Air Plan Approval; California; Feather River Air Quality Management District, 27344-27346 [2020-09733]

Download as PDF 27344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 2020 / Proposed Rules On January 18, 1969, regulations for the Lockwoods Folly Inlet explosives anchorage were published (34 FR 839) outlining the area as an anchorage reserved for the exclusive use of vessels carrying explosives.3 The anchorage is located within 3 NM from shore and in water with charted depths between 32 and 37 feet. The Coast Guard is concerned that the anchorage may not meet the needs of safe navigation due to the increased drafts of vessels that call on the Port of Wilmington and Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, and a better location may be possible in the interest of navigation and public safety.4 III. Information Requested We seek your comments on whether we should consider a proposed rulemaking to establish a regulated anchorage ground offshore in the approaches to the Cape Fear River, NC. In particular, the Coast Guard requests your input to determine to what extent the notional anchorage ground would accommodate current and future vessel traffic, improve navigation safety, and facilitate continued growth of Cape Fear River’s ports and facilities, offshore renewable energy development and associated economic activity; or if the status quo should be maintained, or other actions should be considered. Additionally, we seek your comments on whether we should consider a proposed rulemaking to disestablish, relocate or otherwise modify the Lockwoods Folly Inlet explosives anchorage. In particular, the Coast Guard requests your input to determine if there remains a need for an explosive anchorage in this area, and if so, to what extent and for what purpose; if a reduction in size or a shift in location of the anchorage would meet current and anticipated industry needs; or if other options should be considered, such as designating a portion of the notional Cape Fear River Approach anchorage for the exclusive use of vessels carrying explosives. 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 3 33 CFR 110.170. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 May 07, 2020 submission, please include the docket number for this notice of inquiry 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 submissions in response to this document, see DHS’s eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). Documents mentioned 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 website’s instructions. Dated: April 29, 2020. Keith M. Smith, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2020–09604 Filed 5–7–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0180; FRL–10008– 03–Region 9] Air Plan Approval; California; Feather River 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 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from vehicle and mobile equipment 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: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. is EPA– R09–OAR–2020–0180 at https:// SUMMARY: 4 Sec. 301 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–281) amended 33 U.S.C. 471 and extended the Coast Guard’s authority to Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by email at vineyard.christine@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. 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 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). establish anchorage grounds for vessels from 3 NM to 12 NM. E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM 08MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 2020 / Proposed Rules 27345 TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted FRAQMD ................................ 3.19 Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations .............. 08/01/16 01/24/17 On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for FRAQMD Rule 3.19 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 3.19 into the SIP on June 11, 2015 (80 FR 33195). The FRAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on August 1, 2016, and CARB submitted them to us on January 24, 2017. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, (or ‘‘smog’’) and PM, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 3.19 was revised to be consistent with the CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive Coatings and Components by simplifying coating categories, lowering VOC limits and modifying recordkeeping and labeling requirements. 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? Rules in the SIP 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 FRAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe nonattainment. The District is a bi-county agency that administers local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 May 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 Sutter Counties. Portions of the District have been designated as Moderate or above nonattainment for failure to meet the federal 8-hour ground-level ozone standard. However, according to the FRAQMD, ‘‘the District does not have any major sources located within the nonattainment area and does not anticipate any major sources or sources subject to a CTG in the future.’’ Therefore, Rule 3.19 need not be as stringent as RACT. Despite this, we believe it is helpful, for informational purposes, to compare Rule 3.19 to the CARB SCM and other RACT rules in effect in other California districts. This comparison is set forth in our TSD and we believe Rule 3.19 contains RACTlevel control requirements. CAA Guidance and policy documents that we used 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. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, 40 CFR part 59, subpart B. B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? 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. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule The TSD include recommendations for the next time 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 it PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until June 8, 2020. 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 proposed 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 FRAQMD Rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https:// 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.); E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM 08MYP1 27346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 2020 / Proposed Rules • 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 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: May 1, 2020. John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. [FR Doc. 2020–09733 Filed 5–7–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0053; FRL–10008–38] Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:04 May 07, 2020 Jkt 250001 This document announces the Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305–7090, email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305–7090, email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person’s name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. General Information 40 CFR Part 180 AGENCY: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment. ACTION: A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ comments.html. 3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population. II. What action is the Agency taking? EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR [part 174 and/or part 180] for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the request before E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM 08MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 90 (Friday, May 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27344-27346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09733]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0180; FRL-10008-03-Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; California; Feather River 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 Feather River Air Quality Management District 
(FRAQMD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) from vehicle and mobile equipment 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: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. is EPA-
R09-OAR-2020-0180 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments 
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4125 or by 
email at [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 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. 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 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).

[[Page 27345]]



                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                 Rule No.             Rule title             Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRAQMD............................            3.19   Vehicle and Mobile               08/01/16         01/24/17
                                                      Equipment Coating
                                                      Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for FRAQMD 
Rule 3.19 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 3.19 into the SIP on June 
11, 2015 (80 FR 33195). The FRAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on August 1, 2016, and CARB submitted them to us on 
January 24, 2017.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level 
ozone, (or ``smog'') and PM, which harm human health and the 
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit 
regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 3.19 was revised to be 
consistent with the CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive 
Coatings and Components by simplifying coating categories, lowering VOC 
limits and modifying recordkeeping and labeling requirements. 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?

    Rules in the SIP 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 FRAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment 
area classified as Severe nonattainment. The District is a bi-county 
agency that administers local, state, and federal air quality 
management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties. Portions of the 
District have been designated as Moderate or above nonattainment for 
failure to meet the federal 8-hour ground-level ozone standard. 
However, according to the FRAQMD, ``the District does not have any 
major sources located within the nonattainment area and does not 
anticipate any major sources or sources subject to a CTG in the 
future.'' Therefore, Rule 3.19 need not be as stringent as RACT. 
Despite this, we believe it is helpful, for informational purposes, to 
compare Rule 3.19 to the CARB SCM and other RACT rules in effect in 
other California districts. This comparison is set forth in our TSD and 
we believe Rule 3.19 contains RACT-level control requirements.
    CAA Guidance and policy documents that we used 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. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 
Automobile Refinish Coatings, 40 CFR part 59, subpart B.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    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. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD include recommendations for the next time 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 it fulfills all relevant 
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 
until June 8, 2020. 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 proposed 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 FRAQMD Rule described in Table 1 of this 
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
available through https://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.);

[[Page 27346]]

     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 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: May 1, 2020.
 John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-09733 Filed 5-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.