```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42480-42482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17007]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0174: FRL-9834-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: 
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulatory Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve several revisions to 
Washington's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the 
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on February 4, 2005 
and August 2, 2006. The submissions contain revisions to the Puget 
Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA or PS Clean Air) regulations approved by 
the PSCAA Board in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0174, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101
    C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air 
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0174. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information that is 
restricted by statute from disclosure. Do not submit information that 
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, (206) 553-0256; or by email 
at hunt.jeff@epa.gov mailto:body.steve@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 42481]]

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Why are we proposing to approve these revisions?
    A. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation I, Section 12.03 
``Continuous Emission Monitoring System'' adopted September 23, 
2004.
    B. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation II, Section 1.05 
``Special Definitions'' and Regulation II, Section 3.04 ``Motor 
Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations'' adopted July 24, 
2003.
    C. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation II, Section 3.11 
``Coatings and Ink Manufacturing'' repealed February 24, 2005.
III. Summary of Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. This Action

    Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended by Congress in 1990, 
specifies the general requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain 
and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 
EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. As described in more 
detail in the following section, the EPA is proposing action on several 
revisions to the Washington SIP. We are proposing to approve and 
incorporate by reference into the SIP revisions to the PSCAA 
regulations found in Regulation I, Section 12.03 ``Continuous Emission 
Monitoring Systems'' adopted September 23, 2004; Regulation II, Section 
1.05 ``Special Definitions'' adopted July 24, 2003; and Regulation II, 
Section 3.04 ``Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations'' 
adopted July 24, 2003. The EPA is also proposing to remove from the 
Washington SIP Regulation II, Section 3.11 ``Coatings and Ink 
Manufacturing'' repealed February 24, 2005. Lastly, the EPA is 
proposing to take no action on revisions to PSCAA Regulation I, Article 
13 ``Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards''; Regulation I, Section 3.11 
``Civil Penalties''; Regulation I, Section 3.25 ``Federal Regulation 
Reference Date''; and Regulation II, Section 2.07 ``Gasoline Dispensing 
Facilities'' contained in Ecology's February 4, 2005 and August 2, 2006 
submissions because those regulations were subsequently revised by 
PSCAA.

II. Why are we proposing to approve these revisions?

    We are proposing to approve the SIP revisions submitted by Ecology 
on February 4, 2005 and August 2, 2006, because they serve to clarify 
and strengthen the State's existing SIP and are consistent with the CAA 
requirements. A more detailed explanation of the basis for our proposed 
action is provided below and in the materials included in the docket.

A. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation I, Section 12.03 ``Continuous 
Emission Monitoring System'' Adopted September 23, 2004

    EPA last approved Regulation I, Section 12.03 ``Continuous Emission 
Monitoring System'' on August 31, 2004, based on the PSCAA regulations 
adopted April 9, 1998 (69 FR 53007). As part of the review for that 
action, the EPA raised two concerns regarding the version adopted in 
1998. First, the EPA was concerned that exemption language contained in 
subsection 12.03(b)(1) referring to ``demonstrates to the Control 
Officer'' could be construed to limit the EPA's independent enforcement 
authority (69 FR 53008). At that time, the PSCAA satisfied the EPA's 
concern by submitting a letter clarifying that the control officer's 
determination is not binding on the EPA or citizens in an enforcement 
action. A footnote in the EPA's final approval states, ``To avoid any 
ambiguity regarding the issue in the future, PS Clean Air has advised 
EPA that it will make clarifying changes to Subsection 12.03(b)(1) 
within the next six months to remove the language `to the Control 
Officer.' The EPA supports this clarifying change.'' The EPA's second 
concern was related to subsection 12.03(b)(2) of the PSCAA regulations 
as they existed at that time. The EPA determined that exemption 
language contained in subsection 12.03(b)(2) ``would authorize PS Clean 
Air to modify standards or requirements relied on to attain and 
maintain the NAAQS by granting an exemption or alternative to such 
requirements without going through a SIP revision and, as such, is not 
approvable'' (69 FR 17370). In the EPA's final rulemaking, we 
specifically excluded subsection 12.03(b)(2) from the approved SIP.
    The revised PSCAA regulations in Ecology's February 4, 2005 SIP 
submittal address both concerns. First, a revised version of Regulation 
I, Section 12.03 ``Continuous Emission Monitoring System,'' adopted 
September 23, 2004, follows up on PSCAA's commitment to remove the `to 
the Control Officer' language previously identified by the EPA as a 
concern in subsection 12.03(b)(1). Second, PSCAA eliminated subsection 
12.03(b)(2) in response to the EPA's concern that the previous 
exemption language lacked explicit standards. Based on our review of 
the changes, the EPA is now proposing to approve all of Regulation I, 
Section 12.03 as meeting the requirements of the CAA.

B. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation II, Section 1.05 ``Special 
Definitions'' and Regulation II, Section 3.04 ``Motor Vehicle and 
Mobile Equipment Coating Operations'' Adopted July 24, 2003

    Ecology's February 4, 2005 submittal includes revisions to PSCAA 
Regulation II, Section 3.04 ``Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 
Coating Operations'' adopted July 24, 2003. The submittal also includes 
changes to Regulation II, Section 1.05 ``Special Definitions'' 
corresponding to the changes in Section 3.04. EPA last approved 
Regulation II, Section 3.04 ``Motor Vehicle and Equipment Coating 
Operations'' on June 29, 1995, based on the PSCAA regulations adopted 
December 9, 1993 (60 FR 33734). PSCAA adopted these regulations to 
control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from original vehicle 
coating and vehicle refinishing. Following adoption of the PSCAA rules, 
the EPA issued a new federal rule to regulate automobile refinishing on 
September 11, 1998 (40 CFR Parts 9 and 59--National VOC Emissions 
Standards for Auto Refinishing Coatings). Because the new federal 
automobile refinishing rule was more stringent than the existing PSCAA 
regulations, the PSCAA Board modified Section 3.04 to apply only to 
original equipment manufacturers, relying on the more stringent federal 
standards for auto refinishing. Similarly, the PSCAA Board revised 
Section 1.05 ``Special Definitions'' to be consistent with Section 
3.04, as well as other minor definition changes. More detailed analyses 
and strikeout versions of exact changes are included in Ecology's 
February 4, 2005 submittal, contained in the docket for this action. In 
the regulation revision impact analysis, PSCAA estimated that relying 
on ``(t)he EPA refinishing rule should reduce emissions from auto 
refinishing within the Agency's jurisdiction by about 113 tons VOC per 
year over the Agency's current rule. This is a 12% reduction in auto 
refinishing emissions.'' The EPA reviewed these changes and is 
proposing to approve Regulation II, Sections 1.05 and 3.04 as meeting 
the requirements of the CAA.

C. The EPA's Review of PSCAA Regulation II, Section 3.11 ``Coatings and 
Ink Manufacturing'' Repealed February 24, 2005

    The EPA last approved PSCAA Regulation II, Section 3.11 ``Coatings 
and Ink Manufacturing'' on March 20, 1997, based on PSCAA regulations 
adopted April 11, 1996 (62 FR 13331). PSCAA originally adopted these

[[Page 42482]]

regulations in 1991 to reduce VOC emissions from coating and ink 
manufactures. As a requirement of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the EPA 
published new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards 
for miscellaneous coating manufacturing that were much more stringent 
than the existing PSCAA regulations (National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing, 
December 11, 2003, 68 FR 69164, MACT Subpart HHHHH). In 2005, the PSCAA 
Board repealed Regulation II, Section 3.11, and is implementing and 
enforcing the more stringent MACT Subpart HHHHH NESHAP under a 
delegation agreement with the EPA. A copy of PSCAA's NESHAP delegation 
agreement with EPA is included in the docket. The EPA and PSCAA have 
concurrent enforcement authority for MACT Subpart HHHHH. The EPA is 
therefore proposing to approve Ecology's August 2, 2006 request to 
remove Regulation II, Section 3.11 ``Coatings and Ink Manufacturing'' 
from the SIP.

III. Summary of Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference into 
the SIP, revisions to the PSCAA regulations found in Regulation I, 
Section 12.03 ``Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems'' adopted 
September 23, 2004; Regulation II, Section 1.05 ``Special Definitions'' 
adopted July 24, 2003; and Regulation II, Section 3.04 ``Motor Vehicle 
and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations'' adopted July 24, 2003, 
because they are consistent with CAA requirements. The EPA is proposing 
to remove from the Washington SIP Regulation II, Section 3.11 
``Coatings and Ink Manufacturing,'' because these emission sources are 
covered by more stringent federal standards. Lastly, the EPA is 
proposing to take no action on revisions to PSCAA Regulation I, Article 
13 ``Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards''; Regulation I Section 3.11 
``Civil Penalties''; Regulation I Section 3.25 ``Federal Regulation 
Reference Date''; and Regulation II Section 2.07 ``Gasoline Dispensing 
Facilities'' contained in Ecology's February 4, 2005 and August 2, 2006 
submittals because these regulations were subsequently revised by 
PSCAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, 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 Clean Air Act; 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 it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in 
Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within 
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known 
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement 
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and 
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust 
lands within the 1873 Survey Area and EPA is therefore approving this 
SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter 
dated June 6, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-17007 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```