Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 60348-60350 [2017-27432]

Download as PDF 60348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 808–842–2600 and 808–842–2601; fax: 808–842–2642; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to request permission to transit the safety zone. (4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP Honolulu, or his designated representative, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while transiting through or in the safety zone as well as maintain a safe distance from the lava hazards. (5) The COTP Honolulu will provide notice of enforcement of the safety zone described in this section by verbal radio broadcasts and written notice to mariners. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ). The COTP and his or her designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number listed in (c)(3) of this section. (6) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies. Dated: December 13, 2017. M.C. Long, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu. [FR Doc. 2017–27297 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0140; FRL–9972–31– Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: ACTION: Proposed rule. 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. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’), as well as a rule rescission. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 19, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2017–0140 at https:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Doris Lo, Rulemaking Office Chief at lo.doris@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 SUMMARY: 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 rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule rescission? II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? B. Do the rule and rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria? C. The EPA’s 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 rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the date that they were adopted and repealed by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES Local agency Rule No. ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS SDCAPCD ........................................ SDCAPCD ........................................ 67.12 67.12.1 On September 27, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittals for SDCAPCD Rules 67.12 and 67.12.1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal review by the EPA. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 Adopted/ amended Rule title Polyester Resin Operations ............. Polyester Resin Operations ............. B. Are there other versions of these rules? There are no previous versions of Rule 67.12.1 in the SIP. We approved Rule 67.12 on March 27, 1997 (62 FR 14639). PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 5/15/1996 5/11/2016 Repealed/ rescinded 5/11/2016 ........................ Submitted 8/22/16 8/22/16 C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule rescission? 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 67.12.1, and the rescinded Rule 67.12, control VOCs emitted from polyester resin E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules operations. The EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about these rules. II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 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 Reasonably Available Control Technology (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 SDCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as ‘‘Moderate’’ for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). Rule 67.12.1 regulates activities covered by the CTG titled ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,’’ EPA–453/R–08–004, September 2008. However, none of the sources regulated by Rule 67.12.1 meet the applicability threshold for the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing CTG. 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 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ (‘‘the Bluebook,’’ U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990). 3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies’’ (‘‘the Little Bluebook’’, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). 4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,’’ EPA–453/R–08–004, September 2008. B. Do the rule and rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria? This rule and rule rescission are consistent with the CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 relaxations. Based on information provided by the SDCAPCD, the District does not appear to have facilities that are subject to the fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG and therefore the District’s RACT analysis for Rule 67.12.1 is not required to address the presumptive RACT limits included in the CTG.1 The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. The EPA’s 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. We recommend the SDCAPCD consider adopting a negative declaration for the fiberglass boat manufacturing operations CTG since the District’s data indicate it does not have facilities meeting the CTG’s applicability threshold of 15 lb/day or 2.7 tpy. 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 and rule rescission because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 19, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule and rule rescission, our final action will incorporate the rule and rule rescission 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 SDCAPCD 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); 1 Email dated July 12, 2017, from Angela Ortega (SDCAPCD) to Arnold Lazarus (USEPA), RE: ‘‘RE: Response to EPA regarding Rule 67.12.1 06_30_17 revised.docx’’ with attachment. See Table 1. ‘‘Summary of Total Emission Reduction.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60349 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); • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • 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 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 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 60350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 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, Volatile organic compounds, Particulate matter. Dated: December 5, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017–27432 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74 and 76 [GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 17–158] Authorizing Permissive Use of the ‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast Television Standard Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In this document, we seek further comment on issues related to exceptions to and waivers of the local simulcasting requirement, whether we should let full power broadcasters use channels in the television broadcast band that are vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0, and finally, we tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station. DATES: Comments are due on or before February 20, 2018; reply comments are due on or before March 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16–142, by any of the following methods: • Federal Communications Commission’s website: https:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 418–0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–7142, or Matthew Hussey, Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418–3619. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418–8165. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@ fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 17–158, adopted on November 16, 2017 and released on November 20, 2017. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC’s Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https:// fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY–A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). Synopsis I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Introduction 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek further comment on three topics related to the rules adopted in the companion Report and PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Order. First, we seek further comment on issues related to exceptions to and waivers of the local simulcasting requirement. Second, we seek comment on whether we should let full power broadcasters use channels in the television broadcast band that are vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0. Finally, we tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station. B. Discussion 1. Local Simulcasting Waivers and Exceptions 2. Simulcast Waivers. In the Report and Order, we explain that we will consider requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement on a case-bycase basis, including (1) requests seeking to transition directly from 1.0 to 3.0 service on the station’s existing facility without simulcasting in 1.0 and (2) requests to air a 1.0 simulcast channel from a host location that does not cover all or a portion of the station’s community of license or from which the station can provide only a lower signal threshold over the community than that required by the rules.1 With respect to such requests, we state: ‘‘We are inclined to consider favorably requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement where the Next Gen TV station can demonstrate that it has no viable local simulcasting partner in its market and where the station agrees to make reasonable efforts to preserve 1.0 service to existing viewers in its community of license and/or otherwise minimize the impact on such viewers (for example, by providing free or low cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers).’’ 3. We seek comment on what further guidance we should provide about the circumstances in which we will grant a waiver of the local simulcasting requirement. How should we determine if a station has a ‘‘viable’’ simulcast partner? Given that we specify in the Report and Order that a Next Gen TV broadcaster’s 1.0 simulcast channel must continue to cover its entire community of license, should we consider a station to have no viable partner only if there is no potential simulcasting partner in the same DMA that can cover the station’s entire community of license? Alternatively, should we consider adopting a broader definition of viability? For example, should we specify that waiver 1 The Commission may waive its rules if good cause is shown. See 47 CFR 1.3. We explain in the Report and Order that we are not inclined to consider favorably requests to change community of license solely to enable simulcasting. E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60348-60350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27432]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0140; FRL-9972-31-Region 9]


Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Diego County Air 
Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control 
District (SDCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from polyester resin operations. We are proposing to approve 
a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or ``the Act''), as well as a rule rescission. We are taking 
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0140 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Doris Lo, 
Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected]. 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, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule 
rescission?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Do the rule and rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's 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 rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the date that 
they were adopted and repealed by the local air agency and submitted by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Adopted/        Repealed/
         Local agency              Rule No.        Rule title         amended        rescinded       Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD.......................           67.12  Polyester Resin        5/15/1996       5/11/2016         8/22/16
                                                 Operations.
SDCAPCD.......................         67.12.1  Polyester Resin        5/11/2016  ..............         8/22/16
                                                 Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 27, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittals for 
SDCAPCD Rules 67.12 and 67.12.1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 
part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal review by the EPA.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 67.12.1 in the SIP. We 
approved Rule 67.12 on March 27, 1997 (62 FR 14639).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule rescission?

    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 
67.12.1, and the rescinded Rule 67.12, control VOCs emitted from 
polyester resin

[[Page 60349]]

operations. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more 
information about these rules.

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 Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (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 SDCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment 
area classified as ``Moderate'' for the 2008 8-hour ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). Rule 67.12.1 
regulates activities covered by the CTG titled ``Control Techniques 
Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-
004, September 2008. However, none of the sources regulated by Rule 
67.12.1 meet the applicability threshold for the Fiberglass Boat 
Manufacturing CTG.
    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 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations'' (``the Bluebook,'' U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies'' (``the Little Bluebook'', EPA Region 9, August 21, 
2001).
    4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat 
Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.

B. Do the rule and rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?

    This rule and rule rescission are consistent with the CAA 
requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and 
SIP relaxations. Based on information provided by the SDCAPCD, the 
District does not appear to have facilities that are subject to the 
fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG and therefore the District's RACT 
analysis for Rule 67.12.1 is not required to address the presumptive 
RACT limits included in the CTG.\1\ The TSD has more information on our 
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Email dated July 12, 2017, from Angela Ortega (SDCAPCD) to 
Arnold Lazarus (USEPA), RE: ``RE: Response to EPA regarding Rule 
67.12.1 06_30_17 revised.docx'' with attachment. See Table 1. 
``Summary of Total Emission Reduction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The EPA's 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.
    We recommend the SDCAPCD consider adopting a negative declaration 
for the fiberglass boat manufacturing operations CTG since the 
District's data indicate it does not have facilities meeting the CTG's 
applicability threshold of 15 lb/day or 2.7 tpy.

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 and rule rescission because they 
fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the 
public on this proposal until January 19, 2018. If we take final action 
to approve the submitted rule and rule rescission, our final action 
will incorporate the rule and rule rescission 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 SDCAPCD 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);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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

[[Page 60350]]

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, Volatile organic compounds, 
Particulate matter.

    Dated: December 5, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-27432 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.