49128 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter 

maintaining 95 percent Full Service 

compliance to remain eligible for this 

service and undergo periodic Postal 

Service re-evaluation. 

* * * * * 

4.2.8 Address Correction Service Fee 

[Revise 507.4.2.8 by deleting the old 

language and replacing with new 

language as follows:] 

ACS fees would be assessed as 

follows: 

a. The applicable fee for address 

correction is charged for each separate 

notification of address correction or the 

reason for nondelivery provided, unless 

an exception applies. 

b. Once the ACS fee charges have 

been invoiced, any unpaid fees for the 

prior invoice cycle (month) would be 

assessed an annual administrative fee of 

10 percent for the overdue amount. 

c. Mailers who present at least 95 

percent of their eligible First-Class Mail 

and USPS Marketing Mail volume as 

Full Service in a calendar month would 

receive electronic address correction 

notices for their qualifying Basic 

automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing Mail 

mailpieces, as specified in 4.2.2. The 

electronic address correction notices are 

charged at the applicable Full Service 

address correction fee for all future 

billing cycles. 

* * * * * 

600 Basic Mailing Standards for All 

Mailing Services 

* * * * * 

602 Addressing 

* * * * * 

5.0 Move Update Standards 

* * * * * 

[Revise 602.5.3 by deleting former 

contents and replacing with new title 

and contents as follows:] 

5.3 Move Update Verification 

Mailers who submit any Full Service 

volume in a calendar month will be 

verified pursuant to the Address Quality 

Census Measurement and Assessment 

Process beginning in the next calendar 

month. First-Class Mail and USPS 

Marketing Mail letter and flat-size 

mailpieces with addresses that have not 

been updated in accordance with the 

Move Update Standard will be subject 

to the Move Update assessment charge, 

if submitted via eDoc with unique Basic 

or Full Service IMbs. The Move Update 

assessment charge will be assessed if: 

a. The percent of all qualifying 

mailpieces submitted in a calendar 

month that have a COA error is greater 

than the 0.5 percent error threshold, as 

determined by an analysis of the data 

captured by mail processing equipment. 

b. Each mailpiece with addresses 

containing COA errors in excess of the 

error threshold will be assessed the 

Move Update assessment charge. 

c. Supporting details are described in 

Publication 685, Publication for 

Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters 

and Flats, available at 

www.postalpro.usps.com. 

[Revise 602.5.4 as follows:] 

5.4 Mailer Certification 

The mailer’s signature on the postage 

statement or electronic confirmation 

during eDoc submission certifies that 

the Move Update standard has been met 

for the address records including each 

address in the corresponding mailing 

presented to the USPS. 

* * * * * 

700 Special Standards 

* * * * * 

705 Advanced Preparation and 

Special Postage Payment Systems 

* * * * * 

23.0 Full Service Automation Option 

* * * * * 

23.5 Additional Standards 

* * * * * 

23.5.2 Address Correction Notices 

* * * * * 

[Revise 705.23.5.2a as follows:] 

a. Address correction notices would 

be provided at the applicable Full 

Service address correction fee for letters 

and flats eligible for the Full Service 

option, except for USPS Marketing Mail 

ECR flats, BPM flats dropshipped to 

DDUs, or BPM carrier route flats. 

Mailers who present at least 95 percent 

of their eligible First-Class Mail and 

USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full 

Service in a calendar month would 

receive electronic address correction 

notices for their qualifying Basic 

automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing 

mailpieces charged at the applicable 

Full Service address correction fee for 

future billing cycles. The Basic 

automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing Mail 

mailpieces must: 

1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the 

mailpiece. 

2. Include a Full Service or OneCode 

ACS STID in the IMb. 

3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc. 

4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter 

providing accurate Mail Owner 

identification in eDoc. 

5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter 

maintaining 95 percent Full Service 

compliance to remain eligible for this 

service and undergo periodic USPS reevaluation. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22962 Filed 10–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0342; FRL–9969–83– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania’s 

Adoption of Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Automobile and LightDuty Truck Assembly Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s state 

implementation plan (SIP). The revision 

includes the addition to the SIP of 

amendments to the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (PADEP) regulations and 

addresses the requirement to adopt 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for sources covered by EPA’s 

control techniques guidelines (CTG) 

standards for automobile and light-duty 

assembly coatings. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 26, 2017 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by November 24, 

2017. If EPA receives such comments, it 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0342 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

stahl.cynthia@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49129 

1CTGs 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. 

The recommendations in the CTG are based upon 

available data and information and may not apply 

to a particular situation based upon the 

circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt 

state regulations to implement the 

recommendations contained therein, or they can 

adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states 

must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review 

and approval as part of the SIP process. Pursuant 

to section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, all areas in the 

OTR must implement RACT with respect to sources 

of VOCs in the state covered by a CTG issued before 

or after November 15, 1990. 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814–2021, 

or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Ground level ozone is formed in the 

atmosphere by photochemical reactions 

between volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 

carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence 

of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone 

concentrations in the ambient air, the 

CAA requires all nonattainment areas to 

apply control on VOC and NOX

emission sources to achieve emission 

reductions. Among effective control 

measures, RACT controls significantly 

reduce VOC and NOX emissions from 

major stationary sources. NOX and VOC 

are referred to as ozone precursors and 

are emitted by many types of pollution 

sources, including motor vehicles, 

power plants, industrial facilities, and 

area wide sources, such as consumer 

products and lawn and garden 

equipment. Scientific evidence 

indicates that adverse public health 

effects occur following exposure to 

ozone. These effects are more 

pronounced in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases. 

RACT is defined 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 at 53762, September 17, 

1979). Section 182 of the CAA sets forth 

two separate RACT requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. The first 

requirement, contained in section 

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred to 

as RACT fix-up, requires the correction 

of RACT rules for which EPA identified 

deficiencies before the CAA was 

amended in 1990. Pennsylvania 

previously corrected its deficiencies 

under the 1-hour ozone standard and 

has no further deficiencies to correct 

under this section of the CAA. The 

second requirement, set forth in section 

182(b)(2) of the CAA, applies to 

moderate (or worse) ozone 

nonattainment area as well as to 

marginal and attainment areas in ozone 

transport regions (OTRs) established 

pursuant to section 184 of the CAA, and 

requires these areas to implement RACT 

controls on all major VOC and NOX

emission sources and on all sources and 

source categories covered by a CTG 

issued by EPA.1 See CAA section 

182(b)(2) and 184(b). 

On November 18, 2016, the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) 

submitted a formal revision to the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s SIP. 

The SIP revision consists of the 

adoption of EPA’s CTG for automobile 

and light duty assembly coatings. The 

new regulation reflecting this adoption 

can be found under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

129—Standards for Sources. 

Specifically, this revision adds to the 

SIP 25 Pa. Code § 129.52e which adopts 

the RACT requirements for automobile 

and light-duty assembly coatings and 

covers heavier vehicle coating 

operations as well. The revision also 

includes changes to 25 Pa. Code 

§ 129.51 to accommodate alternative 

compliance methods for the adopted 

CTG. 

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides 

that SIPs for nonattainment areas must 

include reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), including RACT, for 

sources of emissions. Section 

182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain 

nonattainment areas, states must revise 

their SIPs to include RACT for sources 

of VOC emissions covered by a CTG 

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, Sept. 17, 1979). In 

subsequent Federal Register notices, 

EPA has addressed how states can meet 

the RACT requirements of the CAA. In 

June 1977, EPA published a CTG for 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings (EPA–450/2–77–008). 

This CTG discusses the nature of VOC 

emissions from this industry, available 

control technologies for addressing such 

emissions, the costs of available control 

options, and other items. EPA also 

published a national emission standard 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for surface coating of automobiles and 

light-duty trucks in 2004 (40 CFR part 

63, subpart IIII). 

In 2008, after conducting a review of 

currently existing state and local VOC 

emission reduction approaches for this 

industry, reviewing the 1977 CTG and 

the NESHAP for this industry, and 

considering the information that has 

become available since then, EPA 

developed a new CTG for automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings, 

entitled Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck 

Assembly Coatings (Publication No. 

EPA 453/R–08–006). Pennsylvania’s SIP 

revision submittal addresses the 

adoption of EPA’s 2008 CTG for 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coatings. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

EPA’s CTG for automobiles and lightduty truck assembly coatings includes 

recommendations to reduce VOC 

emissions. These recommendations 

include VOC emissions limits for 

coating operations; work practices for 

storage and handling of coatings, 

thinners, and coating waste materials; 

and work practices for the handling and 

use of cleaning materials. The emission 

limits for coating processes covered by 

this CTG are found in Table 1 of the 

technical support document (TSD) 

which EPA prepared supporting this 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
49130 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

2The TSD is available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking and available online at 

www.regulations.gov. 3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

rulemaking.2 Table 1, includes emission 

limits expressed in kilograms of VOC 

per liter (kg VOC/liter) and pounds of 

VOC per gallon (lbs VOC/gal). The 

emission limits for the miscellaneous 

materials used at coating facilities are 

found in Table 2 of the TSD. Table 2 

includes emission limits expressed in 

grams of VOC per liter (g VOC/liter). 

Additional information regarding this 

CTG can be found in the TSD found in 

the docket for this rulemaking and 

available online at www.regulations.gov. 

PADEP’s submittal presented the 

regulatory revisions undertaken to adopt 

EPA’s CTG for automobile and lightduty truck coatings. PADEP revised 25 

Pa. Code Chapter 129—Standards for 

Sources to adopt the aforementioned 

CTG. The revisions include the addition 

of § 129.52e which adopts the RACT 

requirements for automobile and lightduty truck assembly coatings as stated 

by EPA in the relevant CTG for this 

category of sources. The revision also 

includes updates to 25 Pa. Code 

§ 129.51 to accommodate alternative 

compliance methods for the adopted 

CTG. Additional information regarding 

PADEP’s submittal can be found within 

the TSD and state submittal which are 

both located in this docket and available 

online at www.regulations.gov. 

EPA reviewed PADEP’s submittal and 

found that the regulatory changes reflect 

EPA’s CTG for automobile and lightduty trucks. The emission limits for the 

coating processes as well as the 

emission limits for the miscellaneous 

materials used during coating processes 

are consistent with those recommended 

in EPA’s CTG. Additionally, the 

regulatory changes address EPA’s 

recommended work practices. 

EPA notes that under 25 Pa. Code 

§ 129.52e(c), Existing RACT permit, 

PADEP is allowing the provisions of 

§ 129.52e to supersede the requirements 

of a RACT permit previously issued 

under 25 Pa. Code §§ 129.91–129.95 if 

the permit was issued prior to January 

1, 2017 and to the extent that the RACT 

permit contains less stringent 

requirements than those in 25 Pa. Code 

§ 129.52e. EPA further notes that the 

RACT permits issued under §§ 129.91– 

129.95 were issued for previous RACT 

determinations on a case-by-case basis; 

these permits would then have been 

submitted to EPA as source-specific SIP 

revisions and would likely have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion into the 

Pennsylvania SIP. If EPA approved 

those source-specific RACT 

determinations as meeting the 

requirements of RACT under the CAA, 

then the permits associated with those 

determinations were approved into the 

SIP and would have been identified at 

40 CFR 52.2020(d). To the extent that 

the provisions of § 129.52e are more 

stringent than those of a previous SIPapproved permit, PADEP may make a 

source-specific determination as to 

whether the requirements of the 

previous RACT permit apply, or those of 

§ 129.52e. If PADEP chooses to make 

such a determination to remove prior 

case-by-case RACT limits from the SIP, 

such revision must be submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision in order to remove the 

previously approved permit from the 

SIP and must meet requirements under 

CAA section 110(l). Otherwise, the 

previously approved RACT limits (even 

if less stringent) remain applicable 

requirements for sources subject now to 

the more stringent CTG also. Until such 

a SIP revision is made, the requirements 

of 25 Pa. Code 129.52e and the SIPapproved case by case RACT 

requirements both apply and EPA 

cannot remove the source-specific 

permits from the SIP. EPA is not taking 

any such action in this rulemaking to 

remove previously approved RACT 

permits and thus the requirements of a 

previously SIP-approved permit still 

apply until such permit is removed from 

the SIP even if the new limits, reflected 

in this CTG that Pennsylvania has 

adopted, are more stringent. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the revision to 

Pennsylvania’s SIP which adopts EPA’s 

CTG for automobile and light-duty truck 

coatings because Pennsylvania’s 

regulation incorporates the 

requirements of the CTG and thus meets 

requirements in CAA sections 110 and 

184(b). EPA is publishing this rule 

without prior proposal because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on December 26, 2017 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by November 24, 

2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will address all public comments 

in a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 

129—Standards for Sources, Sections 

129.51 and 129.52e. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region III Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update of the SIP compilation.3

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49131 

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 

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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

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 December 26, 2017. 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 action. This 

action, in which Pennsylvania adopts 

EPA’s CTG for automobile and lightduty truck assembly coatings, 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, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 26, 2017. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for ‘‘Section 129.51’’ and adding an 

entry for ‘‘Section 129.52e’’ after 

‘‘Section 129.52d’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

§ 52.2063 citation 

Title 25—Environmental Protection Article III—Air Resources 

*******

Section 129.51 ...... General ......................................... 10/22/16 10/24/17 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

Amendments add alternative compliance methods for the requirements of Section 129.52e. Previous approval dated 6/25/2015. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 129.52e .... Control of VOC emissions from 

automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coating operations 

and heavier vehicle coating operations.

10/22/16 10/24/17 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

New section is added. This section does not remove or replace 

any permits approved under 

52.2020(d). 

* * * * * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
49132 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–22942 Filed 10–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9970–08– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT58 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing; Flame 

Attenuation Lines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Because the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) received 

adverse comment, we are withdrawing 

the direct final rule for the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing; Flame Attenuation 

Lines, published on July 27, 2017. 

DATES: Effective October 24, 2017, the 

EPA withdraws the direct final rule 

published at 82 FR 34858, on July 27, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this action, contact Mr. 

Brian Storey, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–04), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

1103; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and 

email address: storey.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

27, 2017, the EPA published a direct 

final rule (82 FR 34858) and parallel 

proposal (82 FR 34910) to amend the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing to provide 

affected sources a 1-year extension to 

comply with the emission limits for 

flame attenuation lines. We stated in 

that direct final rule that if we received 

adverse comment by August 28, 2017, 

the direct final rule would not take 

effect and we would publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register. We 

subsequently received adverse comment 

on that direct final rule and are 

withdrawing it. We will address those 

comments in any subsequent final 

action, which will be based on the 

parallel proposed rule also published on 

July 27, 2017. As stated in the direct 

final rule and parallel proposed rule, we 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. 

Dated: October 18, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

■ Accordingly, the amendments to the 

rule published on July 27, 2017 (82 FR 

34858), are withdrawn as of October 24, 

2017. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23054 Filed 10–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 593 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0061] 

List of Nonconforming Vehicles 

Decided To Be Eligible for Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document revises the list 

of vehicles not originally manufactured 

to conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS) that NHTSA 

has decided to be eligible for 

importation. This list is published in an 

appendix to the agency’s regulations 

that prescribe procedures for import 

eligibility decisions. The list has been 

revised to add all vehicles that NHTSA 

has decided to be eligible for 

importation since October 1, 2016, and 

to remove all previously listed vehicles 

that are now more than 25 years old and 

need no longer comply with all 

applicable FMVSS to be lawfully 

imported. NHTSA is required by statute 

to publish this list annually in the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective October 24, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366–5308. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle 

that was not originally manufactured to 

conform to all applicable FMVSS shall 

be refused admission into the United 

States unless NHTSA has decided that 

the motor vehicle is substantially 

similar to a motor vehicle originally 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, 

of the same model year as the model of 

the motor vehicle to be compared, and 

is capable of being readily altered to 

conform to all applicable FMVSS. 

Where there is no substantially similar 

U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 

30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming 

motor vehicle to be admitted into the 

United States if its safety features 

comply with, or are capable of being 

altered to comply with, all applicable 

FMVSS based on destructive test data or 

such other evidence as the Secretary of 

Transportation decides to be adequate. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1), import 

eligibility decisions may be made ‘‘on 

the initiative of the Secretary of 

Transportation or on petition of a 

manufacturer or importer registered 

under [49 U.S.C. 30141(c)].’’ The 

Secretary’s authority to make these 

decisions has been delegated to NHTSA. 

The agency publishes notices of 

eligibility decisions as they are made. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2), a list of 

all vehicles for which import eligibility 

decisions have been made must be 

published annually in the Federal 

Register. On October 1, 1996, NHTSA 

added the list as an appendix to 49 CFR 

part 593, the regulations that establish 

procedures for import eligibility 

decisions (61 FR 51242). As described 

in the notice, NHTSA took that action 

to ensure that the list is more widely 

disseminated to government personnel 

who oversee vehicle imports and to 

interested members of the public. See 61 

FR 51242–43. In the notice, NHTSA 

expressed its intention to annually 

revise the list as published in the 

appendix to include any additional 

vehicles decided by the agency to be 

eligible for importation since the list 

was last published. See 61 FR 51243. 

The agency stated that issuance of the 

document announcing these revisions 

will fulfill the annual publication 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30141(b)(2). 

Ibid. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations about whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

and to the requirements of the Executive 

Order. The Executive Order defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affects in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES