Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 43257 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1126] 

Security Zones; Seattle’s Seafair Fleet 

Week Moving Vessels, Puget Sound, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

Seattle’s Seafair Fleet Week Moving 

Vessels Security Zones from 12:00 p.m. 

on July 29, 2014 through 6:00 p.m. on 

August 4, 2014. These security zones are 

necessary to help ensure the security of 

the vessels from sabotage or other 

subversive acts during Seafair Fleet 

Week Parade of Ships. The designated 

participating vessels are the HMCS 

BRANDON (NCSM 710), the HMCS 

YELLOWKNIFE (NCSM 706), and the 

USCGC MELLON (WHEC 717). During 

the enforcement period, no person or 

vessel may enter or remain in the 

security zones without the permission 

of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound 

or his designated representative. The 

COTP has granted general permission 

for vessels to enter the outer 400 yards 

of the security zones as long as those 

vessels within the outer 400 yards of the 

security zones operate at the minimum 

speed necessary to maintain course 

unless required to maintain speed by 

the navigation rules. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.1333 will be enforced from 12:00 

p.m. on July 29, 2014 through 6:00 p.m. 

on August 4, 2014, unless canceled 

sooner by the Captain of the Port, Puget 

Sound or his designated representative. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email LTJG Johnny Zeng, Sector 

Puget Sound Waterways Management, 

Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217–6323, 

SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Coast Guard will enforce the 

security zones listed in 33 CFR 165.1333 

for Seattle’s Seafair Fleet Week Moving 

Vessels from 12:00 p.m. on July 29, 2014 

through 6:00 p.m. on August 4, 2014. 

In accordance with the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart 

D, no person or vessel may enter or 

remain in the security zones without the 

permission of the Captain of the 

Port(COTP), Puget Sound or his 

Designated Representative. For the 

purposes of this rule, the following 

areas are security zones: all navigable 

waters within 500 yards of the HMCS 

BRANDON (NCSM 710), the HMCS 

YELLOWKNIFE (NCSM 706), and the 

USCGC MELLON (WHEC 717) while 

each such vessel is in the Sector Puget 

Sound COTP Zone. 

The COTP has granted general 

permission for vessels to enter the outer 

400 yards of the security zones as long 

as those vessels within the outer 400 

yards of the security zones operate at 

the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain course unless required to 

maintain speed by the navigation rules. 

The COTP may be assisted by other 

federal, state or local agencies with the 

enforcement of the security zones. 

All vessel operators who desire to 

enter the inner 100 yards of the security 

zones or transit the outer 400 yards at 

greater than minimum speed necessary 

to maintain course must obtain 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative by contacting 

the on-scene Coast Guard patrol craft on 

VHF 13 or Ch 16. Requests must include 

the reason why movement within this 

area is necessary. Vessel operators 

granted permission to enter the security 

zones will be escorted by the on-scene 

Coast Guard patrol craft until they are 

outside of the security zones. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 CFR 165.1333 and 5 

U.S.C 552(a). In addition to this 

document, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with advanced 

notification of the security zones via the 

Local Notice to Mariners and marine 

information broadcasts on the day of the 

event. 

Dated: July 16, 2014. 

M. W. Raymond, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17601 Filed 7–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OSERS–0023] 

Final Priority; National Institute on 

Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research—Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

[CFDA Number: 84.133A–10.] 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority under the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by the National Institute 

on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR). Specifically, we 

announce a priority for a Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) 

on Improving Methods of Evaluating 

Return on Investment (ROI) for the State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Program (VR Program). The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus research attention on an area of 

national need. We intend for the priority 

to contribute to improved employment 

outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective August 25, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7532 or by email: 

marlene.spencer@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities, to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most significant disabilities, and to 

improve the effectiveness of services 

authorized under the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation 

Act). 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects 

The purpose of NIDRR’s DRRPs, 

which are funded through the Disability 

and Rehabilitation Research Projects 

and Centers Program, is to improve the 

effectiveness of services authorized 

under the Rehabilitation Act by 

developing methods, procedures, and 

rehabilitation technologies that advance 

a wide range of independent living and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
43258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

employment outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities, especially individuals 

with the most significant disabilities. 

DRRPs carry out one or more of the 

following types of activities, as specified 

and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 

350.19: Research, training, 

demonstration, development, 

utilization, dissemination, and technical 

assistance. 

An applicant for assistance under this 

program must demonstrate in its 

application how it will address, in 

whole or in part, the needs of 

individuals with disabilities from 

minority backgrounds (34 CFR 

350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant 

may take to meet this requirement are 

found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional 

information on the DRRP program can 

be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/drrp/index.html. 

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 

764(a). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR part 350. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this program in the Federal 

Register on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29701). 

That notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priority. 

There are differences between the 

proposed priority and this final priority 

as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section of this 

notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, 16 parties submitted comments 

on the proposed priority. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priority since publication 

of the notice of proposed priority 

follows. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the ROI model(s) to be developed 

and implemented under this priority 

should use individual-level data, since 

vocational rehabilitation (VR) services 

are individualized and delivered to 

meet the specific needs of individual VR 

consumers. In response to the 

requirement in paragraph (a) that ROI 

‘‘model(s) must include variables such 

as costs associated with individuals 

who enter the agency but leave without 

receiving services,’’ this commenter also 

stated that such a model may not 

adequately take into account the 

experiences of individuals who leave 

the VR system, and then return to 

achieve successful employment 

outcomes. 

Discussion: With this priority we are 

seeking advancements in ROI models 

for the VR Program. Advanced models 

for determining ROI use individuallevel data over extended periods of 

time. As noted by the commenter, the 

collection of individual-level data is 

particularly important when developing 

models related to VR services, which are 

individualized and delivered to meet 

the specific needs of individual VR 

consumers. Consistent with the 

proposed priority, paragraph (a) of the 

final priority specifies that ROI models 

must include some data which are 

typically collected at the individual 

level. These data include relevant 

characteristics of, and services received 

by, VR consumers, including the extent 

to which VR consumers may exit and 

return for subsequent services and 

achieve successful outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that ROI models should never be 

applied to individual VR client cases to 

determine the costs and benefits of the 

services received by specific VR clients. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter. While data for ROI models 

are collected at the level of the 

individual VR consumer, the models to 

be developed and tested under this 

priority are aggregate models of 

employment outcomes achieved at the 

VR Program level. The purpose of the 

ROI models is to identify service 

delivery factors that facilitate 

employment for VR consumers with 

different characteristics and disability 

types—not to assess the costs and 

benefits of VR services for individual 

VR consumers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters 

expressed concerns that the ROI 

model(s) to be developed under this 

priority could be used or applied in 

ways that harm individuals with 

disabilities and the VR agencies that 

serve them. These concerns include the 

fear that (1) the results of ROI model(s) 

could be used to penalize State VR 

agencies that serve consumers in 

specific disability subpopulations that 

have greater and more expensive service 

needs, (2) the ROI model(s) could be 

used to establish cost maximums that 

must not be exceeded by VR agencies, 

and (3) widespread use of the ROI 

model(s) could lead agencies to serve 

only those with minimal or inexpensive 

service needs. 

Discussion: We understand and 

appreciate these concerns. As noted by 

many of the commenters, the 

Rehabilitation Act requires a VR agency 

to first serve those individuals with the 

most significant disabilities if it cannot 

serve all eligible individuals and to 

provide services based on the 

individualized needs of eligible 

individuals. Using ROI findings in the 

ways the commenter has described 

would be contrary to statutory intent. 

All VR agencies have the responsibility 

to ensure that VR services are provided 

fairly and equitably, regardless of the 

disabling condition of individual 

consumers or the costs associated with 

serving them. Within the context of the 

requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, 

our intent is to support the development 

of more sophisticated ROI models that 

can systematically identify VR service 

delivery factors that facilitate positive 

employment outcomes, while taking 

into account the wide variation in VR 

consumer characteristics, service 

delivery experiences, and outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

many of the benefits of VR services 

cannot be measured or accounted for by 

ROI models, including the value to 

communities of increased workforce 

and community participation of 

individuals with disabilities and more 

positive perceptions of people with 

disabilities by employers and 

community members who do not have 

disabilities. 

Discussion: We agree that many of the 

benefits of VR services are not easily 

quantified. Nothing in the priority 

precludes applicants from proposing to 

develop and test ROI models that 

include community-level outcome 

variables as described by the 

commenter. The peer review process 

will determine the merits of each 

proposal. 

Although we recognize that an ROI 

model may not adequately reflect all 

potential outcome variables, we 

establish this priority to increase the 

field’s ability to build ROI models with 

important variables for which 

quantifiable data are available, 

including receipt of VR services, costs 

associated with specific VR services, 

and the long-term employment 

outcomes achieved by VR consumers. 

By improving the methods for such ROI 

analysis, we aim to assess and 

demonstrate the impact of the VR 

Program on employment outcomes of 

individuals with disabilities and to 

identify promising practices that can be 

scaled up in VR Programs across the 

United States. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the ROI models to be developed 

and tested under this priority should 

take into account the variation in VR 

Program characteristics that exist 

throughout the United States. One of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 143 / Friday, July 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 43259 

these commenters requested that NIDRR 

modify the priority to require that the 

standards for ROI models that are 

developed and disseminated under 

paragraph (c) take this variation in VR 

Programs into account. 

Discussion: We recognize that there is 

variation in the characteristics of State 

VR agencies, including in their VR 

Program administration. To address this 

variation, in paragraph (b) of the 

priority, we require that the ROI 

model(s) developed under paragraph (a) 

be tested in at least eight State VR 

agencies with varying program 

characteristics. 

Changes: In addition, we have revised 

paragraph (c) to require that the 

standards developed for conducting ROI 

studies under this priority adequately 

account for the varying characteristics of 

VR Programs. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that NIDRR modify 

paragraph (f) of the priority to require 

the advisory board to include current or 

former VR consumers to help ensure 

that ROI results are used in ways that 

are meaningful for the individuals 

served by the VR Program. 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter that current or former VR 

consumers should be included in the 

advisory board for this grant. 

Changes: NIDRR has revised 

paragraph (f) to require the inclusion of 

current or former VR consumers on the 

advisory board. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

ROI models should be developed 

separately for programs serving blind 

and visually impaired individuals, 

relative to programs serving the broader 

population of individuals with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: NIDRR does not think that 

separate models are necessary for 

agencies that serve only blind and 

visually impaired individuals. The 

model(s) to be developed under this 

priority will use and control for a large 

number of variables including disability 

type, severity of disability, and the VR 

services provided. In addition, we have 

revised paragraph (c) of the priority to 

require that the standards developed for 

conducting ROI studies adequately 

account for the varying characteristics of 

VR Programs. By developing models 

that are based on data from the full 

population of VR consumers with 

disabilities, we aim for the model(s) to 

identify promising practices that are 

associated with high-quality 

employment outcomes and that can be 

applied and scaled up widely in VR 

Programs across the United States. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that NIDRR modify the priority to 

require the ROI models to take the 

following factors into account: (1) 

Whether consumers are placed in 

integrated employment settings versus 

sheltered settings, (2) length of 

employment following a VR case 

closure, and (3) the likelihood of 

employment and earnings for VR clients 

in the model(s). 

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the 

commenter that the ROI model(s) to be 

developed under this priority must 

account for the variation in the types of 

employment outcomes, including 

employment settings, as well as the 

wide variation in VR consumer 

characteristics that may affect the 

likelihood of a consumer obtaining 

employment without VR services and a 

consumer’s long-term outcomes, such as 

the length of employment and wages 

earned. To address the commenter’s 

proposed factors, we have modified in 

paragraph (a) the list of variables to be 

included in the ROI models being 

developed under this priority. 

Changes: The list of variables in 

paragraph (a) to be included in the ROI 

models being developed under this 

priority has been expanded to add type 

of employment outcome, including 

employment setting. In addition, in 

paragraph (a), length of employment 

and wages earned have been added as 

examples of long-term outcome 

variables and the likelihood of a 

consumer obtaining employment 

without VR services has been added as 

an example of a characteristic of 

disability subpopulations. 

Final Priority 

Improving Methods of Evaluating 

Return on Investment (ROI) for the State 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services 

Program 

The Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

establishes a priority for a DRRP on 

Improving Methods of Evaluating 

Return on Investment (ROI) for the State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

Program (VR Program). 

Under this priority, the DRRP must 

contribute to improving the ROI 

methodologies available to assess the 

impact of the VR Program on 

employment outcomes of individuals 

with disabilities. This includes: 

(a) Developing or expanding valid, 

innovative, and replicable ROI model(s) 

for assessing the VR Program and the 

services it provides. These model(s) 

must include: Variables such as costs 

associated with individuals who enter 

the agency but leave without receiving 

services, costs related to specific 

services so VR agencies can better 

consider ROI when determining services 

that lead to better outcomes, estimates 

of State and Federal expenditures 

incurred as part of the VR Program 

administration and service delivery 

system, characteristics of disability 

subpopulations (e.g., disability type, 

severity of disability, and likelihood of 

obtaining employment without VR 

services), type of employment outcome, 

including the employment setting (e.g., 

competitive integrated employment), 

long-term outcomes extending years 

after exit from the VR Program (e.g., 

length of employment and wages 

earned), and information on general 

economic conditions. These models 

must use rigorous methods, including 

the use of a comparison group to 

determine the effect of the VR Program. 

(b) Testing the model(s) in at least 

eight State VR agencies with varying 

characteristics (e.g., urban/rural, with/

without waitlists) to determine its 

replicability, including determining 

what data are necessary to make the 

model(s) successful and evaluating the 

data quality and data availability in 

selected sites. The final number of sites 

must be approved by NIDRR. In carrying 

out this requirement, we want the 

successful applicant to clarify a process 

for ensuring access to Social Security 

data and earnings data as required to 

assess long-term impact of the VR 

Program. 

(c) Developing and disseminating 

recommended standards for conducting 

ROI studies of the VR Program. These 

standards must adequately account for 

the varying characteristics of VR 

Programs. 

(d) Producing and disseminating 

training materials to support the VR 

Program in using the model(s). 

(e) Making the underlying data 

available so others can learn from and 

replicate the findings, without 

compromising personally identifiable 

information. Data availability will 

conform to all security requirements of 

identified sources. 

(f) Working with an advisory board 

made up of current or former VR 

consumers, as well as ROI, VR, and 

research methodology experts to ensure 

the findings are relevant, replicable, and 

sound. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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