66658 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In accordance with these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

We have determined that these 

proposed definitions and requirements 

would impose minimal costs on eligible 

applicants. Program participation is 

voluntary, and the costs imposed on 

applicants by these definitions and 

requirements would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application. The potential benefits of 

implementing the programs would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants, and the costs of actually 

carrying out activities associated with 

the application would be paid for with 

program funds. For these reasons, we 

have determined that the costs of 

implementation would not be 

excessively burdensome for eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These proposed definitions and 

requirements do not contain any 

information collection requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define ‘‘small entities’’ 

as for-profit or nonprofit institutions 

with total annual revenue below 

$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions 

controlled by small governmental 

jurisdictions (that are comprised of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts), with a population of less than 

50,000. 

Although some of the ANOs, LEAs, 

and other entities that receive ANE 

program funds qualify as small entities 

under this definition, the proposed 

definitions and requirements would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

these small entities. The Department 

believes that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the proposed definitions 

and requirements would be limited to 

the costs related to providing the 

documentation outlined in the proposed 

definitions and requirements when 

preparing an application and that those 

costs would not be significant. 

Participation in the ANE program is 

voluntary. We invite comments from 

small entities as to whether they believe 

the proposed definitions and 

requirements would have a significant 

economic impact on them and, if so, we 

request evidence to support that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations via the 

Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys. At this site you can view this 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: December 20, 2018. 

Frank Brogan, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28130 Filed 12–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0512; FRL–9988–53– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; Mojave 

Desert Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from wood products 

coating operations and organic solvent 

degreasing operations. We are proposing 

to approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). We are also 

proposing to approve revisions to a 

definitions rule. Finally, we are 

proposing to convert the partial 

conditional approval of the District’s 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) SIPs for the 1997 and 2008 

ozone standards, as it applies to VOC 

emissions from wood products coating 

operations and organic solvent 

degreasing operations, to a full 

approval. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 28, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0512 at http://

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. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66659 

1On July 1, 1994 the Palo Verde Valley area left 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) and became part of the MDAQMD. The 

EPA’s April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962) approval of 

Rule 1114, amended February 22, 1995, constituted 

a new SIP rule for the San Bernardino portion of 

MDAQMD, and replaced SCAQMD Rule 1136— 

Wood Products Coatings, amended August 2, 1991 

(59 FR 17697, April 14, 1994), for the Palo Verde 

Valley portion of the District. EPA’s August 18, 

1998 approval of MDAQMD Rule 1114, amended 

November 25, 1996, replaced the February 22, 1995 

version for the entire District. 

2The District’s submittal requests that the 

amended version of Rule 1104 supersede both the 

existing version of Rule 1104, and the December 20, 

1993 (58 FR 66285) version of SCAQMD Rule 1171 

(August 2, 1991), which is applicable in the 

Riverside portion of the MDACMD. Rule 1104 Staff 

Report at 9–10. 

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 revisions? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

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 proposal with the dates that they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted 

MDAQMD ................................ 1114 Wood Products Coating Operations ...................................... 1/22/2018 5/23/2018 

MDAQMD ................................ 1104 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations ............................... 4/23/2018 7/16/2018 

MDAQMD ................................ 102 Definition of Terms ................................................................. 4/23/2018 8/22/2018 

On September 19, 2018, the EPA 

determined that the submittals for 

MDAQMD Rules 1114 and 1104 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. On September 24, 

2018, the EPA determined that the 

submittal for MDAQMD Rule 102 met 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51 Appendix V. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 1114 into the SIP on August 18, 

1998 (63 FR 44132).1 We approved an 

earlier version of Rule 1104 into the SIP 

on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 18962).2 We 

approved an earlier version of Rule 102 

into the SIP on November 27, 1990 (55 

FR 49281) for the San Bernardino 

portion of the MDAQMD. We approved 

amendments to South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 

102 into the SIP on March 28, 1979 (44 

FR 18491). On June 9, 1982 (47 FR 

25013), we approved a revision to the 

SIP, making the SCAQMD rules 

applicable in Riverside County. 

Accordingly, SCAQMD Rule 102, as 

modified November 4, 1977, and 

approved on March 28, 1979, is the 

current definitions rule for the Riverside 

portion of the MDAQMD. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

Volatile organic compounds 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 1114 establishes VOC 

content limits for coatings and 

adhesives used on new wood products 

and used for refinishing, repairing, 

preserving, or restoring wood products. 

It establishes requirements for 

application methods, surface 

preparation and cleanup, add-on control 

systems, and work practices. The rule 

includes test methods, and 

recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements. The rule revisions 

include lower VOC limits for several 

coatings and cleaning solvents, and a 

higher minimum control efficiency for 

add-on controls. Rule 1104 establishes 

VOC emission limits for wipe cleaning 

and degreasing operations using organic 

solvents. It establishes requirements for 

VOC content in cleaning solvents, 

control equipment, cleaning equipment 

and methods, and operations. The rule 

includes test methods, and 

administrative and recordkeeping 

requirements. The rule revisions 

include a lower VOC limit for solvent 

cleaning, a higher minimum control 

efficiency for add-on controls, and 

updates to applicability, control 

equipment requirements, work practice 

standards, exemptions, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and test methods. 

Rules 1114 and 1104 are two of 10 

rules addressed in the partial approval 

and partial conditional approval of the 

MDAQMD’s 2006 and 2015 reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

SIPs (83 FR 5921, February 12, 2018). 

Our partial conditional approval of the 

RACT SIPs was based on a commitment 

by the State to remedy identified 

deficiencies in each of the 10 rules. The 

District submitted revised Rules 1114 

and 1104 to address and correct the 

deficiencies identified in that RACT SIP 

action for wood products coatings 

operations and for organic solvent 

degreasing operations. 

Rule 102 was updated to shift 

common definitions used throughout 

the District rulebook to Rule 102, and to 

update definitions for consistency and 

clarity. 

The EPA’s technical support 

documents (TSDs) have more 

information about these rules. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

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, and each 

major source of VOC emissions 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 2008 ozone standard (40 

CFR 81.305) and both Rule 1114 and 

Rule 1104 regulate sources covered by 

the CTG documents listed below. 

Therefore, these two rules must 

implement RACT for those sources, or 

the MDAQMD must submit a negative 

declaration that there are no sources in 

the relevant CTG category that exceed 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
66660 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 247 / Thursday, December 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers, From: 

William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division (C539–01) To: Regional Air Division 

Directors, US EPA, May 18, 2006. 

the CTG threshold.3 The District has not 

submitted negative declarations for 

these CTG categories; therefore, we have 

evaluated Rule 1114 and Rule 1104 to 

ensure that they implement RACT for 

these CTG categories. 

In addition, the EPA is evaluating 

Rules 1104 and 1114 to determine 

whether the updated rules meet the 

District’s commitment to cure the 

deficiencies identified in partial 

conditional approval of the District’s 

RACT SIPs with respect to wood 

products coatings operations and 

organic solvent degreasing operations. 

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. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

‘‘Bluebook,’’ revised January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the ‘‘Little Bluebook’’). 

3. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations’’ 

(EPA–453/R–96–007, April 1996). 

4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning’’ 

(EPA–450/2–77–022, November 1977). 

5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents’’ (EPA– 

453/R–06–001, September 2006). 

6. CARB’s RACT/Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 

guidance titled, ‘‘Organic Solvent 

Cleaning and Degreasing Operations’’ 

(July 18, 1991). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

These rules are consistent with CAA 

requirements and relevant guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

revisions. In addition, Rules 1104 and 

1114 cure the deficiencies identified in 

the partial conditional approval of the 

District’s RACT SIPs with respect to 

wood products coatings operations and 

organic solvent degreasing operations. 

The TSDs have more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs include recommendations 

for the next time the local agency 

modifies the rules. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rules because 

they fulfill all relevant requirements. In 

addition, we propose to convert the 

partial conditional approval of the 

District’s RACT SIPs with respect to 

Rules 1104 and 1114, as found in 40 

CFR 52.248(d), to a full approval. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until January 28, 2019. 

If we take final action to approve the 

submitted rules, our final action will 

incorporate these rules 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 rules 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 

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: December 14, 2018. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28117 Filed 12–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL