Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 82363 

between the NEPA planning process 

and the rulemaking process, may also be 

found on the PEPC Web site for this 

project http://parkplanning.nps.gov/

WASO. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To 

determine the scope of issues to be 

addressed in the EIS and to identify 

significant issues related to the 

proposed regulations revision, the NPS 

is seeking public comment on the draft 

purpose and need, objectives, and issues 

and concerns related to revisions of the 

NPS regulations governing nonfederal 

oil and gas development on units of the 

National Park System. The NPS also 

seeks comment on possible alternatives 

it should consider for revising the 

regulations. The NPS invites the public 

to submit comments electronically on 

the NPS Planning, Environment and 

Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/WASO or 

by mail to the address cited in the 

ADDRESSES section during the 60-day 

comment period following the 

publication of this notice of intent in the 

Federal Register. 

The NPS does not plan to hold 

national public scoping meetings for 

this DEIS due to the programmatic 

nature of the regulations and the widely 

dispersed locations of the 45 parks that 

could be affected by the revisions. 

However, some individual parks may 

choose to hold public scoping meetings 

in their locality. Such meetings would 

be advertised by those parks using their 

normal media and mailing list contacts. 

At present, 12 park units contain 

existing nonfederal oil and gas 

development within their boundaries. 

The NPS promulgated regulations at 

36 CFR part 9, subpart B (‘‘9B 

regulations’’) governing nonfederal oil 

and gas development in units of the 

National Park System in December 

1978, with a January 1979 effective date. 

The regulations control all activities 

associated with nonfederal oil and gas 

development inside park boundaries 

where access is on, across, or through 

federally owned or controlled lands or 

waters. At this time 693 nonfederal oil 

and gas operations exist in a total of 12 

units of the National Park System. 

The purpose of the 9B regulations is 

to avoid or minimize the adverse effects 

of nonfederal oil and gas operations on 

natural and cultural resources, visitor 

uses and experiences, provide for public 

safety, and minimize adverse effects on 

park infrastructure and management. 

Revisions to the 9B regulations are 

needed because: 

• The NPS has limited ability to 

address 53% of nonfederal oil and gas 

operations (grandfathered operations 

and operations that do not require 

access across federally owned lands) 

that are currently exempt from the 9B 

regulatory requirements. 

• The existing regulations do not 

incorporate industry advances in 

technology and practices developed 

over the last 30 years. 

• The existing regulations limit the 

NPS ability to require adequate financial 

assurance from operators to ensure that 

funds are available to reclaim operation 

sites in the event operators fail to fulfill 

their obligations under an approved 

plan of operations. 

• There is an opportunity to have 

more understandable, comprehensive, 

and enforceable operating standards. 

• The NPS has limited means under 

the existing regulations to address 

minor violations of an approved plan of 

operations or the 9B regulations that 

would not justify a suspension. 

• The existing regulations do not 

clearly state the scope of NPS 

jurisdiction for directional drilling 

operations sited on lands outside park 

boundaries. 

• The existing regulations are not 

consistent with practices of other 

Federal agencies and private 

landowners by requiring compensation 

for privileged access across federally 

owned lands for operators accessing 

their leaseholds. 

• The existing regulations do not 

provide a means for the NPS, as 

appropriate, to recover the costs for 

processing and monitoring nonfederal 

oil and gas operations in parks. 

The NPS has identified the following 

draft objectives for revising the 9B 

regulations: 

• All operations within the boundary 

of NPS units are regulated under the 9B 

regulations. 

• Operating standards are updated to 

incorporate new scientific findings, 

technologies, and methods least 

damaging to park resources and values. 

• The public and park staff are 

protected from health and safety 

hazards associated with nonfederal oil 

and gas operations. 

• Financial assurance is adequate to 

ensure that park resources and values 

are protected. 

• The regulations provide a practical 

means for dealing with minor acts of 

noncompliance or with illegal 

operations (unauthorized operations). 

• Fair compensation for an operator’s 

use of federal land outside of its 

leasehold is obtained. 

• Regulations are more 

understandable to the regulated 

operating community, public, and park 

staff. 

• Directional drilling operations are 

regulated to retain incentives for 

operators to site operations outside of 

parks but still retain the NPS’ ability to 

protect park resources and values to the 

fullest extent practical. 

The draft and final 9B Regulations 

Revision EIS will be made available to 

all known interested parties and 

appropriate agencies. Full public 

participation by Federal, State, and local 

agencies as well as other concerned 

organizations and private citizens is 

invited throughout the preparation 

process of this document. 

The responsible official for this 9B 

Regulations Revision EIS is Herbert 

Frost, Associate Director for Natural 

Resources Stewardship and Science, 

1849 C Street, NW., Room 3130, 

Washington, DC 20240–0001. 

Dated: December 10, 2010. 

Herbert C. Frost, 

Associate Director, Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32545 Filed 12–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–EH–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0259; FRL–9245–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Ohio; Volatile 

Organic Compound Emission Control 

Measures for Lithographic and 

Letterpress Printing in Cleveland 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2010, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) submitted revisions to its 

previously approved offset lithographic 

and letterpress printing volatile organic 

compound (VOC) rule for approval into 

the Ohio State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This submittal revises certain 

compliance date and recordkeeping 

requirements of this rule, which was 

previously approved as satisfying the 

VOC reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) requirement for 

Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, 

Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit 

Counties. These rule revisions are 

approvable because they satisfy the 

requirements of RACT and the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0259, by one of the 

following methods: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
82364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0259. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal at (312) 886–6052 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What action is EPA taking today? 

III. What is the purpose of this action? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

submitted VOC rule? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What action is EPA taking today? 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

revised offset lithographic and 

letterpress printing rule (OAC 3745–21– 

22), submitted to EPA on March 9, 2010, 

into the Ohio SIP. This VOC rule 

applies to offset lithographic and 

letterpress printing operations in 

Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, 

Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit 

Counties. 

III. What is the purpose of this action? 

The primary purpose of this action is 

to allow an alternative for 

demonstrating compliance with add-on 

control requirements, and to specify 

recordkeeping requirements, when a 

recipe log is maintained for each batch 

of fountain solution or cleaning 

solution. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

submitted VOC rule? 

General discussion of rule—This rule 

applies to offset lithographic and 

letterpress printing facilities in 

Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, 

Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit 

Counties, the former Cleveland-Akron 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area whose 

actual VOC emissions, before the 

application of control systems, are equal 

to or greater than three tons of VOCs per 

rolling twelve-month period. Under this 

rule, a heatset web offset lithographic 

printing press, or a heatset web 

letterpress printing press, with potential 

VOC ink oil emissions from the press 

dryer that are greater than 25 tons per 

year before control must maintain dryer 

air pressure lower than the pressroom 

air pressure and have a control system 

that achieves 90 percent control (or 95 

percent control for a control system 

installed after the effective date of this 

rule) or maintain a maximum VOC 

outlet concentration of 20 ppmv. This 

rule restricts the VOC content of 

fountain solutions used by offset 

lithographic presses, based on the type 

of offset lithographic press in use at a 

facility. Cleaning solutions used on 

subject lithographic or letterpress 

printing presses must either be at or 

below 70 percent by weight VOC, or be 

at or below ten millimeters of mercury 

at 20 degrees Celsius. This rule also 

contains the appropriate test methods 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 82365 

for determining the VOC concentration 

of the exhaust stream and the VOC 

content of the fountain solution and 

cleaning solution. This rule includes 

methods to determine the vapor 

pressure of the cleaning solution. The 

rule also includes monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements to ensure 

that the control systems are operating 

properly, to establish whether the VOC 

content of the cleaning solution and 

fountain solution are in compliance 

with the applicable limits, and to 

establish whether an offset lithographic 

or letterpress printing facility is subject 

to one or more of the control 

requirements of the rule. This rule is 

consistent with the VOC control 

requirements in the September 2006 

EPA guidance document ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Offset 

Lithographic Printing and Letterpress 

Printing.’’ The Control Technique 

Guideline documents were required to 

be established by the CAA and establish 

RACT for their respective source 

categories. In addition, the 

recordkeeping and other provisions 

result in enforceable control 

requirements. 

Discussion of Rule Revisions 

The rule at 3745–21–22(E)(2)(a) 

specifies compliance dates for offset 

lithographic or letterpress printing 

facilities that are achieving compliance 

by using an add-on control device. 

These facilities are allowed to 

demonstrate compliance with an 

emission test conducted prior to the 

effective date of the rule if an approved 

EPA test method was used, the 

operation of the press(es) was consistent 

with their current operating conditions 

and, if requested, the test was witnessed 

by the Ohio EPA. This is a reasonable 

alternative which allows a printing 

facility to take advantage of a well 

documented test to demonstrate 

compliance and is therefore approvable. 

The rule at 3745–21–22(G)(3) 

specifies recordkeeping requirements 

for owners or operators maintaining a 

recipe log for each batch of fountain 

solution prepared for use in their press. 

This recipe log must identify all recipes 

used to prepare the as-applied fountain 

solution and clearly identify the VOC 

content of each concentrated alcohol 

substitute added to make the fountain 

solution as well as the proportions in 

which the fountain solution is mixed 

and the calculated VOC content of the 

final, mixed recipe. 

The rule at 3745–21–22(G)(4) 

specifies recordkeeping requirements 

for owners or operators maintaining a 

recipe log for each batch of cleaning 

solution prepared. This recipe log must 

identify all recipes used to prepare the 

as-applied cleaning solution and clearly 

identify the VOC content of each 

cleaning solution or the VOC composite 

partial vapor pressure. The revisions to 

the recordkeeping requirements in 

3745–21–22(G)(3) and 3745–21–22(G)(4) 

are approvable because the resulting 

records are sufficient to determine 

whether complying fountain and 

cleaning solutions have been used. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR Part 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32928 Filed 12–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1033; FRL–9244–8] 

RIN–2060–AQ66 

Determinations Concerning Need for 

Error Correction, Partial Approval and 

Partial Disapproval, and Federal 

Implementation Plan Regarding Texas 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program; Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct its 

previous full approval of Texas’s Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to be a 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

and is proposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas. 

This action is based on EPA’s 

determination that Texas’s PSD program 

is flawed because the state did not 

address how the program would apply 

to all pollutants that would become 

newly subject to regulation in the 

future, including non-National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

pollutants, among them greenhouse 

gases (GHGs). The partial disapproval 

requires EPA to promulgate a FIP and so 

EPA is also proposing a FIP in order to 

assure that GHG-emitting sources in 

Texas are able to proceed with plans to 

construct or expand. In the ‘‘Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

taking this action including the FIP 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS