[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43884-43887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21898]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 187-0076a; FRL-6137-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Mojave Desert Air Quality 
Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, South Coast 
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern rules from 
the following districts: Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District 
(MDAQMD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), 
and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This approval 
action will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. 
The intended effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions 
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 
The rules control VOC emissions from aerospace coating operations. 
Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of these rules into the California 
SIP 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: This rule is effective on October 16, 1998 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by September 16, 
1998. If EPA received such comment, then it will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region 
IX office listed below. Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report 
for each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX 
office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are 
available for inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 
200, Victorville, CA 92392.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, 
San Diego, CA 92123-1096.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office, 
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being approved into the California SIP include: MDAQMD 
Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products Coating Operations; 
SDCAPCD Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations; SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, 
Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations; and SCAQMD 
Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations. 
These rules were adopted by the local air pollution control agencies on 
October 28, 1996; April 30, 1997; December 19, 1996; and December 13, 
1996, respectively. The above rules were submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board to EPA on November 26, 1996; August 1, 1997; March 
10, 1998; and August 1, 1997; respectively.

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 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Mojave Desert portion 
of San Bernardino County, San Diego County, the South Coast Air Basin 
and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which encompassed the following 
eight air pollution control districts (APCDs): Fresno County APCD, Kern 
County APCD,1 King County APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced 
County APCD, San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and 
Tulare County. See 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. Because some of these 
areas were unable to meet the statutory attainment date of December 31, 
1982, California requested under section 172(a)(2), and EPA approved, 
an extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1987.2 
See 40 CFR 52.222. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of 
California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

[[Page 43885]]

1977 Act, that the above districts' 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 SIP-Call). 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. In 
amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted 
the requirement that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a 
deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those 
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\At that time, Kern County included portions of two air 
basins: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Southeast Desert 
Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County 
was designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast Desert Air Basin 
portion of Kern County was designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR 
81.305 (1991).
    \2\ This extension was not requested for the following counties: 
Kern, King, Madera, Merced, and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date 
for these counties remained December 31, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SJVUAPCD was formed on March 20, 1991. The SJVUAPCD has 
authority over the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which includes all of 
the above eight counties except for the Southeast Desert Air Basin 
portion of Kern County, which remains under jurisdiction of the Kern 
County Air Pollution Control District.
    Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment 
prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or 
above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and 
correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172 (b) as 
interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.3 EPA's SIP-Call used 
that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific 
nonattainment areas. The Mojave Desert portion of San Bernardino County 
is classified as severe; San Diego County is classified as serious; the 
San Joaquin Valley Area is classified as serious; and the South Coast-
LA Basin is classified as extreme; 4 therefore, these areas 
were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 
deadline. This Federal Register action for the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District excludes the Los Angeles County portion of the 
Southeast Desert AQMA, 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, 1997.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues 
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register 
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control 
technique guidelines (CTGs).
    \4\ The Mojave Desert, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley 
Area, and South Coast Air Basin retained that designation of 
nonattainment and were 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).
    \5\ The State has recently changed the names and boundaries of 
the air basins located within the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA. 
Pursuant to State regulation the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area 
is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. 
Sec. 60114); the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino 
County and Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County is a part of 
the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. Sec. 60109). In 
addition, in 1996 the California Legislature established a new local 
air agency, the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, to 
have the responsibility for local air pollution planning and 
measures in the Antelope Valley Region (California Health & Safety 
Code Sec. 40106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on November 26, 1996; August 1, 1997; March 
10, 1998; including the rules being acted on in this document. This 
document addresses EPA's direct-final action for MDAQMD Rule 1118, 
Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule 
67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations; SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace 
Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations; and SCAQMD Rule 1124, 
Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations.
    MDAQMD adopted Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products 
Coating Operations on October 28, 1996; SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.9, 
Aerospace Coating Operations on April 30, 1997; SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 
4605, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations on 
December 19, 1996; and SCAQMD adopted Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and 
Component Manufacturing Operations on December 13, 1996. These 
submitted rules were found to be complete on February 3, 1997 (MDAQMD 
Rule 1118), September 30, 1997 (SDCAPCD Rule 67.9 and SCAQMD Rule 
1124), and May 21, 1998 (SJVUAPCD Rule 4605) pursuant to EPA's 
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V 
6 and are being finalized for approval into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above rules reduce VOC emissions from aircraft and aerospace 
coating, assembly, cleaning and rework operations. VOCs contribute to 
the production of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were 
originally adopted as part of each district's effort to achieve the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response 
to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The 
following is EPA's evaluation and final action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and 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). The EPA interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA 
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 3. Among those provisions 
is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the 
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This 
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
    For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing 
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 
documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act 
and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source 
categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these 
documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to 
``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG 
applicable to all of these rules, ``Control of Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Coating Operations of Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Operations,'' was finalized on March 27, 1998 (see 63 FR 
15006). Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue 
Book, referred to in footnote 3. In general, these guidance documents 
have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and 
strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    There is currently no version of MDAQMD 1118, Aerospace Vehicle 
Parts and Products Coating Operations in the SIP. The submitted rule 
includes the following provisions:
     Definitions needed to clarify the terms used in the rule.
     VOC limits for coatings, solvents, and strippers.
     Requirements for application equipment, labeling of 
product containers, and storage and clean-up specifications.
     Exemptions for small users, touch-up and repair, 
laboratory testing, and products supplied in aerosol containers.
     Recordkeeping and test methods for compliance 
verification.

[[Page 43886]]

    On October 3, 1984, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 
67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations that had been adopted by the SDCAPCD 
on August 24, 1983. SDCAPCD submitted Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating 
Operations, which includes the following significant changes from the 
current SIP:
     The perchloroethylene content limit for maskant was 
removed because EPA added it to the exempt compound list.
     VOC content limits were increased for some coatings to 
reflect the current availability of those coatings. Because some of the 
coating limits are less stringent than the SIP-approved rule, the 
District prepared a demonstration showing that overall, the submitted 
rule will get greater emission reductions than the existing rule.
     Several new categories of maskants were added.
     Recordkeeping requirements were revised.
     Several existing test methods were revised and a few 
added.
    Currently, there is no SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace Assembly and 
Component Coating Operations, SIP rule. The submitted rule includes the 
following provisions:
     VOC content limits for aerospace coatings and adhesives.
     VOC content and VOC composite vapor pressure limits for 
coating strippers.
     Requirements for evaporative loss minimization during 
surface cleaning and coating application equipment cleaning.
     An add-on control equipment option in lieu of meeting the 
requirements for aerospace coatings and adhesives and evaporative loss 
minimization.
     Administrative requirements for recordkeeping, and test 
methods for compliance determinations.
    On May 6, 1996, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 1124, 
Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations, that had 
been adopted by SCAQMD on January 13, 1995. The revised SCAQMD Rule 
1124 includes the following significant changes from the current SIP 
rule:
     The applicability has been expanded to clarify that 
aircraft operators, aircraft maintenance, and service facilities are 
subject to the rule.
     New sub-categories were established for primers, adhesive 
bonding primers, and fuel-tank coatings.
     The effective compliance date for several coating 
categories were extended because SCAQMD believes that compliant 
coatings are not currently available.
     A limited exemption was added for non-spray applications 
of rubber fuel-tank coatings until January 2002.
    EPA has evaluated these submitted rules and has determined that 
they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, MDAQMD Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products 
Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations; 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing 
Operations; and SCAQMD Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and Component 
Manufacturing Operations are being approved under section 110(a) and 
part D. The rules are inconsistent with the recently issued CTG for the 
source category; however, EPA will be publishing a Federal Register 
document in the near future that will specify deadlines for these 
Districts to resubmit rules to meet the CTG and to require sources to 
comply with limitations and work practices.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future 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.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 
16, 1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant 
adverse comments by September 16, 1998.
    If the EPA received such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on October 16, 1998 and no further action will 
be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The final 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 section 110 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 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective 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.

[[Page 43887]]

    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    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. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 October 16, 1998. 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 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: July 23, 1998.
Clyde Morris,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs 
(c)(242)(i)(A)(1), (c)(248)(i)(A)(2), (c)(248)(i)(B)(1), and 
(c)(254)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (242) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Mojave Desert AQMD.
    (1) Rule 1118, adopted on October 28, 1996.
* * * * *
    (248) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 67.9, adopted on April 30, 1997.
    (B) South Coast AQMD.
    (1) Rule 1124, adopted on December 13, 1996.
* * * * *
    (254) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 4605, adopted on December 19, 1991 and amended on December 
19, 1996.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-21898 Filed 8-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P