82 FR 54307 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 221 (November 17, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 221 (November 17, 2017)
| Page Range | 54307-54309 | |
| FR Document | 2017-25015 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 54307-54309] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Arnold Lazarus, Rulemaking Office 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 http://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 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 54307
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND detailed in the proposed regulatory text. rulemaking, the Coast Guard believes
SECURITY The Coast Guard received input from a that tribal government to government
number of tribes expressing concern consultation on this proposed
Coast Guard about the current rulemaking and based anchorages rulemaking is no longer
on that input, we intend to withdraw necessary.
33 CFR Part 110 the proposed anchorage rule.
Four months after publishing the IV. Public Participation and Request for
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0916] Comments
NPRM, the Coast Guard provided notice
RIN 1625–AA01 of its intent to conduct a government to We encourage you to submit
government consultation with the tribes comments through the Federal portal at
Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget on the proposed rulemaking. In that http://www.regulations.gov. If your
Sound Zone, WA published notification of tribal material cannot be submitted using
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. consultation (82 FR 25207, June 1, http://www.regulations.gov, contact the
ACTION:Notification of intent to 2017), the Coast Guard stated that it person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
withdraw proposed rule; request for would post a written summary of the CONTACT section of this document for
comments. government to government tribal alternate instructions. In your
consultation to the docket, and that submission, please include the docket
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard intends to members of the public would have time number for this notification of intent
withdraw the proposed anchorage rule to submit further comments between the and provide a reason for each suggestion
entitled ‘‘Anchorages; Captain of the posting of the summary of the tribal or recommendation.
Port Puget Sound Zone, WA’’ that we consultation and the closing of the We accept anonymous comments. All
published on February 10, 2017. The comment period. The tribal consultation comments received will be posted
Coast Guard does not currently plan to was postponed at the request of the without change to http://
pursue this rulemaking and participants, and has not been www.regulations.gov and will include
consequently does not intend to rescheduled. any personal information you have
schedule tribal consultation on the Because the Coast Guard published a provided. For more about privacy and
proposed rule. Given the Coast Guard’s notice of formal tribal government to the docket, visit http://
intent to withdraw, in this request for government consultation on this www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
comment, the Coast Guard is asking if proposed rule, the Coast Guard wants to Documents mentioned in this
withdrawal is appropriate and if tribal ensure that tribal governments have an notification of intent as being available
consultation specific to this rulemaking opportunity to indicate whether they in the docket, and all public comments,
is still appropriate. believe tribal consultation is necessary will be in our online docket at http://
DATES: Your comments and related
in light of our intent to withdraw the www.regulations.gov and can be viewed
material must reach the Coast Guard on proposed rule. Tribal governments that by following that Web site’s
or before January 16, 2018. believe consultation on this proposed instructions.
rule is necessary should comment in the This document is issued under
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
docket, and may also contact the person authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
identified by docket number USCG– in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
2016–0916 using the Federal portal at Dated: November 9, 2017.
CONTACT section of this preamble.
http://www.regulations.gov. See the Canceling tribal consultation on this David G. Throop,
‘‘Public Participation and Request for specific proposed rule does not prevent Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Comments’’ portion of the other consultation from occurring. The Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for Coast Guard supports a separate [FR Doc. 2017–24942 Filed 11–16–17; 8:45 am]
further instructions on submitting government to government consultation BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
comments. with the tribes regarding tribal treaty
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If rights and broader issues of waterways
you have questions about this usage outside of the rulemaking process. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
notification of intent, call or email Accordingly, the Coast Guard will AGENCY
LCDR Christina Sullivan, U.S. Coast conduct outreach regarding the scope of
Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone a potential separate government to 40 CFR Part 52
206–217–6042, email government consultation independently
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0573; FRL–9970–86-
SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. of this notification of intent and request Region 9]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for comment.
If the Coast Guard decides to Approval of California Air Plan
I. Table of Abbreviations withdraw the proposed rule, we will Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality
FR Federal Register issue a notification of withdrawal. Management District
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Information Requested AGENCY: Environmental Protection
II. Background and Purpose We are requesting comment from Agency (EPA).
We published a notice of proposed interested persons, particularly from ACTION: Proposed rule.
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal tribal officials, tribal governments, tribal
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Register on February 10, 2017 (82 FR organizations, and tribal members on SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
10313), entitled ‘‘Anchorages; Captain whether withdrawal is appropriate, and Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA.’’ In whether a government to government revision to the Mojave Desert Air
the NPRM, we proposed the creation of consultation on this anchorages Quality Management District
several new anchorages, holding areas, rulemaking is desired in light of the (MDAQMD) portion of the California
and a non-anchorage area as well as the Coast Guard’s intent to withdraw from State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
expansion of one existing general the rulemaking. Because the Coast revision concerns emissions of volatile
anchorage in the Puget Sound area, as Guard intends to withdraw from this organic compounds (VOCs) from marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:57 Nov 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM 17NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_54528/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 54309
categories, lowers the VOC content limit INFORMATION CONTACT section of this tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
of other specialty coating categories, and preamble for more information). Indian country, the rule does not have
lowers the VOC content limit for tribal implications and will not impose
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
solvents used for surface preparation. substantial direct costs on tribal
Reviews
Under the District’s October 23, 2006 governments or preempt tribal law as
SIP-approved rule, some of these new Under the Clean Air Act, the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
specialty coating categories such as Administrator is required to approve a FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Topcoats, Pleasure Craft, One SIP submission that complies with the
Component, and Two Component, provisions of the Act and applicable List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
would have been covered under the federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air
‘‘General Use’’ category and been 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Incorporation by
subject to a more stringent VOC limit submissions, the EPA’s role is to reference Intergovernmental relations,
when compared to the October 24, 2016 approve state choices, provided that Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
amended rule. The EPA reviewed the they meet the criteria of the Clean Air requirements, Volatile organic
potential gross emissions increase Act. Accordingly, this proposed action compounds.
associated with the new specialty merely proposes to approve state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
coating limits and estimates that total meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements Dated: November 6, 2017.
VOC emissions associated with these
coatings may increase by approximately beyond those imposed by state law. For Alexis Strauss,
250 pounds per year or approximately that reason, this proposed action: Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0.001% of MDAQMD’s VOC inventory. • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2017–25015 Filed 11–16–17; 8:45 am]
We conclude that this is a negligible action’’ subject to review by the Office BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
increase and would not impact of Management and Budget under
attainment. Because the potential gross Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
increase is minimal, we have not October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
calculated the net impact of the rule January 21, 2011); AGENCY
revisions, including the emission • does not impose an information
reductions from strengthened limits. collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
Our evaluation shows this rule is of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0564; FRL–9970–87–
consistent with CAA requirements and U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 9]
relevant guidance regarding • is certified as not having a
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. significant economic impact on a Approval of California Air Plan
The TSD has more information on our substantial number of small entities Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality
evaluation. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Management District
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
C. EPA Recommendations To Further • does not contain any unfunded AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Improve the Rule mandate or significantly or uniquely Agency (EPA).
The TSD describes additional rule affect small governments, as described ACTION: Proposed rule.
revisions that we recommend for the in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
next time the local agency modifies the of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
rule. • does not have Federalism
and conditionally approve revisions to
implications as specified in Executive
D. Public Comment and Proposed the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
Action Management District (MDAQMD or
1999);
• is not an economically significant ‘‘District’’) portion of the California
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
regulatory action based on health or State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
safety risks subject to Executive Order revisions concern the District’s
approve the submitted rule because we
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); demonstration regarding Reasonably
believe it fulfills all relevant
• is not a significant regulatory action Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements. We will accept comments
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
from the public on this proposal until
28355, May 22, 2001); and the 2008 8-hour ozone National
December 18, 2017. If we take final
action to approve the submitted rule our • is not subject to requirements of Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 12(d) of the National (NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’) in the portion
final action will incorporate this rule
Technology Transfer and Advancement of the Western Mojave Desert ozone
into the federally enforceable SIP.
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because nonattainment area under the
III. Incorporation by Reference application of those requirements would jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The EPA
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; is also proposing to approve MDAQMD
include in a final EPA rule regulatory and negative declarations into the SIP for the
text that includes incorporation by • does not provide the EPA with the 2008 ozone standards. We are proposing
reference. In accordance with discretionary authority to address action on local SIP revisions under the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is disproportionate human health or Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
proposing to incorporate by reference environmental effects with practical, taking comments on this proposal and
the MDAQMD rule described in Table 1 appropriate, and legally permissible plan to follow with a final action.
of this preamble. The EPA has made, methods under Executive Order 12898 DATES: Any comments must arrive by
and will continue to make, these (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). December 18, 2017.
materials available through In addition, the SIP is not approved to ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA apply on any Indian reservation land or identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
Region IX Office (please contact the in any other area where the EPA or an OAR–2017–0564 at https://
person identified in the FOR FURTHER Indian tribe has demonstrated that a www.regulations.gov/, or via email to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:57 Nov 16, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM 17NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_54528/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-11-17 05:14:58
Document Modified: 2017-11-17 05:14:58
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by December 18, 2017. | |
| Contact | Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 54307 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR