This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

42480 

Vol. 78, No. 136 

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016] 

RIN 1904–AC76 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2013– 

16281, appearing on pages 41610–41675 

in the issue of Wednesday, July 10, 

2013, make the following correction: 

On page 41610, in the second column, 

in the third paragraph, in the first and 

second lines, the electronic-mail 

address in item number ‘‘2.’’ that reads 

‘‘#Res-Refrig-Freezer-2012-BT-TP0016@ee.doe.gov.’’ should read ‘‘ResRefrig-Freezer-2012-BT-TP0016@ee.doe.gov.’’ 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–16281 Filed 7–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No.: FAA–2013–0142; Notice No. 

25–139] 

RIN 2120–AK12 

Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards—Gust and Maneuver Load 

Requirements 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2013– 

12445 appearing on pages 31851–31860 

in the issue of Tuesday, May 28, 2013, 

make the following corrections: 

§ 25.341 [Corrected] 

1. In the second column, in the 

twelfth line from the bottom, the entry 

‘‘Uσρεφ’’ should read ‘‘Uσref’’. 

In a correction to the above referenced 

document, C1–2013–12445, appearing 

on page 37722, in the issue of Monday, 

June 24, 2013, make the following 

correction: 

§ 25.341 [Corrected] 

2. In the third column, on lines eight 

and nine the entry ‘‘Uσρεφ’’ should read: 

‘‘Uσref’’. 

[FR Doc. C2–2013–12445 Filed 7–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–P 

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: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0413; FRL–9834–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Whenever new or revised national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

are promulgated, the CAA requires 

states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made a 

submittal addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

This action proposes approval of 

portions of the submittal. This action is 

being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0413 by one of the 

following methods: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1