[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 267-269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22416]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0876; FRL-8258-8]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality
Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air
Quality Management District portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings and organic liquid
storage tanks. We are approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March 5, 2007 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 5, 2007. 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-
2006-0876], by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), 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: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA
Region IX, (415) 972-3956, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
[[Page 268]]
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD................................ 424 Architectural Coatings........... 1/11/05 4/26/05
SCAQMD................................ 463 Organic Liquid Storage........... 5/6/05 10/20/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2005, ICAPCD's Architectural Coatings Rule was found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review. And on November 22, 2005, SCAQMD's
Organic Liquid Storage Rule was found to meet the completeness criteria
in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We approved a version of ICAPCD Rule 424 into the SIP on May 3,
1984. There are no later versions of Rule 424 in the SIP although
ICAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP approved version of Rule 424 on
September 14, 1999, and CARB submitted it to us on May 26, 2000. We
approved a revised version of SCAQMD Rule 463 into the SIP on October
23, 1996. No later versions were submitted to us. 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 revisions?
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. Rule 424,
Architectural Coatings, controls emissions of VOCs from various
categories of coatings. Rule 463, Organic Liquid Storage, controls
emissions of VOCs from above-ground storage tanks used for storage of
organic liquids. Rule 424 was extensively revised to match the
Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings approved by
CARB on June 22, 2000. The SCM is a model rule which seeks to provide
statewide consistency for the regulation of architectural coatings. The
SCM was reviewed by EPA during its development. This revision adopts
all provisions of the SCM except the special provisions for industrial
maintenance coatings (relevant only in certain northern California air
districts) and the averaging provisions. The revisions submitted to
SCAQMD Rule 463 would amend several definitions, allow the use under
certain circumstances of an alternative vapor control device, removes
the hydrogen sulfide concentration standard for crude oil stored in a
floating roof tank, and add language to enhance enforceability of the
requirements for various organic compounds through the use of vapor
pressure information. Rule 463 revisions also include language amending
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, to allow the use of
alternative test methods under certain circumstances, to remove a
requirement to use a test method for meeting the hydrogen sulfide
standard, and to add test methods for determining true vapor pressure
and API gravity. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more
information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
VOC sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) and for
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and
182(b)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). ICAPCD and SCAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas
(see 40 CFR part 81). However, because ICAPCD Rule 424 regulates
sources that are not covered by a CTG and that are nonmajor area
sources, they are not subject to CAA RACT requirements.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
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. CARB's ``Suggested Control Measures for Architectural Coatings''
(June 22, 2000).
5. The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for
Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D).
6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047.
7. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of
Petroleum Liquid in Fixed Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036.
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill 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
[[Page 269]]
proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse
comments by February 5, 2007, 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 March 5, 2007. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
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.
III. 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those 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 approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 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 (Pub. L. 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 action 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 action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 rule 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 March 5, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 7, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(336)(i)(C)(2) and
(c)(342)(i)(C)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(336) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 424, adopted on November 9, 1982 and revised on January
11, 2005.
* * * * *
(342) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) Rule 463, adopted on August 15, 1977 and amended on May 6,
2005.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-22416 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P