[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]



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 

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 

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 
    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 
    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: 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 
    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 

[[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. 
    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.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:


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)(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, 
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-22416 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]