 

cleaner degreaser operation), 326 IAC 8– 

3–3 (Open top vapor degreaser 

operation), and 326 IAC 8–3–4 

(Conveyorized degreaser operation). 

This consolidation clarifies the rule 

language and its requirements. These 

changes are consistent with the 

approved SIP. 

Lastly, the revisions to 326 IAC 8–3 

extend the solvent material 

requirements applicable to users, 

providers, and manufacturers of 

solvents for use in cold cleaner 

degreasers at 328 IAC 8–3–8, on and 

after January 1, 2015, state-wide. 

Indiana’s solvent degreasing operation 

rule contains a cold cleaning solvent 

vapor pressure limit that stipulates— 

‘‘no person shall operate a cold cleaner 

degreaser with a solvent vapor pressure 

that exceeds one (1) millimeter of 

mercury measured at twenty (20) 

degrees Celsius.’’ Previously, this rule 

requirement only applied to cold 

cleaning degreaser operations located in 

Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter counties. 

Limiting the solvent vapor pressure to 1 

mmHg on a state-wide basis would 

strengthen Indiana’s SIP to reduce 

emission of VOCs and the formation of 

ozone from cold cleaner degreaser 

operations. 

Rule 326 IAC 1–2–18.5, Definition of 

‘‘Cold Cleaner Degreaser’’ 

IDEM made a minor revision to its 

definition of cold cleaner degreaser. 

Currently in SIP rule 326 IAC 1–2–18.5, 

a ‘‘cold cleaner degreaser’’ means a tank 

containing organic solvent at a 

temperature below the boiling point of 

the solvent that is used to spray, brush, 

flush, or immerse an article for the 

purpose of cleaning or degreasing the 

article. The rule has been revised by 

adding language to clarify that the 

definition of a cold cleaner degreaser 

does not include the activity of wiping 

to clean the article. 

EPA finds that the revisions to 

Indiana’s organic solvent degreasing 

operation rule at 326 IAC 8–3, and the 

definition of cold cleaner degreaser at 

1–2–18.5, are acceptable, and 

approvable into the Indiana SIP. Much 

of the revised rule is consistent with the 

approved SIP. The main revision 

expands the 1 mmHg vapor pressure 

restriction for cold cleaning degreasers 

from only applying to Clark, Floyd, 

Lake, and Porter counties to the entire 

state. 

III. What action is EPA taking today 

and what is the basis for this action? 

EPA is approving the March 14, 2013, 

request by Indiana to revise the SIP’s 

solvent degreasing operation rule at 326 

IAC 8–3, and the definition of cold 

cleaner degreaser at 326 IAC 1–2–18.5. 

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 September 23, 2014 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by August 

25, 2014. 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. The 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 September 23, 2014. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act. 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 

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); 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 43263 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 23, 

2014. 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, Emissions Reporting, 

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 14, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

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: 

■ a. Revising the entry for 1–2–18.5 

under ‘‘Article 1. General Provisions,’’ 

‘‘Rule 2. Definitions.’’ 

■ b. Revising the entries for ‘‘Rule 3. 

Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations’’ 

under the subheading entitled ‘‘Article 

8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules’’. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA–APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Article 1. General Provisions 

*******

Rule 2. Definitions 

*******

1–2–18.5 .................................. ‘‘Cold cleaner degreaser’’ defined.3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules 

*******

Rule 3. Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 

8–3–1 ....................................... Applicability and Exemptions .. 3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
43264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA–APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued 

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

8–3–2 ....................................... Cold cleaner degreaser control equipment and operating requirements.3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–3 ....................................... Open top vapor degreaser operation.3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–4 ....................................... Conveyorized degreaser control equipment and operating requirements.3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–5 ....................................... Cold cleaner degreaser operation and control (Repealed).3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–6 ....................................... Open top vapor degreaser operation and control requirements (Repealed).3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–7 ....................................... Conveyorized degreaser operation and control (Repealed).3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

8–3–8 ....................................... Material requirements for cold 

cleaner degreasers.

3/1/2013 7/25/2014, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–17476 Filed 7–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0890; FRL– 9914–31– 

Region–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Control of Air Pollution From Motor 

Vehicles, Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance and Locally Enforced 

Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions to the Texas 

Administrative Code (TAC) were 

submitted in 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 

2010, 2011 and 2012. These revisions 

are related to the implementation of the 

state’s motor vehicle emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

program and the Locally Enforced Motor 

Vehicle Idling Limitations. The EPA is 

approving these revisions pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0890. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index and in 

hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Walser (6PD–L), Air Planning 

Section, telephone (214) 665–7128, 

email: walser.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our April 15, 2014 

proposal (79 FR 21179) and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document. In that notice we proposed 

to approve submittals that revise the 

Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

related to the implementation of the 

state’s motor vehicle emissions 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

program and the Locally Enforced Motor 

Vehicle Idling Limitations. We received 

no comments on our proposed approval. 

Therefore, we are finalizing our 

approval as proposed, with the 

exception of the clerical errors noted 

below. Specifically, we are approving 

submittals dated August 16, 2002, 

December 30, 2002, November 14, 2005, 

May 15, 2006, February 28, 2008, 

December 22, 2010, August 30, 2011 

and August 31, 2012. These submittals 

include revised narratives, rules, and 

supporting documentation. We are 

approving these revisions to Title 30 of 

the Texas Administrative Code (30 

TAC). The revisions address testing 

requirements, updating equipment 

analyzer specifications, repealing 

duplicative I/M waiver rules, 

withdrawing OBD as a contingency 

measure, repealing an early 

participation incentive program, 

revising vehicles idling waivers and 

numerous other administrative, nonsubstantive rule changes that add clarity 

and improve readability of the rules. 

EPA is approving these revisions 

pursuant to sections 110 and 182 of the 

CAA. 

The Proposed Action section of our 

April 15, 2014 proposal contained 

clerical errors. Specifically, that section 

inadvertently lists revisions to Chapter 

114 of 30 TAC 114.211, 144.212, 

144.213, 114.214, 114.215, 144.216, 

144.217 and 114.219. See 79 FR at 

21186. However, those sections are not 

in the SIP; and we are not acting on any 

submittal of those sections at this time. 

Additionally, we incorrectly listed 

Chapter 114.1 and 114.4 in the Proposed 

Action section of the April 15, 2014 

proposal, but we are not taking any 

action on revisions to Section 114.1 or 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES