Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39017 

revisions remove the ability of kraft 

pulp mills that exceed their NOX limits 

and caps to comply by purchasing or 

otherwise acquiring NOX allowances 

from EPA’s ozone season NOX trading 

program by removing these provisions 

in COMAR 26.11.14 and 26.11.01. The 

removal of the provisions allowing 

purchase of additional allowances 

removes the potential for increased local 

NOX emissions. 

The May 15, 2018 Maryland SIP 

submittal does not result in increased 

NOX emissions, and therefore has no 

impact on any requirements related to 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other NAAQS requirements 

under the CAA. The submittal therefore 

meets section 110(l) of the CAA. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that Maryland’s May 18, 2018 

SIP revision submittal (Maryland SIP 

Revision #18–03) is approvable in 

accordance with CAA section 110. For 

the reasons noted previously, EPA is 

proposing to approve the Maryland SIP 

revision submitted on May 15, 2018. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this proposed action, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference new Maryland regulation 

COMAR 26.11.40 and associated 

revisions to COMAR 26.11.01 and 

COMAR 26.11.14.07. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

http://www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region III Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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 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 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 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 action proposing 

approval of Maryland regulation 

COMAR 26.11.40 and associated 

revisions to other COMAR regulations 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16778 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0711; FRL–9981– 

91—Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revision, South Coast 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 South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from architectural 

coatings. We are proposing to approve a 

local rule to regulate emissions from 

architectural coatings 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 

September 7, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0711 at http://

www.regulations.gov. 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39018 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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 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. 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 

action with the date that it was adopted 

by the local air agency and submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). On February 22, 2018, CARB 

requested the withdrawal from its 

earlier SIP submittal of one sentence 

from two definitions (‘‘Bond Breakers’’ 

and ‘‘Form Release Compounds’’), 

which exempted these materials from 

the rule, due to the adoption of a rule 

regulating these materials. Accordingly, 

our proposed approval of this rule does 

not include the two withdrawn 

sentences. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SCAQMD ........................................................ 1113 Architectural Coatings .................................... 2/5/2016 8/22/2016 

On September 27, 2016, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

SCAQMD Rule 1113 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 

SCAQMD Rule 1113 into the SIP on 

March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18244). 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

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 VOC 

emissions. Architectural coatings are 

applied to stationary structures and 

their accessories. They include house 

paints, stains, industrial maintenance 

coatings, traffic coatings, and many 

other products. VOCs are emitted from 

the coatings during application and 

curing, and from the associated solvents 

used for thinning and clean-up. 

SCAQMD Rule 1113 controls VOC 

emissions by establishing VOC limits on 

architectural coatings. SCAQMD Rule 

1113 was revised to increase stringency 

and reduce VOC emissions by updating 

VOC content limits, and restricting the 

small container exemption (less than 1 

quart) for high-VOC 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 

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 SCAQMD has been 

designated as Extreme nonattainment 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 

CFR 81.305). As addressed further in the 

EPA’s TSD for this rule, there are no 

relevant EPA CTG documents and 

architectural coatings are considered 

area sources. Therefore, architectural 

coating sources are not subject to RACT 

requirements. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation, and rule stringency 

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 and 57 FR 18070, 

April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ 

(‘‘the Bluebook,’’ U.S. EPA, May 25, 

1988; revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies’’ (‘‘the Little Bluebook’’, 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). 

4. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR 59.400, 

Subpart D, Table 1, VOC Content Limits 

for Architectural Coatings. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

CAA requirements and relevant 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

stringency, and SIP revisions. The TSD 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. 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 

September 7, 2018. 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 SCAQMD 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39019 

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16795 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215; FRL–9981– 

75—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; District of 

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

Maryland and Virginia Redesignation 

Requests and District of Columbia, 

Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance 

Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 

2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the requests from the State of Maryland 

(Maryland) and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (Virginia) to redesignate to 

attainment their respective portions of 

the Washington, DC-MD-VA 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

Washington Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) for the 

2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or standard) 

(also referred to as the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS). EPA is not proposing to 

approve the redesignation request for 

the District of Columbia (the District) for 

its portion of the Area; EPA will address 

the District’s redesignation request for 

its portion of the Area in a separate 

rulemaking action. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

state implementation plans (SIPs), the 

joint maintenance plan submitted by the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia. The 

joint maintenance plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030 in the Washington Area. 

Approval of a maintenance plan is 

among the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment, as 

discussed in more detail in this notice. 

The Washington Area maintenance plan 

includes motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

which are precursors to ozone. EPA has 

found the MVEBs adequate and is 

proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, 

these 2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the Washington Area. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 7, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0215 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.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, 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. 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 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email 

at calcinore.sara@epa.gov. 

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 are the actions EPA is proposing? 

II. What is the background for these proposed 

actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area? 

A. Has the Washington Area attained the 

2008 ozone NAAQS? 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS