33312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary as the

regulations only require minimum

steerage way speeds and do not limit the

amount of incoming and outgoing

vessels.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632).

The Coast Guard certifies under

section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),

that this proposal, if adopted, would not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

there are no limits imposed on the

quantity of incoming or outgoing

vessels.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and it has been determined that

the rulemaking does not have sufficient

Federalism implication to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Analysis

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and has determined pursuant to figure

2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, that this

proposal is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A Categorical Exclusion Determination

and Environmental Analysis Checklist

will be prepared during the comment

period and will be available for

inspection and copying after the

comment period for this proposed

rulemaking has expired.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reports and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Proposed Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Subpart

F of Part 165 of Title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add a new § 165.756 to read as

follows:

§ 165.756 Regulated Navigation Area; San

Juan Harbor, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

(a) Regulated Area. The following is a

Regulated Navigation Area: All the

waters of San Juan Harbor bounded by

the following geographic coordinates:

Lighted Buoy #11 (LLNR 30805) in

approximate position 18–27.31N, 066–

07.01W; east to Puerto Rico Ports

Authority Pier #3 in approximate

position 18–27.40N, 066–06.43W; south

to Lighted Buoy ‘‘A’’ (LLNR 30845) in

approximate position 18–26.55N, 066–

06.26W; west to Nun Buoy ‘‘A’’ in

approximate position 18–27.01N, 066–

06.59W; and thence north to the point

of origin. All coordinates referenced use

Datum: NAD 83.

(b) Regulations. Unless otherwise

authorized by the Captain of the Port,

San Juan, Puerto Rico, vessels operating

in the regulated area must travel no

faster than needed for steerageway. The

general regulations in § 165.13 of this

part apply.

(c) Enforcement. Violations of this

regulated navigation area should be

reported to the Captain of the Port, San

Juan, PR.

Dated: June 5, 1998.

N.T. Saunders,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–16240 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 187–0064; FRL–6112–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concerns the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

architectural coatings.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of this rule is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this proposed

rulemaking will incorporate this rule

into the federally approved SIP. EPA

has evaluated this rule and is proposing

to approve it under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of this rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901, (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

This Federal Register action for the

South Coast Air Quality Management
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 33313

1The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area

retained its designation of nonattainment and was

classified by operation of law pursuant to sections

107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the

CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

2EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

District excludes the Los Angeles

County portion of the Southeast Desert

AQMD, otherwise known as the

Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles

County, which is now under the

jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air

Pollution Control District as of July 1,

1997. The rule being proposed for

approval into the California SIP is South

Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) Rule 1113, Architectural

Coatings. This rule was submitted by

the California Air Resources Board to

EPA on November 26, 1996.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included the Los

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area. 43

FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26,

1988, EPA notified the Governor of

California, pursuant to section

110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act,

that the above district’s portions of the

California SIP were inadequate to attain

and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall).

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires

that plans which are submitted to the

EPA in order to achieve or maintain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) contain enforceable emission

limitations. The Los Angeles-South

Coast Air Basin Area has retained its

designation of nonattainment and is

classified as extreme.1

The State of California submitted

many rules for incorporation into its SIP

on November 26, 1996, including the

rule being acted on in this document.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for South Coast Air

Quality Management District Rule 1113,

Architectural Coatings. The South Coast

Air Quality Management District

adopted Rule 1113 on November 8,

1996. This submitted rule was found to

be complete on February 11, 1997

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 2 and is being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

The South Coast Air Quality

Management District Rule 1113 controls

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from architectural coatings.

VOCs contribute to the production of

ground-level ozone and smog. This rule

was adopted as part of the district’s

efforts to achieve the NAAQS for ozone

and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call and

the section 110(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for this

rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

In addition, this rule was evaluated

against the general requirements of the

Clean Air Act (section 110 and part D),

40 CFR part 52, ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and

Deviations—Clarification to Appendix D

of November 24, 1987 Federal Register’’

(EPA’s ‘‘Blue Book’’), and the EPA

Region IX—California Air Resources

Board document entitled ‘‘Guidance

Document for Correcting VOC Rule

Deficiencies’’ (April 1991). In general,

these guidance documents have been set

forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain

the SIP.

On January 24, 1985, EPA approved

into the SIP a version of Rule 1113,

Architectural Coatings that had been

adopted by the SCAQMD on March 16,

1984. The version of Rule 1113

currently included in the SIP was also

used to evaluate the version being

proposed for approval. The SCAQMD

Rule 1113 submitted on November 26,

1996 includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

• Addition, deletion, and

consolidation of definitions (section

(b));

• Future low-VOC limits for the

following coating categories: flats,

lacquers, multi-color, and traffic

coatings (section (c)(2));

• VOC content limits for the

following specialty coating categories:

japans, magnesite, and fire-proofing

coatings (section (c)(2));

• VOC content limits for previously

exempted specialty coating categories

(section (c)(2));

• Requirement that VOC containing

materials must be stored in closed

containers (section (c)(5));

• Averaging provision to allow

manufacturers to average the VOC

content of their flat coatings, on a sales

weighted basis (section (c)(6) and

appendix A);

• Language clarifying how

exceedances of allowable emissions will

be handled when a source uses

averaging (appendix A);

• Labeling requirements for quick-dry

enamels and quick-dry primers, sealers,

and undercoaters (section (d)(4));

• Test methods for determining VOC

content, acid content, metal content,

flame spread index, drying times, and

gloss (section (e));

• Technology assessment for flat and

lacquer coating categories (section (f));

• Additional reporting requirements

for manufacturers utilizing the

exemption for quick-dry primers,

sealers, and undercoaters (section

(g)(2));

• Exemption for lacquers to add up to

10% retarder above the VOC limit

during cool, humid days to prevent

blushing of acetone formulated lacquers

with a maximum VOC content of 550 g/

L (section (g)(3)); and

• Small business exemption from

lower future effective VOC limits for

lacquers and flats (section (g)(4)). In the

aggregate, these changes to the SIP

approved rule provide additional

flexibility and recognition of some

specialty products without relaxing the

requirements of the rule.

The SCAQMD staff report for Rule

1113 projects that the submitted rule

will reduce VOC emissions from

architectural coatings by 17.2% by the

year 2010. In contrast, control measure

CTS–07 of SCAQMD’s 1994 Air Quality

Management Plan (AQMP) commits

SCAQMD to reduce architectural

coating emissions by 75% by 2010. EPA

approved the 1994 AQMP, and thus the

75% commitment, into the SIP on

September 26, 1996 (52 FR 1150,

January 8, 1997). The AQMP relies on

the concept that each industry will

reduce its fair share of emissions.

Therefore, the 17.2% reduction is ‘‘only

a fraction of the 75% emission

reduction that will eventually be

required from AIM coatings to provide

their fair share of the required emission

reductions’’ (page 8, District staff

recommendation to Board regarding

Board meeting to be held on November

8, 1996 to amend Rule 1113).

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is

enforceable and strengthens the

applicable SIP. Therefore, South Coast

Air Quality Management District Rule
33314 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1113, Architectural Coatings is being

proposed for approval under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

submitted version of Rule 1113

strengthens the SIP by updating a

portion of the SIP for the Los Angeles

Air Basin that has not been revised

since 1985. EPA notes, however, that

the submitted rule does not fulfill

SCAQMD’s SIP-approved commitment

in CTS–07 to reduce VOCs from

architectural coatings by 75%. Air

quality progress and attainment of the

public health-based ozone standard both

require that the District pursue

expeditiously further emission

reductions from this large segment of

the South Coast VOC emissions

inventory.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866 review.

The proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ because it is

not an ‘‘economically significant’’ action

under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

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

Dated: June 7, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–16255 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH116–1; FRL–6112–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is proposing to approve an April 27,

1998, request from Ohio, for State

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance

plan revision for the Dayton-Springfield

(Montgomery, Clark, Greene and Miami

Counties) ozone maintenance area. The

revision would remove the air quality

triggers from the area’s contingency

plan. The contingency plans were

included in the areas’ maintenance plan

to correct violations of the one hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS), which has been

proposed to be revoked for this area.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received on or before

July 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location:

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Please contact Scott Hamilton at (312)

353–4775 before visiting the Region 5

office.

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Hamilton, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Attainment Areas in Ohio

Since the initial Clean Air Act (CAA)

attainment status designations were

made, the Dayton area has attained the

one hour ozone standard and has been

redesignated to attainment status for

ozone. As a requirement to being

redesignated to attainment status, the