Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75467 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 31, 2012. 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. This action 

pertaining to the determinations of 

attainment for the Parkersburg-Marietta, 

WV-OH and the Wheeling, WV-OH 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 27, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3. 

Dated: October 18, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 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 KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1892 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1892 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(d) Based upon EPA’s review of the 

air quality data for the 3-year period 

2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH and 

Wheeling, WV-OH fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. Therefore, EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

179(c) to determine, based on the areas’ 

air quality as of the attainment date, 

whether the areas attained the standard. 

EPA also determined that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH and 

Wheeling, WV-OH PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas are not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 3. Section 52.2527 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2527 Determinations of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(d) Based upon EPA’s review of the 

air quality data for the 3-year period 

2007 to 2009, EPA determined that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH and 

Wheeling, WV-OH fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. Therefore, EPA has met the 

requirement pursuant to CAA section 

179(c) to determine, based on the areas’ 

air quality as of the attainment date, 

whether the areas attained the standard. 

EPA also determined that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH and 

Wheeling, WV-OH PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas are not subject to the 

consequences of failing to attain 

pursuant to section 179(d). 

[FR Doc. 2011–30923 Filed 12–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0775; FRL–9496–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Revisions To Control 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

for Surface Coatings and Graphic Arts 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for 

control of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) adopted by Louisiana on June 

20, 2009 and August 20, 2010, and 

submitted to EPA on August 31, 2010. 

EPA is also approving, by parallel 

processing, a SIP revision for control of 

emission of organic compounds which 

was proposed by Louisiana on January 

10, 2011 and adopted on April 20, 2011. 

EPA issued Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTGs) in 2006, 2007 and 

2008; Louisiana’s rule revisions being 

approved in this action were developed 

in response to these CTGs. EPA is 

approving these revisions because they 

meet the requirements of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

as set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

as well as the requirements of EPA’s 

regulations, and they are consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. This action is being 

taken under section 110 and part D of 

the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2010–0775. All documents in the docket 

are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

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 either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) Review Room 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–2164; fax number (214) 665– 

7263; email address belk.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Outline 

I. What is the background for these actions? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

III. What actions are we taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
75468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1We note that in our March 17, 2011 proposal, 

the summary of Louisiana’s graphics arts 

regulations contains certain details which are not 

correct. The reference to applicability for the 

graphic arts rules should refer to § 2143. A. (rather 

than B.). Also, in East Baton Rouge, Iberville, 

Livingston, Pointe Coupee and West Baton Rouge 

parishes, the rules apply to any facility with the 

potential to emit a combined weight of VOCs 

greater than 25 tpy (rather than 50 tpy). The 

applicability in the rules is consistent with 

requirements for a severe nonattainment area. These 

inadvertent errors in the description of the 

Louisiana rules do not affect our decision to 

approve the rule revisions. 

I. What is the background for these 

actions? 

This action approves rules to 

implement measures in response to 

CTGs issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

We are approving these revisions 

because they enhance the Louisiana SIP 

by improving control of emissions from 

VOC sources in Louisiana. These 

revisions reflect changes in response to 

CTGs issued in 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

These CTGs cover the following source 

categories: Consumer and Commercial 

Products Group II: Control Techniques 

Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, 

Lithographic Printing Materials, 

Letterpress Printing Materials, Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood 

Paneling Coatings (71 FR 58745, 

October 5, 2006); Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Control 

Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and 

Large Appliance Coatings (72 FR 57215, 

October 9, 2007); Consumer and 

Commercial Products, Group IV: Control 

Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal 

Products Coatings, Plastic Parts 

Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, and 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (73 

FR 58481, October 7, 2008). These 

revisions include updates to the 

following Louisiana rules: Chapter 1 

General Provisions, amendments to 

§ 111 Definitions; Chapter 21 Control of 

Emission of Organic Compounds, 

amendments to § 2123 Organic Solvents, 

and § 2143 Graphic Arts (Printing) by 

Rotogravure, Flexographic, Offset 

Lithographic, Letterpress, and Flexible 

Package Printing Processes. 

Also, this action finds that these 

revisions meet RACT requirements for 

the above source categories. These 

revisions meet statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and are consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. EPA is approving these 

revisions pursuant to section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. For additional 

information, see our March 17, 2011, 

proposal (76 FR 14602).1

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed rule? 

We received a comment letter from 

American Coatings Association on our 

proposed rulemaking. The comment 

letter was received by email and is 

available for review in the electronic 

docket for this rulemaking at the 

regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0775). Our 

response to the comment letter is 

provided below. 

Response to Comments 

Comments: American Coatings 

Association (ACA) expressed concerns 

with the Pleasure Craft portion of the 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings, Group IV. The ACA 

objected to the limits the CTG 

recommended as being RACT for the 

Pleasure Craft coatings industry, and 

requested modifications to the VOC 

limits for three categories, changes to 

the definition of two categories, an 

additional specialty coating category, 

and an exemption. These requested 

changes are summarized as follows: 

Finish Primer/Surfacer: 

Revised VOC Limit (from 420 g/L to 

600 g/L). 

Extreme High Gloss Coating 

Revised VOC Limit (from 490 g/L to 

600 g/L). 

Revised Definition. 

Other Substrate Anti-Foulant Coating: 

Revised VOC Limit (from 330 g/L to 

400 g/L). 

Anti-fouling Sealer/Tie Coat (new 

category): 

Additional Specialty Category and 

VOC Limit of 420 g/L. 

Pre-Treatment Wash Primer: 

Revised Definition. 

Small Container Exemption. 

According to ACA, these revisions are 

necessary to meet customer expectations 

and continue to make the industry 

economically viable. 

As mentioned above, the comment 

letter is available in the docket for this 

action. 

Response: This rulemaking action is 

limited to approval of the state’s official 

SIP submittal, submitted to us on 

August 31, 2010. Specifically, this 

action concerns whether the rules that 

LDEQ submitted to EPA to meet the 

requirements of section 182(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA meet statutory and regulatory 

requirements. The state revised its 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings regulations based on EPA’s 

2008 guidance titled ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings 

and Plastic Parts Coatings.’’ As 

explained in more detail in our 

proposal, EPA determined that the 

state’s submitted revisions meet RACT 

requirements and are consistent with 

the 2008 guidance. The comments do 

not present evidence of why the 

requirements established in the State’s 

submission are inconsistent with the 

RACT requirement of the Act and thus 

provide no basis for our disapproval of 

the State submission. 

EPA must either approve or 

disapprove the state’s submitted SIP 

revision pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7407(k)(3). As a 

matter of law, EPA is required to 

approve a SIP revision if it meets the 

Act’s requirements. EPA has no 

authority to modify the State’s 

submission. 

We note that issues similar to those 

raised by the Commenters have 

previously been raised to the Agency. In 

response to those concerns, EPA issued 

guidance that provides additional 

information regarding the pleasure craft 

industry in a memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, 

dated June 1, 2010, titled, ‘‘Control 

Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous 

metal and Plastic Part Coatings— 

Industry Request for Reconsideration.’’ 

The Page memorandum provides 

additional information on how the 

Commenters’ concerns can best be 

addressed. The memo, in part, states: 

‘‘After careful evaluation of the issues 

raised by the pleasure craft industry, 

OAQPS is recommending that the 

pleasure craft industry work with state 

agencies during their RACT rule 

development process to assess what is 

reasonable for the specific sources 

regulated because the CTG impose no 

legally binding requirements on any 

entity, including pleasure craft coating 

facilities * * *. The CTG are intended 

to provide state and local air pollution 

control authorities with information to 

assist them in determining RACT for 

VOC * * * States can use the 

recommendations from the MMPPC 

CTG to inform their own determination 

as to what constitutes RACT for VOC for 

pleasure craft coating operations in their 

particular nonattainment areas.’’ (p. 3 of 

the June 1, 2010 Memo). In addition, we 

note that LDEQ considered similar 

comments from the Commenters prior to 

the adoption of this SIP package by the 

State on August 10, 2010 and provided 

those comments to us in its official SIP 

submittal. Those comments are a part of 

the state’s official submittal, which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75469 

III. What actions are we taking? 

EPA is approving SIP revisions for 

control of emission of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) adopted by Louisiana 

on June 20, 2009, and August 20, 2010, 

and submitted to EPA as part of a larger 

submittal on August 31, 2010. These 

revisions were included as appendices 

to the second of three volumes 

submitted by the LDEQ in August 2010; 

these are Appendices A and B of the 

second volume, entitled ‘‘VOC RACT 

Control Technique Guidelines’’. We are 

also approving, by parallel processing, a 

revision for control of emission of VOC 

adopted on April 20, 2011, which is a 

small wording change. Together, these 

August 2010 and April 2011 revisions 

include updates to the following 

Louisiana rules: Chapter 1 General 

Provisions, amendments to § 111 

Definitions; Chapter 21 Control of 

Emission of Organic Compounds, 

amendments to § 2123 Organic Solvents, 

and § 2143 Graphic Arts (Printing) by 

Rotogravure, Flexographic, Offset 

Lithographic, Letterpress, and Flexible 

Package Printing Processes. 

We are approving these revisions as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA, 

including CAA section 182(b)(2)(A). 

These revisions reflect changes in 

response to CTGs issued in 2006, 2007 

and 2008: Consumer and Commercial 

Products Group II: Control Techniques 

Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for 

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, 

Lithographic Printing Materials, 

Letterpress Printing Materials, Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood 

Paneling Coatings (71 FR 58745, 

October 5, 2006); Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Control 

Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and 

Large Appliance Coatings (72 FR 57215, 

October 9, 2007); Consumer and 

Commercial Products, Group IV: Control 

Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 

Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal 

Products Coatings, Plastic Parts 

Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly coatings, Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials, and 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (73 

FR 58481, October 7, 2008). 

We have determined that these 

revisions meet the requirements of the 

CAA and our regulations, and that they 

are consistent with EPA’s guidance. 

EPA is granting approval of these 

revisions pursuant to section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. 

As previously mentioned, more 

information on the SIP revisions we are 

approving can be found in our proposal 

published in the March 17, 2011 

Federal Register (76 FR 14602). 

IV. 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, 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 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 January 31, 2012. 

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. 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 7, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 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 T—Louisiana 

■ 2. The table in § 52.970(c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations 

in the Louisiana SIP’’ is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Under Chapter 1, by adding a new 

entry for Section 111; 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
75470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

■ b. Under Chapter 21, Subchapter B, by 

adding a new entry for Section 2123; 

■ c. Under Chapter 21, Subchapter H, by 

adding a new entry for Section 2143. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA REGULATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA SIP 

State citation Title/subject State approval 

date EPA approval date Comments 

LAC Title 33. Environmental Quality Part III. Air 

Chapter 1—General Provisions 

*******

Section 111 ............................. Definitions .............................. 8/20/2010 12/2/2011 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].

Revisions to Section 111 approved in the Louisiana 

Register August 20, 2010 

(LR 36:1773). 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 21—Control of Emissions of Organic Compounds 

*******

Subchapter B—Organic Solvents 

Section 2123 ........................... Organic Solvents ................... 4/20/2011 12/2/2011 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].

Revisions to Section 2123 approved in the Louisiana 

Register April 20, 2011 (LR 

37:1150). 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter H—Graphic Arts 

Section 2143 ........................... Graphic Arts (Printing) by Rotogravure and Flexographic 

Processes. Control Requirements.

6/20/2009 12/2/2011 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].

Revisions to Section 2143 approved in the Louisiana 

Register June 20, 2009 (LR 

35:1101). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–30924 Filed 12–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 177 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0227(HM–256A)] 

RIN 2126–AB29 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 383, 384, 390, 391, and 

392 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0096] 

RIN 2137–AE65 

Drivers of CMVs: Restricting the Use of 

Cellular Phones 

AGENCIES: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) and Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA and PHMSA are 

amending the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) 

to restrict the use of hand-held mobile 

telephones by drivers of commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs). This rulemaking 

will improve safety on the Nation’s 

highways by reducing the prevalence of 

distracted driving-related crashes, 

fatalities, and injuries involving drivers 

of CMVs. The Agencies also amend their 

regulations to implement new driver 

disqualification sanctions for drivers of 

CMVs who fail to comply with this 

Federal restriction and new driver 

disqualification sanctions for 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

holders who have multiple convictions 

for violating a State or local law or 

ordinance on motor vehicle traffic 

control that restricts the use of handheld mobile telephones. Additionally, 

motor carriers are prohibited from 

requiring or allowing drivers of CMVs to 

use hand-held mobile telephones. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES