34432 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 these final priorities, 

requirement, and definitions only on a 

reasoned determination that their 

benefits justify their 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. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

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: June 11, 2014. 

Deborah Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14047 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298; FRL–9912–21– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Portable Fuel Container 

Amendment to Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

involves removing the Commonwealth’s 

portable fuel container (PFC) regulations 

for control of evaporative emissions 

from new and in-use PFCs from the 

Pennsylvania SIP. In the submittal, 

Pennsylvania demonstrates that Federal 

PFC regulations promulgated by EPA in 

2007 are expected to provide equal to or 

greater emissions reductions than those 

resulting from the Commonwealth’s. 

EPA is approving this revision removing 

the Commonwealth’s PFC regulations 

because the revision is in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

18, 2014 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0298 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0298. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 34433 

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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. 

Box 8468, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 7, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

submitted a formal revision to its SIP. 

The SIP revision consists of removing 

from the Pennsylvania SIP the 

Commonwealth’s PFC regulations, 

formerly located at 25 Pa. Code 

§§ 130.101–130.108, relating to the 

control of evaporative emissions from 

new and in-use PFCs. The 

Commonwealth requested the removal 

of Pennsylvania’s state-specific 

regulations because they have been 

superseded by new, more stringent 

Federal PFC regulations, codified at 40 

CFR 59.600–59.699. 

The Commonwealth’s PFC regulations 

were published October 5, 2002 (32 

Pa.B. 4819) and limited emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into 

the atmosphere from the use of PFCs 

designed to hold gasoline. The 

regulations restricted the sale, supply, 

offer for sale, and manufacture of PFCs 

and spouts for sale and for use in the 

Commonwealth on or after January 1, 

2003. The regulations were part of the 

Commonwealth’s plan to attain and 

maintain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for groundlevel ozone since VOCs are a precursor 

to the formation of ground-level ozone, 

and high concentrations of ground-level 

ozone are a serious public health and 

welfare threat. The PFC regulations 

were approved as a SIP revision by EPA 

on December 8, 2004. 69 FR 70893. 

Following the regulations’ approval into 

the Pennsylvania SIP, the PFC 

regulations were included as a VOC 

control measure in Redesignation 

Requests and Maintenance Plans for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as 

the Attainment Demonstration for the 

Philadelphia Area Ozone 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

On February 26, 2007, EPA 

promulgated Federal PFC requirements 

(72 FR 8428), which were codified at 40 

CFR 59.600–59.699 and became 

effective nationwide beginning January 

1, 2009. The Pennsylvania 

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) 

subsequently amended 25 Pa. Code 

Chapter 130 (relating to standards for 

products) by publishing the repeal of 

the PFC regulations (25 Pa. Code 

§§ 130.101–130.108) on July 14, 2012 

(42 Pa.B. 4463). The Federal PFC 

regulations aim to reduce nationwide 

hydrocarbon emissions from containers 

due to evaporation, permeation, and 

spillage and are more stringent than 

those found in the Pennsylvania 

regulations. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Pennsylvania compared requirements 

of the Commonwealth’s former PFC 

regulations with the Federal PFC 

requirements (Table 1). Each of the 

Federal requirements is equally as 

stringent as, or more stringent than, the 

Commonwealth’s PFC requirements and 

achieve greater emission reductions 

than Pennsylvania’s PFC regulations: 

• Pennsylvania’s regulations applied 

only to PFCs for gasoline fuels whereas 

the Federal regulations apply to portable 

containers for diesel and kerosene as 

well as for gasoline fuels. 

• Pennsylvania’s regulations required 

automatic shut-off spouts whereas the 

Federal regulations do not require 

automatic shut-off spouts. In 72 FR 

8428, 8500, EPA notes that automatic 

shut-off spouts actually increase spillage 

and emissions due to the wide variety 

of fill-hole designs on the receiving fuel 

tanks, resulting in the auto shut-off 

spouts not working well with a variety 

of equipment types. 

• The Federal permeation and 

evaporation standard for PFCs of less 

than 0.3 grams hydrocarbons per gallon 

of fuel per day is 25 percent more 

stringent than the permeation standard 

of less than 0.4 grams per gallon of 

gasoline per day in Pennsylvania’s 

regulations. 

• Pennsylvania’s regulations did not 

prevent cross state border sales of noncompliant PFCs, whereas the Federal 

requirements apply to all PFCs 

manufactured in or imported into the 

United States for use in the United 

States beginning January 1, 2009. This 

reduces the opportunity for cross-state 

border sales of non-compliant PFCs. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF PENNSYLVANIA’S AND EPA’S PFC REQUIREMENTS

Applicable VOC emission control requirement Pennsylvania’s PFC requirements Federal PFC requirements 

One Opening per Container .............................. Required ........................................................... Required. 

Spout: Auto Close and Seal .............................. Required ........................................................... Required. 

Spout: Auto Shut-off .......................................... Required ........................................................... Not Required. 

Warranty ............................................................. Required ........................................................... Required. 

Permeation Barrier Seal .................................... Less than 0.4 grams hydrocarbons/gallon/day Less than 0.3 grams hydrocarbons/gallon/day. 

Non-gasoline PFC Affected ............................... No ..................................................................... Yes. 

Applicable to All 50 States ................................. No ..................................................................... Yes. 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

the EPA Administrator may not approve 

a revision to a SIP if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA 

finds Pennsylvania has demonstrated 

that repealing the Commonwealth’s 

regulatory requirements and relying on 

the Federal requirements for PFCs is not 

contrary to section 110(l) by calculating 

and comparing estimated statewide 

VOC emissions resulting from both the 

Commonwealth and Federal PFC 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
34434 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations for the years 2002, 2009, and 

2018 (Table 2). A more detailed 

description of Pennsylvania’s 

methodology for calculating VOC 

emissions and EPA’s evaluation can be 

found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) with Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0298 prepared in 

support of this rulemaking action. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF VOC EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR FEDERAL AND PENNSYLVANIA PFC REGULATIONS

2002 2009 2018 

PA Rule VOC Emissions in tons per year (TPY) ........................................................................ * 12,255.32 8,923.08 6,148.05 

Federal Rule VOC Emissions (in TPY) ....................................................................................... * 12,255.32 ** 7,917.66 ** 3,202.11 

Additional VOC Emissions Reductions (in TPY) from Federal Rule .......................................... N/A 1,005.42 2,945.94 

* The 2002 actual VOC emissions estimate was used as the basis for the demonstration for both the Commonwealth and the Federal calculations because neither the Federal nor the Commonwealth regulation was in effect in 2002. See TSD for a more detailed explanation. 

** Assumes some Commonwealth-compliant PFC containers remain in use until replaced with Federal-compliant containers as discussed in 

more detail in the TSD. 

EPA finds the repeal of the provisions 

set forth in 25 Pa. Code §§ 130.101– 

130.108 and removal from the 

Pennsylvania SIP do not negatively 

affect ozone air quality because the 

more stringent Federal PFC 

requirements at 40 CFR 59.600–59.699 

supersede the Commonwealth’s 

regulations. The reductions of VOC 

emissions achieved through the 

Commonwealth’s PFC regulations will 

be maintained and likely exceeded by 

the VOC emission reductions achieved 

through the Federal PFC requirements 

because the Federal regulations are 

more stringent. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

which remove the Commonwealth’s 

PFC regulations because it is expected 

that reliance on the more stringent 

Federal PFC standards will ensure that 

emission reductions equivalent to or 

greater than those in the repealed 

Pennsylvania PFC regulations will 

continue to be achieved in the 

Commonwealth. Accordingly, it is 

expected that this SIP revision will not 

have a negative impact on the emission 

reductions claimed in the Pennsylvania 

SIP nor on Pennsylvania’s attainment of 

the NAAQS for ozone. Thus, EPA can 

approve this revision in compliance 

with section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

August 18, 2014 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by July 17, 2014. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 34435 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 August 18, 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 rulemaking action approving 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision, which 

involves removing the Commonwealth’s 

PFC regulations because they are being 

superseded with the Federal PFC 

regulations, may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 29, 2014. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended by removing the 

entries for Chapter 130—Standards for 

Products, Subchapter A—Portable Fuel 

Containers, Sections 130.101 through 

130.108. 

■ 3. Section 52.2037 is amended by 

adding paragraph (t) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2037 Control strategy plans for 

attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(t) On July 14, 2012, Pennsylvania 

repealed the provisions set forth in 

Sections 130.101 through 130.108 

pertaining to Portable Fuel Containers. 

Pennsylvania’s regulations in the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

were removed because they are 

superseded by more stringent Federal 

requirements codified at 40 CFR 59.600 

through 59.699, relating to control of 

evaporative emissions from new and inuse portable fuel containers. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14027 Filed 6–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0366; FRL–9912–09– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Particulate Matter Limitations for 

Coating Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Indiana State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The particulate matter (PM) rules that 

were submitted consist of emission 

control requirements for coating 

operations along with exemptions from 

certain coating operations that produce 

minimal PM emissions. EPA is also 

taking no action on one section 

submitted by Indiana, as it pertains to 

a definition in an unapproved portion of 

Indiana’s Title V regulations. Indiana 

submitted this request to approve PM 

rules on April 27, 2012. The proposed 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on April 16, 2014. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0366. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What actions did EPA propose to take? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed SIP revision? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions did EPA propose to 

take? 

On April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21421), EPA 

proposed to approve revisions to PM 

rules submitted on April 27, 2012, into 

the Indiana SIP. These revisions add PM 

control requirements for coating 

operations. The other primary revisions 

provide PM limit exemptions for coating 

operations that produce minimal PM 

emissions. The remaining modifications 

are clerical revisions that increase the 

lucidity of the rules without altering the 

PM limits. 

Article 6 of 326 IAC contains 

Indiana’s PM rules. Article 6.5 of 326 

IAC contains statewide PM emission 

limitations except for Lake County and 

Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM 

emission limits for Lake County sources. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to 

approve 326 IAC 6–3–1(c), 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–1, 326 IAC 6.5–1–2, 326 IAC 6.5–1– 

5, 326 IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–1, 

326 IAC 6.8–1–2, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5, and 

326 IAC 6.8–1–6. EPA also proposed to 

take no action on 326 IAC 6–3–1(b). 

Detail on each section including EPA’s 

analysis is found in section III of the 

proposed rule. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed SIP revision? 

EPA received no comments during the 

public comment period. EPA is 

proceeding with approving the sections 

and taking no action on a section as 

proposed on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 

21421). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES