Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21421 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is not 

a significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed priority 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this proposed 

priority is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

The benefits of the Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Programs have been well 

established over the years, as projects 

similar to the one envisioned by the 

proposed priority have been completed 

successfully. Establishing new RERCs 

based on the proposed priority would 

generate new knowledge through 

research and development and improve 

the lives of individuals with disabilities. 

The RERC that would be established 

under this proposed priority would 

generate, disseminate, and promote the 

use of new information that would 

improve the options for individuals 

with disabilities to fully participate in 

their communities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. 

If you use a TDD or TTY, call the FRS, 

toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: April 10, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08559 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0366; FRL–9909–48– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Particulate Matter Limitations for 

Coating Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). The particulate 

matter (PM) rules that were submitted 

consist of emission control requirements 

for coating operations along with 

exemptions from certain coating 

operations that produce minimal PM 

emissions. EPA is also proposing to take 

no action on one section submitted by 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21422 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Indiana, as it pertains to a definition in 

an unapproved portion of Indiana’s 

Title V regulations. Indiana submitted 

this request to approve PM rules on 

April 27, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 16, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0366, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, 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 Blakley, 

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– 

0366. 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. 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 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 should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

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 April 27, 2012, Indiana submitted 

a request to revise its SIP under the 

CAA to incorporate the revised rules. 

Specifically, Indiana requested that EPA 

approve the following sections as part of 

the SIP: 326 Indiana Administrative 

Code (IAC) 6–3–1, 326 IAC 6.5–1–1, 326 

IAC 6.5–1–2, 326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326 IAC 

6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–1, 326 IAC 6.8– 

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

1–6. These provisions would replace 

requirements that EPA has previously 

been approved into the Indiana SIP. 

EPA approved 326 IAC 6–3 on July 25, 

2005 (70 FR 42495). EPA approved the 

addition of 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 

into the Indiana SIP on March 22, 2006 

(71 FR 14383). EPA approved 

subsequent revisions of sections of 326 

IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8 into the 

Indiana SIP on April 30, 2008 (73 FR 

23356). 

Article 6 of 326 IAC contains 

Indiana’s PM rules. Article 6.5 of 326 

IAC contains statewide PM emission 

limitations except for Lake County and 

Article 6.8 of 326 IAC provides the PM 

emission limits for Lake County sources. 

The language Indiana added in 326 

IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h) 

is very similar to the language in 326 

IAC 6–3–2(d). As noted, EPA approved 

326 IAC 6–3 including 326 IAC 6–3– 

2(d) on July 25, 2005 (70 FR 42495). 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

Indiana made the same revisions to 

the rules of 326 IAC 6.5–1 and 326 IAC 

6.8–1. Thus, EPA analyzed the revisions 

to the same rules and sections of 326 

IAC 6.5–1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1 together 

and concluded that the changes were 

acceptable in both regulations. 

A. Applicability: 326 IAC 6–3–1; 326 

IAC 6.5–1–1; 326 IAC 6.8–1–1 

In 326 IAC 6–3–1, Indiana revised two 

sections. Indiana submitted a revision to 

326 IAC 6–3–1(b)(13) to reference the 

definition of trivial activities as found in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21423 

326 IAC 2–7–1, part of Indiana’s Title V 

rules. The definition of ‘‘trivial 

activities’’ is not currently in either 

Indiana’s Title V permitting program or 

SIP. For that reason, EPA is proposing 

to take no action at this time on the 

revision of 326 IAC 6–3–1(b)(13). It 

should be noted that the term ‘‘trivial 

activities’’ is not contained in any of the 

regulations that EPA is approving in this 

action. 

Indiana moved a phrase in 326 IAC 6– 

3–1(c) to improve clarity. There is no 

material change from what is approved 

into the Indiana SIP and thus EPA is 

proposing approval of the 326 IAC 6–3– 

1(c) revision. 

Indiana revised both 326 IAC 6.5–1– 

1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1 by adding a new 

subsection (c) that exempts certain 

surface coating operations from PM 

emission limits. The exempt processes 

are dip coating, roll coating, flow 

coating, and brush coating. The primary 

emissions of concern from surface 

coating are the volatile organic 

compound emissions that arise from 

solvent evaporation. PM emissions from 

coatings primarily are from overspray, 

the fine coating droplets that are not 

applied as desired. Overspray, the 

portion of coating solids that does not 

land on the item and is exhausted as PM 

emissions, is common on spray coating 

operations but is not an issue with the 

four exempt coating methods: Dip 

coating, roll coating, flow coating, and 

brush coating. EPA expects minimal PM 

emission will occur from the exempted 

coating methods and thus is proposing 

to approve the exemptions. 

Indiana also included in 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–1(c) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1(c) an 

exemption from the PM limits for 

facilities that use less than five gallons 

of coating per day. EPA is satisfied that 

facilities that use less than five gallons 

of coating daily will have de minimis 

PM emissions because of the limited 

potential for overspray. Thus, EPA is 

proposing to approve the exemptions 

from PM limits in these cases. 

The remaining changes to 326 IAC 

6.5–1–1 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–1 are simply 

updates to the section references from 

the version approved into the Indiana 

SIP. For example, 326 IAC 6.5–1–1(c) 

became 326 IAC 6.5–1–1(d) and 326 IAC 

6.8–1–1(c) became 326 IAC 6.8–1–1(d) 

following the addition of a new section 

(c) in both articles. 

B. Particulate Emission Limitations, 

Modifications by Commissioner: 326 

IAC 6.5–1–2; 326 IAC 6.8–1–2 

Indiana also revised both 326 IAC 

6.5–1–2 and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2. Indiana 

made revisions by rewording and 

moving phrases to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(a), 

(b), (c), (d), and (e). Identical revisions 

were made to 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(a), (b), 

(c), (d), and (e). The changes to the 

revised sections are insubstantial when 

compared to the approved sections. 

Indiana added requirements for PM 

emission controls on surface coating 

operations in 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and 

326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h). Sources are 

required to operate a dry particulate 

filter, a water wash, or an equivalent PM 

control device. If overspray occurs, 326 

IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8–1– 

2(h)(2) require the source to inspect and 

repair the control device or adjust 

operations to eliminate the overspray 

within four hours. The source must 

keep a record of its action to remedy the 

overspray. Select sources are allowed 

under 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(3) and 326 

IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(3) to follow the control 

device inspection and repair 

requirements in its permit if overspray 

is detected in place of the general 

control device inspection and repair 

requirements in 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2) 

and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(2). As usual, the 

most stringent requirement applies and 

thus the permit requirements must be at 

least as stringent as the requirements in 

326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h)(2) and 326 IAC 6.8– 

1–2(h)(2). EPA finds that the addition of 

the PM emission control requirement for 

coating operations to be satisfactory and 

thus is proposing approval. The 

requirements of these sections will 

require any sources lacking the 

requirement to take corrective action 

once overspray is detected. Overspray is 

sign that the control equipment is not 

properly operating. 

Indiana further added, at 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–2(h)(4) and 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(4), a 

provision that if a facility increases its 

use of coatings to exceed five gallons 

per day, it is no longer exempt from the 

regulation; and Indiana must require 

appropriate PM emissions controls, 

even if the source subsequently reduces 

its coating use back to using less than 

five gallons of coating per day. Indiana’s 

Federally approved permitting rules 

require each source to keep records for 

ensuring compliance with applicable 

emission limits. Therefore, each source 

will be required in its permits (title V or 

Federally enforceable state operating 

permit) to maintain records of its 

coating usage to establish applicability 

according to the criteria in 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–2(h)(4) or 326 IAC 6.8–1–2(h)(4). 

Indiana renamed 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h) 

to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(i) and 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–2(i) to 326 IAC 6.5–1–2(j) following 

the addition of the new 326 IAC 6.5–1– 

2(h). Identical section renaming was 

also made in 326 IAC 6.8–1–2. EPA is 

proposing to approve the addition of 

326 IAC 6.5–1–2(h) and 326 IAC 6.8–1– 

2(h) along with the revision to the other 

sections of 326 IAC 6.5–1–2 and 326 

IAC 6.8–1–2 into the Indiana SIP. 

C. Control Strategies and SIP Revisions: 

326 IAC 6.5–1–5; 326 IAC 6.5–1–6; 326 

IAC 6.8–1–5; 326 IAC 6.8–1–6 

References to other rule sections in 

326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326 IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 

IAC 6.8–1–5, and 326 IAC 6.8–1–6 were 

updated to reflect the revised section 

and subsection numbering in the 

referenced rules. The revisions improve 

the clarity of the rules with clear 

language and current references without 

changing the PM limits or any 

requirements that have previously been 

approved. 326 IAC 6.5–1–6 and 326 IAC 

6.8–1–6 specifically require that any 

exemptions or provisions granted by the 

state in sections 2(a), 2(g), 2(i), 2(j), 4, 

and 5 of the rule shall be submitted to 

EPA as revisions to the SIP. Thus, EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

modifications to 326 IAC 6.5–1–5, 326 

IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5, and 326 

IAC 6.8–1–6 into the Indiana SIP. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve into the 

Indiana SIP revisions to PM rules 

submitted by Indiana on April 27, 2012. 

These revisions add PM control 

requirements for coating operations. The 

other primary revisions provide PM 

limit exemptions for coating operations 

that produce minimal PM emissions. 

The remaining modifications are clerical 

revisions that increase the lucidity of 

the rules without altering the PM limits. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing 

approval of 326 IAC 6–3–1(c), 326 IAC 

6.5–1–1, 326 IAC 6.5–1–2, 326 IAC 6.5– 

1–5, 326 IAC 6.5–1–6, 326 IAC 6.8–1– 

1, 326 IAC 6.8–1–2, 326 IAC 6.8–1–5, 

and 326 IAC 6.8–1–6. EPA is proposing 

to take no action on 326 IAC 6–3–1(b). 

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 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21424 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 3, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08638 Filed 4–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0241; FRL–9909–49– 

Region 8] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Dakota; Revisions to South Dakota 

Administrative Code; Permit: New and 

Modified Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of South Dakota 

on June 14, 2010, June 20, 2011, and 

July 29, 2013. All three SIP revisions 

revise the Administrative Rules of South 

Dakota (ARSD) that pertain to the 

issuance of South Dakota air quality 

permits; in addition the June 14, 2010 

submittal revises certain definitions and 

dates of incorporation by reference. The 

June 14, 2010 revisions contain new, 

amended and renumbered rules; the 

June 20, 2011 revisions contain new 

rules, and the July 29, 2013 revisions 

contain amended rules. In this proposed 

rulemaking, we are taking action on the 

entire June 14, 2010 submittal, except 

for those portions of the submittal 

which do not belong in the SIP. We are 

also taking action on portions of the 

June 20, 2011 submittal that were not 

acted on in other rulemaking regarding 

greenhouse gases and the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. We are taking action on 

portions of the July 29, 2013 submittal 

that supersede portions of the two 

previous submittals; the remainder of 

the July 29, 2013 submittal will be acted 

on at a later date. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 16, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0241, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0241. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I. 

General Information 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1