[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39303-39305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16743]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0198; FRL-9425-4]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District, Kern County Air Pollution
Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control 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 (ICAPCD), Kern County
Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD), and Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coating operations. 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 September 6, 2011 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 5, 2011. 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-
2011-0198, 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
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: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.
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.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.................................... 424 Architectural Coatings...... 02/23/10 07/20/10
[[Page 39304]]
KCAPCD.................................... 410.1 Architectural Coatings...... 03/11/10 07/20/10
VCAPCD.................................... 74.2 Architectural Coatings...... 01/12/10 07/20/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2010, EPA determined that the submittals for ICAPCD
Rule 424, KCAPCD Rule 410.1A, and VCAPCD Rule 74.2 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We approved an earlier version of ICAPCD Rule 424 into the SIP on
01/04/07 (72 FR 267). We approved an earlier version of KCAPCD Rule
410.1 into the SIP on 02/06/98 (63 FR 6073). We approved an earlier
version of VCAPCD Rule 74.2 into the SIP on 01/02/04 (69 FR 34).
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. ICAPCD Rule 424,
KCAPCD Rule 410.1A, and VCAPCD Rule 74.2 all impose more stringent
requirements on VOC emissions from architectural coating operations.
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
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
section 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). The ICAPCD (moderate) and VCAPCD
(serious) regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so
these areas must implement RACT. KCAPCD (non-attainment subpart 1) does
not need to fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to
evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (40
CFR part 59 Subpart D, 9/11/98).
4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources, Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations (EPA-
450/2-76-028, 11/76).
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 evaluations.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agencies modify 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 proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by August 5, 2011, 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 September 6, 2011. 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 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 interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to
address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
[[Page 39305]]
In addition, these rules do 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 September 6, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
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 (381)(i)(A)(2),
(B)(2), and (C)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(381) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Rule 424, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on February 23,
2010.
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 410.1A, ``Architectural Coatings,'' adopted on March 11,
2010. Effective as of 1/1/2011.
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 74.2, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on January 12,
2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-16743 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P