11480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 

3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this rule. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking 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. 

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 in this NPRM 

as being available in this 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. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.371 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 117.371 Savannah River. 

(a) The draw of the James P. Houlihan 

(SR 25) Bridge, mile 21.6 at Port 

Wentworth, Georgia, shall open if at 

least a 24 hour advance notice is given. 

Openings can be arranged by contacting 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

Savannah Area Office at 1–912–651– 

2144. 

(b) The draw of the CSX 

Transportation Railroad Bridge, mile 

27.4 near Hardeeville, South Carolina, 

shall open if at least a 24 hour advance 

notice is given. Openings can be 

arranged by contacting CSX 

Transportation at 1–800–232–0144. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 1, 2021. 

Eric C. Jones, 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, 

Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03683 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0601; FRL–10019– 

96–Region 9] 

Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval 

of California Air Plan Revision; YoloSolano Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from solvent 

cleaning and degreasing operations. We 

are proposing action on a local rule that 

regulates 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 March 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0601 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. 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. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX (415) 

972–3024, lazarus.arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11481 

1 (40 CFR 81.305). 

2 Id. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What is the rule deficiency? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

E. Proposed Action And Public Comment 

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 No. Rule title Revised Submitted 

YSAQMD ................................ 2.31 Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing ......................................... 04/12/2017 08/09/2017 

On February 9, 2018, the submittal for 

YSAQMD Rule 2.31 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet 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? 

There is a previous version of Rule 

2.31 in the SIP, revised on May 8, 2013, 

submitted to the EPA by CARB on 

February 10, 2014, and approved into 

the SIP on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23449). 

There have been no other versions 

submitted since the SIP-approved 

version. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

VOCs contribute to the production of 

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 

emissions of VOCs. The purpose of Rule 

2.31 is to limit the emissions of VOCs 

from solvent cleaning operations and 

solvent degreasing operations, and from 

the storage and disposal of materials 

used for such operations. 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 YSAQMD regulates an 

ozone nonattainment area classified as 

Severe nonattainment for the 2008 and 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 1 and 

Moderate nonattainment for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS.2 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 of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Solvent Metal Cleaning,’’ EPA–450/2– 

77–022, November 1977. 

5. ‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents’’ EPA–453/R– 

06–001, September 2006. 

6. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Coating Operations at 

Aerospace manufacturing and Rework 

Operations’’ EPA–453/R–97–004, December 

1997. 

7. ‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for 

Flexible Package Printing’’ EPA 453/R–06– 

003, September 2006. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Rule 2.31 improves the SIP by 

establishing one more stringent 

emission limit and by clarifying 

monitoring, recording and 

recordkeeping provisions. The rule is 

largely consistent with CAA 

requirements and with relevant 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP revisions. The rule provision that 

does not meet the evaluation criteria is 

summarized below and discussed 

further in the TSD. 

C. What is the rule deficiency? 

The following provision does not 

satisfy the requirements of section 110 

and part D of title I of the Act and 

prevents full approval of the SIP 

revision. Section 110.6 exempts from 

the requirements of Rule 2.31 ‘‘[a]ny 

solvent degreasing operations that are 

subject to the NESHAP requirements of 

40 CFR part 63 Subpart T- National 

Emission Standards for Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning.’’ CAA Section 

182(b)(2) (‘‘Reasonably available control 

technology’’) states that ‘‘[t]he State 

shall submit a revision to the applicable 

implementation plan to include 

provisions to require the 

implementation of reasonably available 

control technology . . . .’’ Historically, 

some states and districts believed that 

they could rely on NESHAP 

requirements to satisfy RACT SIP 

requirements, especially where a district 

had been delegated authority to enforce 

the NESHAP rule. However, delegation 

of authority to a district or state to 

enforce a NESHAP rule does not put 

that rule or its emission limitations into 

the SIP. Thus, this exemption under 

section 110.6 of YSAQMD rule 2.31 

does not meet CAA section 182(b)(2) 

because the RACT requirements for 

sources subject to the NESHAP 

requirements of 40 CFR Subpart T are 

not included in the SIP. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

None, except to correct the deficiency 

regarding the NESHAP exemption. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the submitted 

rule. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until March 29, 

2021. If finalized, the action will 

incorporate the submitted rule into the 

SIP, including the provision identified 

11482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

as deficient. This approval is limited 

because the EPA is simultaneously 

proposing a limited disapproval of the 

rule under section 110(k)(3). 

In addition, a final limited 

disapproval would trigger sanctions 

under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 

52.31 unless the EPA approves 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

rule deficiencies within 18 months of 

the effective date of the final action. 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the YSAQMD, and the EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also would 

not prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf. 

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 YSAQMD 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 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

state, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 9, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03197 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0014; FRL–10020– 

56–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

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

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and particulate matter (PM) from