### 37130 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0362; FRL–9815–5]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego Air**  **Pollution Control District**

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

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. We are approving a local rule that regulates this emission source under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on August 19, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 22, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2013–0362, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions. 2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126, law.nicole@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to 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? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further

Improve the Rule D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SDAPCD .......................................... 67.0 Architectural Coatings ................................................... 1 2/12/01 03/07/08

On April 17, 2008, EPA determined that the submittal for SDAPCD Rule 67.0 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 Rule 67.0 into the SIP on March 27, 1997 (62 FR 14639). The SDAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on December 12, 2001 and CARB submitted them to us on March 7, 2008. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SDAPCD Rule 67.0 adds several new coating categories and lowers existing VOC limits. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each VOC major stationary source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Because SDAPCD Rule 67.0 covers an area source and not a stationary source and does not have a CTG, it does not need to require RACT controls.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and stringency requirements consistently 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); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).


### 37131 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. ‘‘Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings,’’ CARB, October
2007.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, stringency, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by July 22, 2013, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on August 19, 2013. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP. III. 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 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 Clean Air Act. 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 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, this rule 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.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 19, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: May 6, 2013. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart F—California**

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(354)(i)(F)( 3) to read as follows:

**§ 52.220 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (354) * * * (i) * * * (F) * * *


### 37132 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

( 3) Rule 67.0, ‘‘Architectural Coatings,’’ adopted on December 12,
2001.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013–14511 Filed 6–19–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0385; FRL–9824–2]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revised Format**  **for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference for Florida; Approval of**  **Recodification of the Florida Administrative Code; Correcting**  **Amendments**

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

**ACTION :**  Correcting amendments.

**SUMMARY :**  On June 16, 1999, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register approving a Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on April 15, 1996. The submission related to miscellaneous changes and the recodification of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In addition, the submittal also contained several regulations that were supposed to be removed from the SIP. EPA’s June 16, 1999, action approved the miscellaneous rule revisions, repeals and corrections; however, it failed to ensure the regulatory text reflected all of the repeals. This correcting amendment corrects and clarifies errors in the regulatory language in paragraph (c) of EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rule.

**DATES :**  Effective on June 20, 2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9222. Ms. Sheckler can be reached via electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Today’s action corrects inadvertent errors in EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rulemaking. Specifically, this correcting amendment clarifies that EPA’s June 16, 1999, action approved the State’s implementation plan revision that repealed F.A.C. rules 62–297.411 (DEP Method 1), 62–297.412 (DEP Method 2), 62–297.413 (DEP Method 3), 62–297.415 (DEP Method 5), 62–297.416 (DEP Method 5A), 62– 297.417 (DEP Method 6) and, 62– 297.423 (EPA Method 12-Determination of Inorganic Lead Emissions from Stationary Emission Units). The June 16, 1999, final rule approved the removal of the test method rules from the SIP. These rules were repealed because they were obsolete. Another rule change provided for the incorporation of the federally approved American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods. However, EPA’s regulatory text did not properly indicate that the rules were repealed. This action corrects these inadvertent errors.

EPA has determined that today’s actions fall under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because today’s action to correct inadvertent regulatory text errors included with EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rule are consistent with the substantive revisions to the Florida SIP described in the direct final rule addressing the miscellaneous revisions and the recodification of F.A.C. to make the SIP less complex and correct typographical errors. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in being notified of the correction, or in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since this correction action does not change the meaning of EPA’s analysis or action addressing the recodification and miscellaneous revisions to the Florida SIP. EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today’s action merely corrects inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of EPA’s prior rulemaking for the Florida SIP. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely corrects an inadvertent omission in the regulatory text of EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rule addressing the recodification of the Florida SIP, and miscellaneous changes and imposes no additional requirements beyond those already imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule merely corrects an inadvertent omission in the regulatory text of EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rules addressing miscellaneous revisions and the recodification of F.A.C. to make the SIP less complex and to correct typographical errors, and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that already required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of EPA’s June 16, 1999, final rule by removing certain repealed rules from the regulatory text, and does