Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57531 

1EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 44 FR 

53761 (September 17, 1979). 

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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20118 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0335; FRL–9951–13– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Adoption of Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). 

These revisions include amendments to 

the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (VADEQ) 

regulations and address the requirement 

to adopt Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for sources covered 

by EPA’s Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) standards for the 

following categories: Offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing, 

industrial solvent cleaning operations, 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0335 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernendez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814–3409, or 

by email at jones.leslie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 1, 2016, Virginia, through the 

VADEQ, submitted three revisions to 

the Virginia SIP concerning the 

adoption of EPA CTGs for offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing, industrial solvent cleaning 

operations, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives, and miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings sources in the 

specific portion of Virginia known as 

the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area. 

I. Background 

On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.075 

parts per million (ppm) level (73 FR 

16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized 

designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (77 FR 30087) in which the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA area was 

designated marginal nonattainment. See 

40 CFR 81.347. Section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA provides that SIPs for 

nonattainment areas must include 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), including RACT, for sources of 

emissions.1 However, the northern 

portion of Virginia is also part of the 

Metropolitan Statistical Area of the 

District Columbia which is in the ozone 

transport region (OTR) established 

under section 184(a) of the CAA. 

Pursuant to section 184(b)(1)(B) of the 

CAA, all areas in the OTR must 

implement RACT with respect to 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) in the state covered by a CTG 

issued before or after November 15, 

1990. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 184(b)(2), stationary sources in 

states or portions of a state within the 

OTR that emit at least 50 tons per year 

of VOCs shall be considered major 

stationary sources subject to 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources if the area were 

classified as a Moderate nonattainment 

area including requirements for CTGs 

and RACT. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57532 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2The northern portion of Virginia is defined as 

the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions Control Area in 9VAC5–20–206 (General 

Provisions). 

Thus, Virginia must implement for its 

SIP RACT with respect to sources of 

VOCs covered by CTGs in the northern 

portion of Virginia that is part of the 

Metropolitan Statistical Area of the 

District Columbia and within the OTR 

(which Virginia refers to as the 

‘‘Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area’’).2

CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2). 

CTGs are documents issued by EPA 

intended to provide state and local air 

pollution control authorities 

information to assist them in 

determining RACT for VOC from 

various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) 

provides that EPA may issue a CTG in 

lieu of a national regulation as RACT for 

a product category where EPA 

determines that the CTG will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone 

nonattainment areas. The 

recommendations in the CTG are based 

upon available data and information 

and may not apply to a particular 

situation based upon the circumstances. 

States can follow the CTG and adopt 

state regulations to implement the 

recommendations contained therein, or 

they can adopt alternative approaches. 

In either case, states must submit their 

RACT rules to EPA for review and 

approval as part of the SIP process. 

In 1993, EPA published a draft CTG 

for offset lithographic printing (58 FR 

59261). After reviewing comments on 

the draft CTG and soliciting additional 

information to help clarify those 

comments, EPA published an 

alternative control techniques (ACT) 

document in June 1994 that provided 

supplemental information for states to 

use in developing rules based on RACT 

for offset lithographic printing. In 1994, 

EPA developed an ACT document for 

industrial cleaning solvents. No 

previous EPA actions have been taken 

regarding miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives application operations. In 

1978, EPA published a CTG for 

miscellaneous metal parts and products 

and in 1994 EPA published an ACT for 

the coating of automotive/transportation 

and business machine plastic parts 

surface coatings. After reviewing the 

1978 and 1993 CTGs and 1994 ACTs for 

these industries, conducting a review of 

currently existing state and local VOC 

emission reduction approaches for these 

industries, and taking into account any 

information that has become available 

since then, EPA developed new CTGs 

entitled Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Offset Lithographic and Letterpress 

Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R– 

06–002; September 2006); Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents (Publication No. EPA 

453/R–06–001; September 2006); 

Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 

(Publication No. EPA 453/R–08–005; 

September 2008); and Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R– 

08–003; September 2008). The CTG 

recommendations may not apply to a 

particular situation based upon the 

circumstances of a specific source. 

Regardless of whether a state chooses to 

implement the recommendations 

contained within the CTGs through state 

rules, or to issue state rules that adopt 

different approaches for RACT for 

VOCs, states must submit their RACT 

rules to EPA for review and approval as 

part of the SIP process. 

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA 

Analysis 

On February 1, 2016, Virginia, 

through the VADEQ, submitted three 

revisions to the Virginia SIP concerning 

the adoption of the EPA CTGs for offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing, industrial solvent cleaning 

operations, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives, and miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings in the Northern 

Virginia Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions Control Area. These 

regulations are contained in the 

following Articles in regulation 9VAC5 

Chapter 40, Existing Stationary Sources: 

Article 56, Emission Standards for 

Letterpress Printing Operations in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area, 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard; Article 56.1, 

Emission Standards for Offset 

Lithographic Printing Operations in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area, 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard; Article 57, 

Emission Standards for Industrial 

Solvent Cleaning Operations in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area, 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard; Article 58, 

Emission Standards for Miscellaneous 

Industrial Adhesive Application 

Processes in the Northern Virginia 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

Control Area, 8-Hour Ozone Standard; 

and Article 59, Emission Standards for 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Coating Application Systems in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area, 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard. These 

regulations: (1) Establish applicability 

for offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing, industrial cleaning 

solvent operations, miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives, and miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings at 

facilities; (2) establish exemptions; (3) 

establish emission limitations and work 

practice requirements; and (4) establish 

monitoring, notification, record-keeping 

and reporting requirements. 

The SIP revisions also amend 

regulations 9VAC5 Chapter 40, Existing 

Stationary Sources, Article 34 and 

Article 53. In regulation 9VAC5 Chapter 

40, Article 34, Emission Standards for 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Coating Application Systems, section 

4760, was amended to exempt VOC 

sources in the Northern Virginia 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

Control Area from its provisions. See 

9VAC5–40–4760. On and after February 

1, 2017, these sources are subject to 

Article 59, Emission Standards for 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Coating Application Systems in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area, 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard. Regulation 

9VAC5 Chapter 40, Article 53, Emission 

Standards for Lithographic Printing 

Processes, section 7800, was amended 

to exempt offset lithographic printing 

processes from its provisions and refers 

applicable facilities to the provisions in 

Article 56.1, Emission Standards for 

Offset Lithographic Printing Operations 

in the Northern Virginia Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions Control 

Area, 8-Hour Ozone Standard. See 

9VAC5–40–7800. Virginia has also 

amended supporting definitions in 

9VAC5, Chapter 20, General Provisions 

which relate to the new CTG standards. 

EPA’s review of the new and revised 

regulations submitted by VADEQ finds 

that the submitted revisions of 

regulation 9VAC5, Chapter 40, Existing 

Stationary Sources, and 9VAC5, Chapter 

20, General Provisions, address the 

requirements to adopt RACT for sources 

located in Virginia covered by EPA’s 

CTG recommendations for control of 

VOC emissions in accordance with CAA 

section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2) for the 

following categories: Offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing, 

industrial cleaning solvent operations, 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings. EPA also finds the Virginia 

regulations, which adopt the equivalent 

of the specific EPA CTG 

recommendations, address CAA 

requirements for RACT in sections 172 

and 182 as referenced by section 184. 

More detailed information on these 

provisions as well as a detailed 

summary of EPA’s review and rationale 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57533 

for proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions can be found in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this action 

which is available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0335. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia SIP revisions submitted on 

February 1, 2016, which consist of 

amendments to regulation 9VAC5 

Chapter 40, Existing Stationary Sources 

and 9VAC5 Chapter 20, General 

Provisions, and address the requirement 

to adopt RACT for sources located in the 

Northern Virginia VOC Emissions 

Control Area covered by EPA’s CTG 

standards in accordance with CAA 

requirements in sections 172, 182 and 

184 for the following categories: Offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing, industrial cleaning solvent 

operations, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives, and miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA is proposing to include in a final 

EPA rule, regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference the VADEQ regulations 

regarding control of VOC emissions 

from offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing, industrial solvent 

cleaning operations, miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives, and miscellaneous 

metal and plastic parts coatings in the 

Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area as 

described in section II of this proposed 

action. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through http://

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region III Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57534 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the RACT rules for sources in 

northern Virginia in this action do not 

have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 10, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20143 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0418; FRL–9950–93– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Minor New Source Review—Nonroad 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the 

state implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted on June 17, 2014 pertaining 

to preconstruction permitting 

requirements under Virginia’s minor 

New Source Review (NSR) program. 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 adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives 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. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0418 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

campbell.dave@epa.com. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: August 8, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–19878 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0523; FRL–9950–83– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; 

Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

as a revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), a submittal 

by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management dated July 

17, 2015. The submittal contains a new 

volatile organic compound limit for 

antifoulant coatings used in 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities 

located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter 

counties. The submittal also includes a 

demonstration that this revision satisfies 

the anti-backsliding provisions of the 

Clean Air Act. The submittal 

additionally removes obsolete dates and 

clarifies a citation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0523 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS