Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 54307-54309 [2017-25015]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0916]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget
Sound Zone, WA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of intent to
withdraw proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard intends to
withdraw the proposed anchorage rule
entitled ‘‘Anchorages; Captain of the
Port Puget Sound Zone, WA’’ that we
published on February 10, 2017. The
Coast Guard does not currently plan to
pursue this rulemaking and
consequently does not intend to
schedule tribal consultation on the
proposed rule. Given the Coast Guard’s
intent to withdraw, in this request for
comment, the Coast Guard is asking if
withdrawal is appropriate and if tribal
consultation specific to this rulemaking
is still appropriate.
DATES: Your comments and related
material must reach the Coast Guard on
or before January 16, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0916 using the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this
notification of intent, call or email
LCDR Christina Sullivan, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone
206–217–6042, email
SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Background and Purpose
We published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on February 10, 2017 (82 FR
10313), entitled ‘‘Anchorages; Captain
of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA.’’ In
the NPRM, we proposed the creation of
several new anchorages, holding areas,
and a non-anchorage area as well as the
expansion of one existing general
anchorage in the Puget Sound area, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:57 Nov 16, 2017
Jkt 244001
detailed in the proposed regulatory text.
The Coast Guard received input from a
number of tribes expressing concern
about the current rulemaking and based
on that input, we intend to withdraw
the proposed anchorage rule.
Four months after publishing the
NPRM, the Coast Guard provided notice
of its intent to conduct a government to
government consultation with the tribes
on the proposed rulemaking. In that
published notification of tribal
consultation (82 FR 25207, June 1,
2017), the Coast Guard stated that it
would post a written summary of the
government to government tribal
consultation to the docket, and that
members of the public would have time
to submit further comments between the
posting of the summary of the tribal
consultation and the closing of the
comment period. The tribal consultation
was postponed at the request of the
participants, and has not been
rescheduled.
Because the Coast Guard published a
notice of formal tribal government to
government consultation on this
proposed rule, the Coast Guard wants to
ensure that tribal governments have an
opportunity to indicate whether they
believe tribal consultation is necessary
in light of our intent to withdraw the
proposed rule. Tribal governments that
believe consultation on this proposed
rule is necessary should comment in the
docket, and may also contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
Canceling tribal consultation on this
specific proposed rule does not prevent
other consultation from occurring. The
Coast Guard supports a separate
government to government consultation
with the tribes regarding tribal treaty
rights and broader issues of waterways
usage outside of the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard will
conduct outreach regarding the scope of
a potential separate government to
government consultation independently
of this notification of intent and request
for comment.
If the Coast Guard decides to
withdraw the proposed rule, we will
issue a notification of withdrawal.
III. Information Requested
We are requesting comment from
interested persons, particularly from
tribal officials, tribal governments, tribal
organizations, and tribal members on
whether withdrawal is appropriate, and
whether a government to government
consultation on this anchorages
rulemaking is desired in light of the
Coast Guard’s intent to withdraw from
the rulemaking. Because the Coast
Guard intends to withdraw from this
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54307
rulemaking, the Coast Guard believes
that tribal government to government
consultation on this proposed
anchorages rulemaking is no longer
necessary.
IV. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your
material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions. In your
submission, please include the docket
number for this notification of intent
and provide a reason for each suggestion
or recommendation.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this
notification of intent as being available
in the docket, and all public comments,
will be in our online docket at https://
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
by following that Web site’s
instructions.
This document is issued under
authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Dated: November 9, 2017.
David G. Throop,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017–24942 Filed 11–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0573; FRL–9970–86Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District
(MDAQMD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from marine
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
54308
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
and pleasure craft coating operations.
We are proposing to approve a local rule
to regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
December 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0573 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Arnold Lazarus, Rulemaking Office at
lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Table of Contents
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revision?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule #
MDAQMD ................................
Rule title
1106
On August 2, 2017, the EPA
determined that the submittal for
MDAQMD Rule 1106 met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 1106 into the SIP on July 16, 2008
(73 FR 40754). The MDAQMD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on
October 24, 2016 and CARB submitted
them to us on February 24, 2017.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revision?
VOCs help produce ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter,
which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit regulations that
control VOC emissions. Rule 1106 was
revised primarily to implement
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) recommendations to strengthen
the overall VOC capture and control
efficiency from 85 to 90%, and to
generally adopt more stringent VOC
content limits for marine and pleasure
craft coatings. The EPA’s technical
support document (TSD) has more
information about this rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:57 Nov 16, 2017
Jkt 244001
Amended
Marine and Pleasure Craft Coating Operations .....................
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
SIP rules must be enforceable (see
CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)),
and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas
without ensuring equivalent or greater
emissions reductions (see CAA section
193).
Generally, SIP rules must require
RACT for each category of sources
covered by a Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) document as well as
each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MDAQMD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area classified as
Severe for the 1997 and the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (40 CFR 81.305). In addition,
Rule 1106 regulates activities covered
by two different CTGs: Control
Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair Operations (61 FR
44050), August 1996, and Control
Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings EPA–453/R–08–003,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10/24/2016
Submitted
02/24/2017
September 2008. Therefore, this rule
must implement RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised
January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’
EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little
Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations’’
(61 FR 44050), August 27, 1996.
5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document: Surface Coating Operations at
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities EPA
453/R–94–032, April 1994.
6. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, September
2008.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
Rule 1106 adds several new marine
and pleasure craft specialty coating
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
categories, lowers the VOC content limit
of other specialty coating categories, and
lowers the VOC content limit for
solvents used for surface preparation.
Under the District’s October 23, 2006
SIP-approved rule, some of these new
specialty coating categories such as
Topcoats, Pleasure Craft, One
Component, and Two Component,
would have been covered under the
‘‘General Use’’ category and been
subject to a more stringent VOC limit
when compared to the October 24, 2016
amended rule. The EPA reviewed the
potential gross emissions increase
associated with the new specialty
coating limits and estimates that total
VOC emissions associated with these
coatings may increase by approximately
250 pounds per year or approximately
0.001% of MDAQMD’s VOC inventory.
We conclude that this is a negligible
increase and would not impact
attainment. Because the potential gross
increase is minimal, we have not
calculated the net impact of the rule
revisions, including the emission
reductions from strengthened limits.
Our evaluation shows this rule is
consistent with CAA requirements and
relevant guidance regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rule.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule because we
believe it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal until
December 18, 2017. If we take final
action to approve the submitted rule our
final action will incorporate this rule
into the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the MDAQMD rule described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:57 Nov 16, 2017
Jkt 244001
section of this
preamble for more information).
INFORMATION CONTACT
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 Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 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 Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, 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 the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54309
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).
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 6, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017–25015 Filed 11–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0564; FRL–9970–87–
Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
and conditionally approve revisions to
the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD or
‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern the District’s
demonstration regarding Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) in the portion
of the Western Mojave Desert ozone
nonattainment area under the
jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The EPA
is also proposing to approve MDAQMD
negative declarations into the SIP for the
2008 ozone standards. We are proposing
action on local SIP revisions under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
December 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2017–0564 at https://
www.regulations.gov/, or via email to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54307-54309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25015]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0573; FRL-9970-86-Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
(MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from marine
[[Page 54308]]
and pleasure craft coating operations. We are proposing to approve a
local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0573 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Arnold
Lazarus, Rulemaking Office at lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD............................. 1106 Marine and Pleasure Craft 10/24/2016 02/24/2017
Coating Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for MDAQMD
Rule 1106 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of Rule 1106 into the SIP on July
16, 2008 (73 FR 40754). The MDAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on October 24, 2016 and CARB submitted them to us on
February 24, 2017.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter,
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule
1106 was revised primarily to implement reasonably available control
technology (RACT) recommendations to strengthen the overall VOC capture
and control efficiency from 85 to 90%, and to generally adopt more
stringent VOC content limits for marine and pleasure craft coatings.
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources
covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as
each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The MDAQMD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe for the 1997 and the 2008
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 81.305). In
addition, Rule 1106 regulates activities covered by two different CTGs:
Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Operations (61 FR 44050), August 1996, and Control Techniques
Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings EPA-453/
R-08-003, September 2008. Therefore, this rule must implement RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair Operations'' (61 FR 44050), August 27, 1996.
5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Surface Coating
Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities EPA 453/R-94-
032, April 1994.
6. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings'' EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
Rule 1106 adds several new marine and pleasure craft specialty
coating
[[Page 54309]]
categories, lowers the VOC content limit of other specialty coating
categories, and lowers the VOC content limit for solvents used for
surface preparation. Under the District's October 23, 2006 SIP-approved
rule, some of these new specialty coating categories such as Topcoats,
Pleasure Craft, One Component, and Two Component, would have been
covered under the ``General Use'' category and been subject to a more
stringent VOC limit when compared to the October 24, 2016 amended rule.
The EPA reviewed the potential gross emissions increase associated with
the new specialty coating limits and estimates that total VOC emissions
associated with these coatings may increase by approximately 250 pounds
per year or approximately 0.001% of MDAQMD's VOC inventory. We conclude
that this is a negligible increase and would not impact attainment.
Because the potential gross increase is minimal, we have not calculated
the net impact of the rule revisions, including the emission reductions
from strengthened limits. Our evaluation shows this rule is consistent
with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability,
RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until December 18, 2017. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rule our final action will incorporate this rule into the
federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MDAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).
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 Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 Clean Air Act; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 the 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).
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 6, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-25015 Filed 11-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P