### 60318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

element J herein for a discussion of the SIP’s public participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD SIP’s public participation requirements. Additionally, the TCAA also requires initiation of cooperative action between local authorities and the TCEQ, between one local authority and another, or among any combination of local authorities and the TCEQ for control of air pollution in areas having related air pollution problems that overlap the boundaries of political subdivisions, and entering into agreements and compacts with adjoining states and Indian tribes, where appropriate. III. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the April 23, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission from Texas, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (PSD portion), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is not proposing action on: The portion pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which concerns interstate pollution transport affecting attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and the portion pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) pertaining to visibility protection. 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, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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 the 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).

The EPA is not proposing to approve this infrastructure SIP certification 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, this proposed approval of an infrastructure SIP certification does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 22, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015–25337 Filed 10–5–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0530; FRL–9935–06– Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Maryland; Maryland’s Negative Declaration for the Automobile and**  **Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to a negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0530 by one of the following methods:

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov

. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0530, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 0530. 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 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 EPA will not know your


### 60319 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to 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, 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.

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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 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 in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain ozone nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area’s date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.’’ 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).

CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information to assist them in determining RACT for VOC from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC, which contribute to ozone levels, in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.

In 1977, EPA published a CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings. After reviewing the 1977 CTG for this industry, conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for this industry, and taking into account any information that has become available since then, EPA developed a new CTG entitled Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-duty Assembly Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R–08–006; September 2008).

States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein. Alternatively, states can adopt a negative declaration documenting that there are no sources or emitting facilities within the state to which the CTG is applicable. The negative declaration must go through the same public review process as any other SIP submittal. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA’s Evaluation

On July 15, 2015, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted to EPA a SIP revision concerning a negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG. MDE stated that the state previously had one source to which this CTG was applicable; however, the source had permanently shut down and dismantled all their equipment as of September 2005.

EPA reviewed an inspection report provided by MDE indicating that the sole source to which this CTG would have been applicable did indeed permanently shut down in 2005. Additionally, EPA conducted an internet search of key terms relevant to the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG and confirmed that there are no sources or emitting facilities in the State of Maryland to which this CTG is applicable. III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision concerning the negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG, which was submitted on July 15, 2015. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 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 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 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


### 60320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1 As noted in the ANPRM (80 FR at 43664), in the near future NHTSA will be issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking on improving the standards’ performance requirements for guards on all vehicles subject to the standards.

2 The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) submitted a comment to the docket requesting a ‘‘90-day extension’’ of the comment period for the ANPRM. The request did not meet NHTSA’s requirements for timely submissions of petitions for extension of the time to submit comments (see 49 CFR 553.19). The agency’s reopening of the comment period does not result from NRMCA’s untimely petition. NHTSA also notes that NRMCA’s requested 90 day period is excessively long. NRMCA did not explain why 90 additional days, on top of the 60 days originally provided, are needed to respond to the ANPRM. health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule concerning Maryland’s negative declaration for the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG, 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, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 21, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015–25346 Filed 10–5–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety Administration** 

**49 CFR Part 571**

**[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0070]**

**RIN 2127–AL57**

**Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Protection,**  **Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Single Unit**  **Trucks**

**AGENCY :**  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

**ACTION :**  Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

**SUMMARY :**  This document reopens the comment period for a July 23, 2015 advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that NHTSA issued in response to a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition relating to rear impact (underride) guards. The original comment period closed September 21, 2015. The agency is reopening the comment period for 30 days.

**DATES :**  The comment closing date for the July 23, 2015 ANPRM (Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0070; 80 FR 43663) is November 5, 2015. **ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket Number) by any of the following methods: the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of the ANPRM (Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0070).

You may also call the Docket at 202–
366–9324.

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the discussion under the ‘‘Submission of Comments’’ heading of the July 23, 2015 ANPRM (80 FR at 43679). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For technical issues, you may contact Robert Mazurowski, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202–366–1012) (fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, you may contact Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202–366– 2992) (fax: 202–366–3820). The address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On July 23, 2015, NHTSA published an ANPRM (80 FR 43663) pertaining to a petition for rulemaking from Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition (petitioners) regarding possible amendments to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) relating to rear impact (underride) guards (FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224). The petitioners requested that NHTSA require underride guards on vehicles not currently required by the FMVSSs to have guards, notably, single unit trucks, and improve the standards’ performance requirements for all guards. The ANPRM requested comment on NHTSA’s estimated cost and benefits of requirements for underride guards on single unit trucks, and for retroreflective material on the rear and sides of the vehicles to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles to other motorists. 1 NHTSA provided a 60-day comment period for the ANPRM, which closed September 21, 2015. Reopening of Comment Period

NHTSA is reopening the comment period for the ANPRM for 30 days. 2 NHTSA believes that a 30 day period is sufficient and balances the interests of encouraging public participation in the rulemaking process with the desire to not unnecessarily delay key decisions by NHTSA about the rulemaking and attainment of the potential societal benefits associated with a final rule.

Accordingly, the public comment closing dates for DOT Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0070 (RIN 2127–AL57) is reopened for 30 days as indicated in the

**DATES** section of this document. NHTSA notes that the 30 day period is in addition to the time that has passed since the original September 21 comment closing date until today. Thus, all in all, more than 30 days has been provided. It is further noted that the agency will consider late comments to the extent possible.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015–25377 Filed 10–5–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–59–P**