55234 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that may not necessitate a SEMS and 

why? Besides costs, what is the 

downside of using a SEMS? 

14. Are there any data, literature, or 

studies that show that implementation 

of a SEMS leads to a reduction in oil 

spills, property damage, injury or 

deaths, or other casualties? 

15. The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) held a 

public meeting on September 20–21, 

2012, on the use of performance-based 

regulatory models in the U.S. oil and gas 

industry, offshore and onshore (see 77 

FR 50172). If you submitted comments 

during that public meeting or to the 

docket [OSHA–2012–0033] and want 

them considered in this rulemaking, 

please resubmit those comments to this 

docket [USCG–2012–0779]. 

16. Please provide any additional 

information or comments on the 

proposals in this ANPRM. 

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Robert J. Papp, Jr., 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21938 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0335; FRL–9900–81– 

Region6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Procedures for Stringency 

Determinations and Minor Permit 

Revisions for Federal Operating 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of three revisions to the Texas 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning the Texas Federal Operating 

Permits Program. EPA has determined 

that these SIP revisions, submitted on 

December 17, 1999, October 4, 2001 and 

August 11, 2003, comply with the Clean 

Air Act and EPA regulations and are 

consistent with EPA policies. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section 

(6PD-R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the Addresses section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PDR), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–2115; fax number 

(214) 665–6762; email address 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 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. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: August 28, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21866 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0453; FRL–9900–78– 

Region5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Volatile 

Organic Compound Emission Control 

Measures for Industrial Solvent 

Cleaning for Northwest Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 29, 2012, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted 

revisions to its volatile organic 

compound (VOC) industrial solvent 

cleaning rule for manufacturers of 

coatings, inks, adhesives, and resins for 

approval into its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions are 

approvable because they are consistent 

with EPA’s Industrial Solvent Cleaning 

Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 

document and therefore satisfy the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0453, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

• Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0453. 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55235 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal at (312) 886–6052 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning & 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What are Indiana’s submitted VOC rule 

revisions and what is EPA’s analysis of 

the revisions? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

On February 24, 2010, EPA approved 

into Indiana’s SIP several VOC rules in 

order to satisfy Indiana’s VOC RACT 

requirements for the Lake and Porter 

County portion of the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL–IN, 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. See 75 FR 8246. 

These rules included new rule 326 IAC 

8–17 for Industrial Solvent Cleaning 

operations that was based on a CTG 

issued by EPA in 2006. 

Subsequent to the approval of 

Indiana’s rule, EPA concluded that low 

VOC content cleaning solvents were not 

adequate to clean process equipment 

and tanks at facilities that manufacture 

coatings, inks, adhesives and resins. As 

a result, EPA determined that RACT for 

these operations was the alternative 

requirements in the (California) Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District’s 

rules, which are referenced in EPA’s 

industrial solvent cleaning CTG. 

EPA approved Wisconsin’s industrial 

solvent cleaning rules for coating, ink, 

adhesive and resin manufacturing, 

based on the Bay Area rules, on August 

7, 2012 (77 FR 46961). The American 

Coatings Association requested that that 

IDEM also adopt a solvent cleaning rule 

based on the Bay Area rules. In 

addition, IDEM realized that it had used 

limits in its rule that were inconsistent 

with RACT and EPA’s 2006 CTG. 

IDEM adopted these revisions on 

April 3, 2012, after public hearings on 

November 2, 2011, and February 1, 

2012. IDEM submitted the revised rules 

to EPA on May 29, 2012. 

III. What are Indiana’s submitted VOC 

rule revisions and what is EPA’s 

analysis of the revisions? 

Indiana has revised its Industrial 

Solvent Cleaning rule, 326 IAC 8–17, for 

sources in Lake and Porter Counties as 

follows: 

326 IAC 8–17–2(c)(11)—An 

exemption for the cleaning of 

application equipment used to apply 

solvent-borne fluoropolymer coatings 

has been added to the list of solvent 

cleaning operations exempted from the 

VOC content limitations in 326 IAC 8– 

17–4. This exemption corrects a mistake 

in Indiana’s adoption of RACT and is 

consistent with EPA’s 2006 CTG. It 

should not result in an increase in VOC 

emissions, as there are no known 

sources to which it will apply. 

326 IAC 8–17–4(a)—The allowable 

VOC content for cleaning ultraviolet ink 

and electron beam application 

equipment, except for screen printing, 

has been increased from 4.2 to 5.4 

pounds VOC/gallon. This corrects a 

mistake in Indiana’s adoption of RACT 

and is consistent with EPA’s 2006 CTG. 

It should not result in an increase in 

VOC emissions, as there are no known 

sources to which it will apply. 

326 IAC 8–17–4(g)—Alternative 

cleaning requirements have been added 

for manufacturers of coatings, inks, 

adhesives and resins and corresponding 

recordkeeping requirements have been 

added in 326 IAC 8–17–7(f). These 

requirements are based on the Bay Area 

rules. These requirements apply to 

cleaning mixing vats, high dispersion 

mills, grinding mills, tote tanks, and 

roller mills, and consist of four options: 

(1) The solvent or solvent solution used 

must either contain less than 1.67 

pounds VOC per gallon or have a VOC 

composite partial vapor pressure of less 

than or equal to 8 millimeters of 

mercury; (2) several work practices must 

be implemented, including storing all 

VOC-containing cleaning materials in 

closed containers; (3) the emissions 

from equipment cleaning must be 

collected and vented to an emission 

control system with an overall control 

efficiency of 80 percent or more on a 

mass basis; or (4) no more than 60 

gallons of fresh solvent per month may 

be used and all VOC-containing 

cleaning materials must be stored in 

closed containers. The recordkeeping 

requirements in 326 IAC 8–17–7(f) have 

been added to determine whether the 

60-gallon limit has been exceeded. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55236 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, the owner or operator of 

a facility engaged in wipe cleaning may 

not use open containers for the storage 

of organic compounds to be used for 

cleaning, or for the storage or disposal 

of any material impregnated with 

organic compounds used for cleaning. 

These alternative cleaning 

requirements are consistent with EPA’s 

CTG, and will not result in an increase 

in emissions because there are no 

coating, ink, adhesive and resin 

manufacturers in Lake and Porter 

Counties, where they apply. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA has determined that these 

revisions are consistent with this CTG 

and applicable EPA RACT guidance at 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/

ozonetech/#ref. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the revisions to 

Indiana’s Industrial Solvent Cleaning 

rules (in 326 IAC 8–17) as meeting the 

RACT requirements in the Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Act, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 28, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22026 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS