19128 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Definitions, Statement of Intent, and 

General Provisions Applicable to all 

Emission Control Regulations Adopted 

by the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission, except I.G, the definitions 

for ‘‘Construction’’ and ‘‘Day’’; Section 

II, General, except II.E, II.I, and II.J; 

effective on September 30, 2002. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07250 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0088; FRL–9783–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to convert a conditional approval 

of specified provisions of the Ohio state 

implementation plan (SIP) to a full 

approval. Ohio submitted a request to 

approve revised particulate matter (PM) 

rules on February 23, 2012. The PM rule 

revisions being approved establish work 

practices for coating operations, add a 

section clarifying that sources can be 

subject to both stationary source and 

fugitive source PM restrictions, and add 

a PM emission limitation exemption for 

jet engine testing. Pursuant to a state 

commitment underlying a previous 

conditional approval of this rule, the 

revised rule provides that any 

exemption from the work practice 

requirements that the state grants to 

large coating sources must be submitted 

to EPA for approval. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective May 28, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 29, 

2013. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0088, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakely.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakely, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakely, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0088. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 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 is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the revision? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Ohio sought SIP approval of its 

revision of Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) Chapter 3745–17 to clarify and 

amend its PM rules in an August 22, 

2008, submission. EPA approved nine 

sections, partially approved another 

section, and approved the rescission of 

another section of the OAC 3745–17 PM 

rules in an October 26, 2010, direct final 

rule (75 FR 65567). EPA conditionally 

approved OAC 3745–17–11 in the 

October 26, 2010, rule, conditioned on 

Ohio making specified revisions to the 

rule. The rule that EPA conditionally 

approved established work practice 

requirements for coating sources in lieu 

of PM emission limits. As written when 

submitted on August 22, 2008, OAC 

3745–17–11 would have authorized 

Ohio to exempt coating sources that are 

too large to meet the work practice 

requirements of the rule from complying 

with those requirements. No EPA 

approval of the exemption was required, 

thus the state could have unilaterally 

exempted coating sources from the work 

practice requirements. EPA 

conditionally approved OAC 3745–17– 

11 based on a commitment by Ohio to 

revise the rule to require that any 

exemption of large coating sources from 

the work practice requirements be 

submitted to EPA as a request for 

revision to the SIP. 

Pursuant to its commitment, Ohio 

revised OAC 3475–17–11, Restrictions 

on Particulate Emissions from Industrial 

Sources, on December 13, 2011. The 

revised rule was effective on December 

23, 2011. Ohio revised OAC 3745–17–11 

(A)(1)(l) to provide that any exemption 

from the surface coating PM work 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 19129 

practice requirements for sources 

coating large size items, which the state 

may grant when emission control would 

be technically infeasible, economically 

unreasonable, or both, must be 

submitted to EPA for SIP approval. The 

added language makes clear that state 

action to grant such an exemption does 

not exempt the source from Federal 

enforcement of the work practice 

requirements in the SIP unless and until 

EPA approves the exemption. 

The version of OAC 3745–17–11 that 

EPA conditionally approved included 

other revisions from the PM rules EPA 

approved into the Ohio SIP on 

November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65417). 

Section (A)(5) states that sources can be 

subject to both fugitive dust and 

stationary source PM restrictions if that 

facility emits PM through its stacks as 

well as emits fugitive dust. Section 

(A)(1)(m) exempts jet engine test stands 

from the PM emission limits. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

revision? 

EPA finds the revisions to OAC 3745– 

17–11 submitted on February 23, 2012, 

to be approvable. 

Although the primary emissions of 

concern from surface coating are the 

volatile organic compound emissions 

that arise from solvent evaporation, 

OAC 3745–17–11 establishes a 

particulate emission limit for coating 

operations simply because OAC 3745– 

17–11 establishes generic emission 

limits for any process handling material 

such as coatings and objects being 

coated. However, testing of particulate 

emissions from coating operations is 

difficult, making it difficult to 

determine whether particular control 

measures provide for compliance. 

Therefore, Ohio exempted surface 

coating operations from the generic 

emission limits in OAC 3745–17–11 and 

subjected these sources instead to a set 

of rules requiring a specific set of work 

practices that will limit the emissions as 

well as an emission limit. The 

exemptions for surface coaters are 

provided in OAC 3745–17–11 (A)(1)(h) 

to (l). 

As noted in Section I., Ohio revised 

OAC 3745–17–11 (A)(1)(l) to require 

EPA approval, as a SIP revision, for all 

large item exemptions. This satisfies 

EPA’s concerns with director’s 

discretion previously expressed to Ohio 

regarding the August 22, 2008, 

submission. Therefore, EPA is now 

approving OAC 3745–17–11 (A)(1)(l), as 

submitted on February 23, 2012, into 

the Ohio SIP. 

OAC 3745–17–11 (A)(1)(m) grants an 

exemption from the rule’s PM emission 

limits for jet engine testing. PM 

emissions resulting from this exemption 

are expected to be small given that a 

small number of engines will be tested 

at once and only for a limited time. 

Ohio stated that the maximum PM 

emissions rate resulting from this 

exemption will be 10 pounds per hour. 

EPA finds that this exemption will have 

de minimis impact and thus finds OAC 

3745–17–11 (A)(1)(m) approvable. 

Another addition to OAC 3745–17–11 

is section (A)(5), which states that 

source can be subject to both OAC 

3745–17–08 and OAC 3745–17–11. This 

section applies to a source that is a 

fugitive dust source, as defined by OAC 

3745–17–01 (B)(7), and emits PM 

through one or more stacks. Restrictions 

on emissions of fugitive dust are given 

in OAC 3745–17–08. It is logical that a 

source emitting PM as fugitive dust and 

also through stack emissions would be 

subject to the PM emission restrictions 

for both fugitive sources and for 

stationary sources. Thus, EPA is 

approving this addition to the Ohio SIP. 

A final important element of Ohio’s 

submittal is OAC 3745–17–11 (C), the 

requirements for surface coating 

processes that are exempt under OAC 

3745–17–11 (A)(1)(h) to (l). Surface 

coating processes are required by OAC 

3745–17–11 (C)(1) to use a dry 

particulate filter, waterwash, or 

equivalent control device to limit PM 

emission. Subject facilities must follow 

the work practice requirements given in 

OAC 3745–17–11 (C)(2) including 

maintaining documentation, properly 

operating the control device, and 

conducting periodic inspections of the 

control device. This section also 

requires a surface coating source to 

comply with any PM emission limits 

given in a facility’s permit instead of the 

previous listed requirement of OAC 

3745–17–11 (C)(1) and (2). EPA finds 

these requirements to be a suitable 

equivalent to subjecting these sources to 

the generic emission limit in Ohio’s 

process weight rate rule. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is converting its prior 

conditional approval to full approval 

because Ohio submitted revisions to 

OAC 3745–17–11 that satisfy the 

conditions listed in EPA’s conditional 

approval. EPA is approving all of OAC 

3745–17–11, as effective on December 

23, 2011, into the Ohio SIP. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective May 28, 2013 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by April 29, 

2013. If we receive such comments, we 

will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

May 28, 2013. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 

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

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19130 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 28, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 11, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(157) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(157) On February 23, 2012, Ohio 

submitted revisions to Ohio 

Administrative Code Chapter 3745–17, 

Rule 3745–17–11. The revisions contain 

particulate matter restriction for 

industrial sources in the State of Ohio 

necessary to attain and maintain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5, annual PM2.5, and 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–17–11 ‘‘Restrictions on particulate 

emissions from industrial processes’’, 

effective December 23, 2011. 

(B) December 13, 2011, ‘‘Director’s 

Final Findings and Orders’’, signed by 

Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

§ 52.1919 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.1919 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

[FR Doc. 2013–07259 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0860; FRL–9378–6] 

Clothianidin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of clothianidin in 

or on tea, dried and increases the 

tolerance level for pepper to support a 

shorter pre-harvest interval (PHI). These 

tolerances were requested by 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) and Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 

respectively, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 29, 2013. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 28, 2013, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0860, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney Jackson, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7610; email address: 

jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES