Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57469 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–19888 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–9950–84– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; 

Shipbuilding Antifoulant Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, as a revision 

to the Indiana State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), a submittal by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) dated July 17, 

2015. The submittal contains a new 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 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 (CAA). The submittal 

additionally removes obsolete dates and 

clarifies a citation. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 24, 2016, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 22, 2016. 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–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 

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: Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@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 of this SIP 

revision? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

revision? 

On July 17, 2015, IDEM submitted to 

EPA a request to incorporate into 

Indiana’s SIP a revised version of 326 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 8– 

12–4, ‘‘Volatile organic compound 

emissions limiting requirements,’’ with 

an effective date of June 21, 2015. 

Indiana’s rulemaking adds, at 326 IAC 

8–12–4(a)(1)(D), a VOC limit of 3.33 lbs 

VOC per gallon for antifoulant coatings 

used in shipbuilding and ship repair 

facilities located in Clark, Floyd, Lake, 

and Porter counties. In 326 IAC 8–12– 

3(22)(C), an ‘‘antifoulant specialty 

coating’’ is defined as any coating that 

is applied to the underwater portion of 

a vessel to prevent or reduce the 

attachment of biological organisms and 

that is registered with the EPA as a 

pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The 

same definition is provided in EPA’s 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations (Surface Coating) (61 FR 

44050, August 27, 1996). Clark and 

Floyd counties are part of the Louisville, 

KY-IN maintenance area for the 1997 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), and Lake and Porter 

counties are part of the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 

maintenance area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Before IDEM added the revised VOC 

limit of 3.33 lbs VOC per gallon in 326 

IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(D), antifoulant 

coatings were limited by the specialty 

coating limit of 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon 

at 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(E), which IDEM 

has moved to 326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(F) in 

this revision. The revised limit of 3.33 

lbs VOC per gallon is consistent with 

the limit in Table 1–1 of EPA’s 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

Document: Surface Coating Operations 

at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Facilities (EPA–453/R–94–032, April 

1994). In addition, it is consistent with 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 

Coating) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. 

EPA’s CTG identifies the limit from the 

ACT as Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), and states that the 

NESHAP can be used as a model rule for 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities. 

In Indiana’s rulemaking, 326 IAC 8– 

12–4 is also revised to remove obsolete 

dates and clarify a reference to EPA’s 

NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair (Surface Coating) at 40 CFR 63, 

subpart II. 

This SIP revision relies on offsets 

generated by the Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings 

rule at 326 IAC 8–14 to compensate for 

the increase in allowable VOC 

emissions. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

Revisions to SIP-approved control 

measures must meet the requirements 

of, among other statutory provisions, 

section 110(l) of the CAA in order to be 

approved by EPA. Section 110(l), known 

as EPA’s anti-backsliding provision, 

states: 

‘‘The Administrator shall not approve 

a revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ 

In the absence of an attainment 

demonstration, to demonstrate no 

interference with any applicable 

NAAQS or requirement of the CAA 

under section 110(l), states may 

substitute equivalent emissions 

reductions to compensate for any 

change to a SIP-approved program, as 

long as actual emissions are not 

increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions 

reductions mean reductions which are 

equal to or greater than those reductions 

achieved by the control measure 

approved in the SIP. To show that 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57470 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

compensating emissions reductions are 

equivalent, modeling or adequate 

justification must be provided. The 

compensating, equivalent reductions 

must represent actual, new emissions 

reductions achieved in a 

contemporaneous time frame to the 

change of the existing SIP control 

measure, in order to preserve the status 

quo level of emissions in the air. As 

described in EPA’s memorandum 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs’’ published in 

January 2001 (EPA–452/R–01–001), the 

equivalent emissions reductions must 

also be permanent, enforceable, 

quantifiable, and surplus to be approved 

into the SIP. 

Indiana’s revisions to 326 IAC 8–12– 

4 increase the allowable VOC content of 

antifoulant coatings used in 

shipbuilding or ship repair facilities 

from 2.83 lbs VOC per gallon to 3.33 lbs 

VOC per gallon. VOCs contribute to the 

formation of ground-level ozone. Thus, 

the potential increase in VOC needs to 

be offset with equivalent (or greater) 

emissions reductions from another VOC 

control measure in order to demonstrate 

non-interference with the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Indiana’s SIP submittal includes a 110(l) 

demonstration that relies on equivalent 

emission reductions to compensate for 

allowable emission increases resulting 

from the new VOC limit for antifoulant 

coatings. 

326 IAC 8–12–4(a)(1)(D) currently 

applies to only one source, Jeffboat LLC, 

which operates a stationary 

shipbuilding and repair facility at 1030 

E. Market St., Jeffersonville, Indiana, 

and is permitted under Title V 

Operating Permit T019–29304–0006. 

Jeffboat is located within Clark County 

and the Louisville, KY-IN maintenance 

area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. IDEM’s 

110(l) demonstration consists of a 

calculation of the maximum possible 

increase in VOC emissions from this 

source under the revised emission limit, 

followed by an identification of 

available offsets from the AIM rule at 

326 IAC 8–14. 

Indiana’s submittal includes 

calculations illustrating the maximum 

possible increase in VOC emissions 

resulting from revisions to 326 IAC 8– 

12–4. Based on the maximum number of 

barges requiring antifoulant coatings, 

Jeffboat may use up to 2,580 gallons per 

year of coatings. At the original limit of 

2.83 lbs VOC per gallon coating, the 

source may emit 3.65 tons VOC per 

year. In order to correctly determine the 

difference in resulting emissions, the 

original and revised limits must be 

compared on a solids basis; 2.83 lbs 

VOC per gallon coating equates to 4.6 

lbs VOC per gallon solids, and 3.33 lbs 

VOC per gallon coating equates to 6.08 

lbs VOC per gallon solids. From these 

figures, the revised limit is 32% higher 

than the original limit. A 32% increase 

from 3.65 tons VOC per year amounts to 

an increase in emissions of 1.17 tons 

VOC per year, or 0.004167 tons VOC per 

summer day. IDEM’s section 110(l) 

demonstration states that offsets of this 

amount from Indiana’s AIM coatings 

rule are needed to compensate for the 

increase in allowable emissions. 

IDEM’s calculations are more 

conservative than the approach 

recommended by EPA. Because Jeffboat 

operates six days per week, or 312 days 

per year, 1.17 tons VOC per year 

amounts to 0.00375 tons VOC per 

summer day. However, in this 

rulemaking, IDEM has requested to 

offset the revised limit in 326 IAC 8–12– 

4 with credits from Indiana’s AIM rule 

in the amount of 0.004167 tons VOC per 

summer day. 

Indiana’s AIM rule goes above and 

beyond the Federal AIM rule by 

adopting a rule that is similar to the 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

model rule ‘‘Architectural & Industrial 

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings’’ updated 

October 13, 2014. According to a 2006 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) white paper, the OTC model 

rule provides an up to 60.5% reduction 

in VOC emissions compared to 

uncontrolled 2002 base case emissions, 

while the Federal AIM rule alone only 

provides a 20% reduction compared to 

base case. 

The Indiana AIM rule was approved 

into the SIP on August 30, 2012 (77 FR 

52606). Indiana was not required to 

adopt an AIM coatings rule, but did so 

as a multi-state effort to help reduce 

ozone levels at the regional level. 

Indiana did not adopt the AIM rule to 

comply with any Indiana SIP planning 

requirements and has not taken credit 

for it in air quality plans, nor has it been 

included in maintenance year horizons 

or rate of further progress (RFP) 

inventories. Therefore, these SIP 

approved AIM limits can be used as 

offsets for other purposes, such as this 

SIP revision. 

Table 1 shows additional reductions 

available due to the OTC model rule and 

Indiana AIM rule. In the table, emission 

estimates are based on 2011 National 

Emission Inventory (NEI) data, which is 

the most recent NEI data currently 

available. Total reductions, as well as 

summer day calculations based on 

average daily emissions using a 

multiplier of 1.3, are based on the 

LADCO white paper. Indiana’s 110(l) 

demonstration shows available offsets 

from the AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC 

per summer day. 

TABLE 1—CLARK AND FLOYD COUNTIES OFFSET ANALYSIS

County Coating category Tons/year Ton/summday 

Total 

reductions 

(AIM and 

OTC) 

Federal AIM 

reduction 

Additional 

reduction Offset 

Clark ...................... Architectural .......... 128.97 0.4594 0.388 0.2 0.24 0.108 

Clark ...................... Traffic Markings .... 0.14 0.0005 0.564 0.2 0.46 0.0002 

Clark ...................... Industrial Maintenance.33.24 0.1184 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.060 

Clark ...................... Special Purpose ... 3.53 0.0126 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.006 

Floyd ..................... Architectural .......... 87.26 0.3108 0.388 0.2 0.24 0.073 

Floyd ..................... Traffic Markings .... 0.08 0.0003 0.564 0.2 0.46 0.000 

Floyd ..................... Industrial Maintenance.22.49 0.0801 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.041 

Floyd ..................... Special Purpose ... 2.39 0.0085 0.605 0.2 0.51 0.004 

Total ............... ............................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.292 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57471 

1Clark and Floyd counties are currently 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. While VOC is 

one of the precursors for particulate matter 

(NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that in 

the southeast, which includes the Louisville, KY-IN 

maintenance area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur 

oxides are more significant to ambient summertime 

PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of nitrogen 

oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Journal of 

Environmental Engineering-Quantifying the sources 

of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze 

in the Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009), 

available at: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ 

journal-ofenvironmental-management. Currently, 

Clark and Floyd counties are not designated 

nonattainment for any of the other criteria 

pollutants (i.e. sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

lead or carbon monoxide) and those pollutants are 

not affected by the removal of Stage II requirements. 2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

IDEM’s section 110(l) demonstration 

identifies available offsets from 

Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC 

per summer day, and Indiana’s revisions 

to 326 IAC 8–12–4 require offsets of less 

than 0.004167 tons VOC per summer 

day. Therefore, the VOC emissions 

increase associated with the revisions of 

326 IAC 8–12–4 are more than offset by 

the VOC emission reductions attributed 

to reductions in AIM coatings 

emissions. 

In an earlier submittal, Indiana 

requested to use a separate portion of 

available offsets from Indiana’s AIM 

rule to offset removal of Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovery requirements for the 

years 2014 and 2015. EPA finalized 

approval of that SIP submittal on June 

9, 2016 (81 FR 37160). For the year 

2014, EPA’s final rulemaking relevant to 

the Stage II rule uses offsets from 

Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.001829695 tons 

VOC per summer day, and for 2015, that 

same rulemaking uses offsets from 

Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.002250149 tons 

VOC per summer day. That rulemaking 

relevant to Stage II uses no offsets for 

2016 or future years. 

Indiana’s revised version of 326 IAC 

8–12–4 has an effective date of June 21, 

2015, so offsets are necessary for 2015 

and future years. For 2015, IDEM 

identifies available offsets from 

Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC 

per summer day, EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses 

offsets of 0.002250149 tons VOC per 

summer day, and this rulemaking 

relevant to 326 IAC 8–12–4 uses offsets 

of 0.004167 tons VOC per summer day. 

Therefore, offsets from Indiana’s AIM 

rule of 0.285582851 tons VOC per 

summer day remain available for future 

use. For 2016 and future years, IDEM 

identifies available offsets from 

Indiana’s AIM rule of 0.292 tons VOC 

per summer day, EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking relevant to Stage II uses no 

offsets, and this rulemaking relevant to 

326 IAC 8–12–4 uses offsets of 0.004167 

tons VOC per summer day. Therefore, 

offsets from Indiana’s AIM rule of 

0.287833 tons VOC per summer day 

remain available for future use. 

Based on the use of permanent, 

enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus 

emissions reductions achieved through 

the offsets from VOC reductions in AIM 

coatings emissions in Clark and Floyd 

counties, EPA has concluded that the 

revisions of 326 IAC 8–12–4 do not 

interfere with southeast Indiana’s ability 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA also examined whether the 

revisions of 326 IAC 8–12–4 will 

interfere with attainment of any other 

air quality standards. Lake and Porter 

counties are designated attainment for 

all standards other than ozone, 

including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

dioxide. Clark and Floyd counties are 

designated attainment for all standards 

other than ozone and particulate 

matter.1 For the reasons discussed 

above, EPA has no reason to believe that 

the revisions will cause the areas to 

become nonattainment for any of these 

pollutants. In addition, EPA believes 

that the revisions will not interfere with 

the areas’ ability to meet any other CAA 

requirement. 

Based on the above discussion and 

the state’s section 110(l) demonstration, 

EPA has concluded that the revisions to 

326 IAC 8–12–4 will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance in the 

Louisville, KY-IN maintenance area for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the ChicagoNaperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or the 

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 

maintenance area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, and would not interfere with 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA, and thus, are approvable under 

CAA section 110(l). Also, as stated in 

the previous section, the antifouling 

coating limit satisfies RACT. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA finds that the revision will not 

interfere with any applicable CAA 

requirement. For that reason, EPA is 

approving, as a revision to the Indiana 

ozone SIP, a revised version of 326 IAC 

8–12–4 submitted by IDEM on July 17, 

2015. 

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 October 24, 2016 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

22, 2016. 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 

October 24, 2016. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Indiana Regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by EPA 

for inclusion in the State 

implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.2

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

V. 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57472 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

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, 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 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). 

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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 24, 2016. 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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 5, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting 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. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

8–12–4 under ‘‘Article 8. Volatile 

Organic Compound Rules’’ ‘‘Rule 12. 

Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations 

in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter 

Counties’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject Indiana effective 

date EPA Approval date Notes 

*******

Article 8. Volatile Organic Compound Rules 

*******

Rule 12. Shipbuilding or Ship Repair Operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties: 

*******

8–12–4 ............................. Volatile organic compound emissions limiting requirements.06/21/2015 08/23/2016, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 57473 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20016 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[CG Docket No. 05–231; FCC 16–17] 

Closed Captioning of Video 

Programming; Telecommunications for 

the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., 

Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) allocates the 

responsibilities of video programming 

distributors (VPDs) and video 

programmers with respect to the 

provision and quality of closed captions 

on television programming, with each 

entity responsible for closed captioning 

issues that are primarily within its 

control; amends the Commission’s 

captioning complaint procedures to 

include video programmers in the 

handling of complaints; and requires 

video programmers to register contact 

information and certify compliance with 

captioning obligations directly with the 

Commission. 

DATES: Effective September 22, 2016, 

except for 47 CFR 79.1(g)(1) through (9), 

(i)(1) through (3), (j)(1) and (4), (k)(1)(iv), 

and (m) of the Commission’s rules, 

which contain information collection 

requirements that are not effective until 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

for those sections. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot 

Greenwald, Disability Rights Office, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at phone: (202) 418–2235 or 

email: Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Closed 

Captioning of Video Programming; 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for 

Rulemaking Second Report and Order 

(Second Report and Order), document 

FCC 16–17, adopted on February 18, 

2016, and released on February 19, 

2016. The full text of document FCC 16– 

17 will be available for public 

inspection and copying via ECFS, and 

during regular business hours at the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Document FCC 16–17 can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: https://

www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rightsoffice-headlines. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

Document FCC 16–17 contains new 

and modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, will invite the 

general public to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in document FCC 16–17 as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

In addition, the Commission notes that, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 

Commission previously sought 

comment on how the Commission might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ See Closed Captioning of 

Video Programming; 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for 

Rulemaking, Report and Order, 

Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 

79 FR 17093, March 27, 2014 (Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and 79 

FR 17911, March 31, 2014 (Report and 

Order) (references are to the Closed 

Captioning Quality Order when 

discussing parts of the Report and 

Order, and to the Closed Captioning 

Quality Further Notice when discussing 

parts of the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking). 

Synopsis 

1. Closed captioning is a technology 

that provides visual access to the audio 

content of video programs by displaying 

this content as printed words on the 

television screen. In 1997, the 

Commission, acting pursuant to section 

713 of the Communications Act (the 

Act), 47 U.S.C. 713, adopted rules 

regarding closed captioning on 

television. On February 24, 2014, the 

Commission adopted the Closed 

Captioning Quality Order in which, 

among other things, it placed 

responsibility for compliance with the 

non-technical closed captioning quality 

standards on (VPDs) while 

simultaneously releasing the Closed 

Captioning Quality Further Notice to 

seek comment on, among other issues, 

extending some of the responsibilities 

for complying with the closed 

captioning quality standards to other 

entities involved in the production and 

delivery of video programming. On 

December 15, 2014, the Commission 

released a Second Further Notice 

seeking to supplement the record in this 

proceeding in response to comments 

received on the Closed Captioning 

Quality Further Notice. Closed 

Captioning of Video Programming; 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for 

Rulemaking, Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, published at 79 

FR 78768, December 31, 2014 (Closed 

Captioning Quality Second Further 

Notice). 

2. Responsibilities of VPDs and Video 

Programmers. In its 1997 Closed 

Captioning Report and Order, the 

Commission placed sole responsibility 

for compliance with its television closed 

captioning rules on VPDs. Closed 

Captioning and Video Description of 

Video Programming, Implementation of 

Section 305 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, Video Programming 

Accessibility, Report and Order, 

published at 62 FR 48487, September 

16, 1997 (1997 Closed Captioning 

Report and Order). At that time, the 

Commission concluded that holding 

VPDs responsible would most 

expeditiously increase the availability of 

television programming with closed 

captions and promote efficiency in the 

Commission’s monitoring and 

enforcement of its captioning rules. At 

the same time, the Commission 

recognized the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, under section 713 of the 

Act, over both video programming 

providers and owners to ensure the 

provision of closed captioning of video 

programming, and noted its expectation 

that both ‘‘owners and producers will be 

involved in the captioning process.’’ 

3. In the Closed Captioning Quality 

Order, the Commission similarly placed 

the responsibility for compliance with 

the non-technical closed captioning 

quality standards on VPDs. However, 

recognizing that the creation and 

delivery of quality closed captioning is 

not solely within the control of VPDs 

and that video programmers play a 

‘‘critical role’’ in providing closed 

captions to viewers, the Commission 

stated that it would allow a VPD to 

satisfy its obligations with respect to the 

caption quality rules by obtaining or 

making best efforts to obtain 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES