[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 29, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68759-68761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30854]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0754; FRL-9096-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
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 coatings operations 
associated with the coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment. We 
are proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission 
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0754], 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: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126, [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 Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Rule                  Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................................         1151  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            12/02/05     04/06/09
                                                        Equipment Non-Assembly Line
                                                        Coating Operations.
VCAPCD..................................        74.18  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            11/11/08     03/17/09
                                                        Equipment Coating Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2009, the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.18 was found to 
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which 
must be met before formal EPA review. On May 13, 2009, the submittal 
for SCAQMD Rule 1151 was found to meet the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 74.18 into the SIP on April 
19,

[[Page 68760]]

2001 (66 FR 20086). The VCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 
version on November 11, 2008 and CARB submitted it to us on March 17, 
2009. We approved an earlier version of Rule 1151 into the SIP on May 
26, 2000 (65 FR 34101). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on December 2, 2005 and CARB submitted it to us on 
April 6, 2009.

C. What Is the Purpose of the 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. SCAQMD and VCAPCD 
revised their rules to comply with CARB's Suggested Control Measure for 
Automotive Coatings. 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?

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and other 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. ``Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,'' 
California Air Resources Board, October 2005.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    SCAQMD Rule 1151 and VCAPCD Rule 74.18 improve the SIP by 
establishing more stringent emission limits and by clarifying 
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping provisions. The rules are 
largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability, rule stringency and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions 
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and 
discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    SCAQMD Rule 1151(b)(51) and VCAPCD Rule 74.18(G)(16) exempt 
tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) as a VOC. These exemptions do not fully 
comply with EPA's definition of a VOC which requires TBAc to be 
regarded as a VOC for the purposes of recordkeeping, emissions 
reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory 
requirements.

D. 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.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP. 
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into 
the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This 
approach is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rules under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), but is 
not proposing to impose sanctions or a FIP as a consequence of this 
limited disapproval as explained in the following paragraph.
    As noted above, we are simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the submitted rules, because they do not comply with our 
requirement to retain TBAc as a VOC for the purposes of recordkeeping, 
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory 
requirements. See 69 FR 69298 (November 29, 2004) and 40 CFR 
51.100(s)(5). While we recognize the connection between these rule 
deficiencies and future ozone attainment plans in the South Coast and 
Ventura County, we are proposing not to impose sanctions or a FIP under 
CAA sections 179 and 110(c), because TBAc has negligible photochemical 
reactivity, and thus, the connection between the rule deficiencies and 
CAA nonattainment planning requirements is too remote to impose 
sanctions or a FIP. We note, however, that we may find approval of 
future ozone attainment demonstrations for these two areas problematic 
if they do not account for TBAc. We invite comment on this issue as 
well as all other aspects of our proposed action.
    In the event that TBAc is exempted from the recordkeeping, 
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory 
requirements, and final action has not yet been taken on the submitted 
rules, EPA will finalize action on SCAQMD Rule 1151 and VCAPCD Rule 
74.18 as a full approval as opposed to a limited approval/limited 
disapproval. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the 
SCAQMD and VCAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not 
prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
    We will accept comment from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of 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).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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

[[Page 68761]]

aggregate; or to the 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.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action 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 proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will 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, 
because it merely proposes to approve 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to 
approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
proposed action does not require the public to perform activities 
conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 2, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-30854 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P