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 SO2 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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60319 

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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1As 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. 

2The 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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS