Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 23495 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: April 4, 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. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘1–3–4’’ and adding a new entry in 

numerical order for ‘‘1–4–1’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana 

citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Rule 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

*******

1–3–4 .................... Ambient air quality standards ........................................ 1/18/2013 4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE

NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

(b)(7) and (b)(8) only. 

*******

Rule 4. Attainment Status Designations 

1–4–1 .................... Definitions ....................................................................... 1/18/2013 4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE 

NUMBER WHERE THE 

DOCUMENT BEGINS].

*******

[FR Doc. 2013–09149 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0073; FRL–9790–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Small Container Exemption from VOC 

Coating Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Illinois State Implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(Illinois EPA) on November 14, 2011. 

This SIP revision consists of 

amendments to the Illinois 

Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) by 

adding a ‘‘small container exemption’’ 

for pleasure craft surface coating 

operations in the Chicago and MetroEast St. Louis 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. These exemptions 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with EPA volatile organic 

compound (VOC) reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) policy. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0073. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6052 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, 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) 886–6052. 

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 public comments were received on 

the proposed approval and what is EPA’s 

response? 

II. What action is EPA taking today? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What public comments were received 

on the proposed approval and what is 

EPA’s response? 

A comment was submitted on April 

16, 2012, by a Kentucky resident. As a 

result of this comment, the direct final 

approval published on April 16, 2012, 

(77 FR 22497) was withdrawn. His 

comment is that EPA should determine, 

pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(l), what impact this exemption will 

have on St. Louis and Chicago attaining 

the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) as soon as 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
23496 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

practicable before EPA can approve this 

revision. 

EPA Response 

As stated in the direct final approval, 

and included here as background to 

EPA’s response, EPA previously 

approved sections 218.208(c) and 

219.208(c) which specify that Illinois’ 

surface coating VOC emission 

limitations shall not apply to touch-up 

and repair coatings used by a can, coil, 

vinyl, metal furniture and magnet wire 

coating operation, provided that the 

source-wide volume of such coatings 

used does not exceed 1 quart per 8-hour 

period or exceed 55 gallons/year for any 

rolling 12 month period. (61 FR 5511 on 

February 13, 1996). The SIP revision 

which is the subject of this action 

extends the exemption in 218.208(c) 

and 219.208(c) to the pleasure craft 

surface coating limits set out in sections 

218.204(q)(5) and 219.204(q)(5). Illinois’ 

SIP revision also amends 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.208(e) and 219.208(e), the 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions, 

to add pleasure craft coating operations 

that are exempted from the limitations 

in 218.204(q) and 219.204(q) to the 

coating operations subject to 

recordkeeping requirements. Sections 

218.208(e) and 219.208(e) contain 

sufficient recordkeeping requirements to 

establish whether these exemptions 

have been exceeded. 

In 2010 and 2011 Illinois promulgated 

rules on VOC RACT emission 

limitations for coating operations (See 

November 30, 2011 proposed approval 

at 76 FR 74014). During that 

rulemaking, the American Coatings 

Association (ACA) commented to 

Illinois EPA that many VOC coating 

regulations include a small container 

exemption not to exceed a liter or a 

quart. The ACA stated that the basis for 

these exemptions is to allow for small 

repairs and touch ups to existing 

coatings at the end of the painting line 

to avoid having to completely recoat the 

product, thus resulting in lower VOC 

emissions overall from pleasure craft 

coating operations. 

In direct response to the comment, 

EPA has determined that this exemption 

will not interfere with St. Louis and 

Chicago attaining the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for the following reasons: 

(1) Illinois EPA is not aware of any 

subject sources in the Chicago and 

Metro East (St. Louis) 2008 ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

(2) One quart of touch up coating per 

day (55 gallons per year) is a de minimis 

amount. 

(3) The exemption is consistent with 

Illinois RACT rules for similar coating 

operations, including can, coil, vinyl, 

metal furniture, and magnet wire 

coatings. 

(4) Illinois EPA and ACA agree that 

the exemption may reduce VOC 

emissions by encouraging repairs and 

touch ups, as opposed to performing 

complete re-coats. 

II. What action is EPA taking 

EPA is approving the State’s request 

to add a ‘‘small container exemption’’ 

for pleasure craft surface coating 

operations in the Chicago and MetroEast St. Louis 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas for the reasons 

stated above. 

III. 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 

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. 

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 June 18, 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. 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, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 4, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 23497 

■ 2. § 52.720 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(194) to read as follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(194) On November 14, 2011, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (Illinois EPA) submitted 

amendments to 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code 218.208 and 

219.208. These sections add a ‘‘small 

container exemption’’ for pleasure craft 

surface coating operations in the 

Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. These 

exemptions are consistent with EPA 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) policy. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. The 

following sections of Illinois 

Administrative Code, Title 35: 

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: 

Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution 

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission 

Standards and Limitations for 

Stationary Sources, are incorporated by 

reference. 

(A) Part 218: Organic Material 

Emission Standards and Limitations for 

the Chicago Area, Subpart F: Coating 

Operations, Section 218.208 Exemptions 

From Emission Limitations; effective 

October 25, 2011. 

(B) Part 219: Organic Material 

Emission Standards and Limitations for 

the Metro East Area, Subpart F: Coating 

Operations, Section 219.208 Exemptions 

From Emission Limitations; effective 

October 25, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08948 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600; FRL–9801–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ60 

Reconsideration Petition From the 

National Association of Surface 

Finishers for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Hard and Decorative 

Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and Steel 

Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Final Action Denying 

Petition for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This action provides notice 

that on March 28, 2013, the Acting EPA 

Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, signed a 

letter denying a petition for 

reconsideration of the final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 19, 2012. The rule 

established new emission limits for hard 

and decorative chromium electroplating 

and chromium anodizing tanks, and 

steel pickling—HCl process facilities 

and hydrochloric acid regeneration 

plants. 

DATES: Effective: April 19, 2013. 

Petitions: Any petitions for review of 

the letter and enclosure denying the 

petition for reconsideration described in 

this document must be filed in the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by June 18, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; 

email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Description of Action: The EPA is 

providing notice that it has denied a 

petition for reconsideration of a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 19, 2012. The rule 

established new emission limits for hard 

and decorative chromium electroplating 

and chromium anodizing tanks, and 

steel pickling—HCl process facilities 

and hydrochloric acid regeneration 

plants, and was issued pursuant to the 

EPA’s authority under sections 112(d)(6) 

and (f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

After publication of the rule, the EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration 

of the final rule from the National 

Association of Surface Finishers 

(NASF). After carefully considering the 

petition and supporting information, the 

Acting EPA Administrator, Bob 

Perciasepe, denied the petition for 

reconsideration on March 28, 2013, in a 

letter to the petitioner. The EPA denied 

the petition because it failed to meet the 

criteria for reconsideration in CAA 

section 307(d)(7)(B). The letter and an 

accompanying enclosure explain in 

detail the EPA’s reasons for the denial. 

I. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

This Federal Register notice, the 

petition for reconsideration and the 

letter denying the petition for 

reconsideration are available in the 

docket that the EPA established under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0600. The document identification 

number for the petition for 

reconsideration is: NASF, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0600–0693. The document 

identification number for EPA’s 

response letter is: NASF, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0600–0695. All documents 

in the docket are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. 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 Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

This Federal Register notice, the 

petition for reconsideration and the 

letter denying the petition can also be 

found on the EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/chrome/ 

chromepg.html. 

II. Judicial Review 

Any petitions for review of the letter 

and enclosure denying the petition for 

reconsideration described in this Notice 

must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by June 

18, 2013. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 12, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09304 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0246; FRL–9381–8] 

Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES