2796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0350; FRL–9097–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in 

the Federal Register on June 16, 2009 

and concern volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from coating of metal 

parts, large appliances, metal furniture, 

motor vehicles, mobile equipment, cans, 

coils, organic solvent cleaning, and 

storage and disposal related to such 

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: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number [EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0350] 

for this action. The index to the docket 

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, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28467), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVAPCD ......... 4603 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products ............................................. 10/16/08 12/23/08 

SJVAPCD ......... 4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations ................................................................ 09/20/07 03/07/08 

SJVAPCD ......... 4612 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations .......................... 09/20/07 03/07/08 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following party. 

1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice; letter 

dated July 15, 2009 and received July 

15, 2009. 

After the close of the comment period, 

we also received comments from the 

following party. 

2. Jim Sell, National Paint & Coatings 

Association; letter dated July 17, 2009 

and received July 17, 2009. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. Although we are not 

obligated to address comments 

submitted after the close of the 

comment period, we are addressing 

below the comments from both parties. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice stated that 

Rule 4603 does not meet Reasonable 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements because it is not as 

stringent as EPA’s 2008 Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings. The commenter noted that the 

limit for baked extreme performance 

coatings in the rule is less stringent than 

the limit in the CTG and that the rule 

exempts repair and touch-up operations, 

while the CTG recommends limits for 

those operations. The commenter stated 

that unavailability of the CTG during 

the period of rule development is ‘‘not 

an excuse for approving a rule that 

everyone acknowledges does not meet 

the minimum level of control currently 

considered for RACT.’’ The commenter 

further stated that SJVAPCD adopted 

Rule 4603 one month after EPA released 

the CTG. 

Response #1: EPA’s 2008 CTG for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings (2008 CTG) generally defines 

presumptive RACT for this activity 

nationwide. All requirements in Rule 

4603 are equivalent to or more stringent 

than the recommendations in the 2008 

CTG, except the VOC limit for baked 

extreme performance coatings and the 

exemption for repair and touch-up 

operations. As to the emission limit for 

baked extreme performance coatings, 

the VOC limit in Rule 4603 is 420 

grams/liter (g/L) and the 2008 CTG 

recommends a VOC level of 360 g/L. We 

note that the difference between the two 

limits for this particular baked coating 

operation is relatively small, and that 

the rule contains VOC limits for four 

other coating categories that are more 

restrictive than the CTG 

recommendations for those operations, 

as shown below. 

VOC CONTENT LIMITS FOR SPECIALTY COATINGS, EXCEPT FOR LARGE APPLIANCE PARTS OR PRODUCTS, AND METAL

FURNITURE—IN G/L 

[lbs/gallon] 

Coating type 

Rule 4603 

VOC limit for 

baked 

coatings 

CTG VOC limit 

for baked 

coatings 

Rule 4603 

VOC limit for 

air-dried 

coatings 

CTG VOC limit 

for air-dried 

coatings 

Camouflage ...................................................................................................... 360 (3.0) 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 

Extreme Performance ...................................................................................... 420 (3.5) 360 (3.0) 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 

High Performance Architectural ....................................................................... 420 (3.5) 740 (6.2) 420 (3.5) 740 (6.2) 

Metallic Coating ............................................................................................... 360 (3.0) 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 2797 

1See e-mail correspondence dated July 23, 2009, 

between Nicole Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno 

(SJVAPCD). 

2See Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 25, 

1988, at 2–2 and Attachment 2; Memorandum from 

Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief, to 

Rulemaking Office, EPA Region IX, ‘‘Screening 

Analysis for 5% De Minimis Determinations for 

Coating Rules,’’ December 4, 2002. 

3See phone conversation dated August 4, 2009, 

between Nicole Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno 

(SJVAPCD). 

At EPA’s request, SJVAPCD staff 

examined recent inspection reports and 

notified us that only one facility in the 

SJV area uses extreme performance 

coatings. That facility operates by air 

drying and not baking.1 As such, we are 

not aware of any baked coating 

operations in SJVAPCD that use extreme 

performance coatings. Additionally, 

SJVAPCD’s RACT SIP analysis indicates 

that operators do not use special 

coatings for touch-up and repair 

operations. The same VOC-compliant 

coatings that are used in the fabrication 

process are used for touch-up and repair 

operations. As such, the emissions limit 

in Rule 4603 for baked extreme 

performance coatings and the 

exemption for repair and touch-up 

operations have no emissions impacts in 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. 

EPA policy provides that SIP VOC 

rules may exceed the levels 

recommended in a CTG or contain 

limited exemptions if the total 

emissions in the area allowed under the 

SIP rule exceed the total emissions 

allowed by EPA’s recommended 

emission levels by less than 5 percent.2

In the absence of any extreme 

performance baked coating operations 

or special coatings for touch-up and 

repair operations in the SJV area, the 

total emissions allowed in the area 

under Rule 4603 are not greater than the 

total emissions allowed under the CTG 

levels and are permissible. 

The commenter has provided no 

additional information about reasonably 

available control methods for these 

operations. Given that the VOC limits in 

Rule 4603 for this source category are 

generally more stringent than EPA’s 

CTG recommendations, and given the 

de minimis emission impacts of those 

rule elements that are less stringent than 

the CTG recommendations, we do not 

believe these elements of Rule 4603 

constitute RACT deficiencies. See NRDC 

v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245, 1254 (DC Cir. 

2009) (upholding EPA’s case-by-case 

approach to RACT determinations). 

Finally, regarding the comment that 

the 2008 CTG was released one month 

before SJVAPCD adopted the subject 

version of 4603, we note that SJVAPCD: 

(1) Was already far along in an extensive 

local process to develop this rule 

revision; (2) is allowed a year following 

EPA’s issuance of the CTG to submit a 

rule that reflects current-day RACT for 

this source category; and (3) has since 

adopted a new version of Rule 4603 that 

contains emission limits for baked 

extreme performance coating and repair 

and touch-up operations consistent with 

the limits recommended in the 2008 

CTG. We expect this version will be 

submitted to EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP in the near future. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice further 

stated that Rule 4603 does not meet 

RACT requirements because it is not as 

stringent as other California district 

rules. Specifically, the commenter 

stated that the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s (SCAQMD) rule 

has more stringent VOC limits for 

extreme high gloss coatings and does 

not exempt repair and touch-up 

coatings; that the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District’s (BAAQMD) rule 

has a more stringent VOC limit for 

baked metallic topcoats; and that 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District’s (VCAPCD) rule has more 

stringent VOC limits for all air-dried 

coatings, baked extreme performance 

coatings, and baked and air-dried 

pretreatment wash primers. Earthjustice 

stated that the District ‘‘justifies the lack 

of stringency by claiming that other 

more stringent limits in its rule make up 

for the weaker limits,’’ and that this 

assertion ‘‘has no factual or technical 

support.’’ The commenter further stated 

the appropriate test is whether the 

limits in the rule represent reasonably 

available control technology, and that 

neither SJVAPCD nor EPA has 

explained why the more protective 

limits are not reasonable in SJVAPCD. 

Response #2: State and local agencies 

rely heavily on CTGs to help define 

RACT when they are issued. When a 

CTG has not been issued for a category 

for many years, it is reasonable to 

consider whether RACT has evolved 

over time by examining analogous 

control requirements in other areas. For 

this source category, however, we have 

no information indicating that new 

control methods have become 

reasonably available since issuance of 

EPA’s 2008 CTG. As such, we believe 

that the levels recommended in the 

2008 CTG continue to reflect RACT 

level controls. Even upon an evaluation 

of the VOC limits in the other rules 

cited by the commenter, we have not 

identified any widely available and 

significantly more stringent 

requirements that compel us to 

reevaluate the limits in Rule 4603. The 

following table summarizes the more 

stringent requirements identified by the 

commenter. 

Coating category 

SJVAPCD 

VOC limit 

(g/L) 

BAAQMD 

VOC limit 

(g/L) 

SCAQMD 

VOC limit 

(g/L) 

VCAPCD 

VOC limit 

(g/L) 

Extreme high gloss (Air-dried) ......................................................................... 420 420 340 420 

Large appliance metallic topcoat (baked) ........................................................ 420 360 No limit No limit. 

Pretreatment wash primer (baked/air-dried) .................................................... 420/420 420/420 420/420 275/340 

In each case, the more stringent limit 

exists in only one other district, and we 

are not aware of the same limit having 

been adopted in any other area. We also 

note that extreme high gloss coatings, 

large appliance metallic topcoats, and 

pretreatment wash primers are relatively 

small source categories in the District. 

To our knowledge, the District has 

identified only one permitted facility 

that uses metallic surface coatings on 

large appliances, but this facility uses 

powdered metallic coatings, which are 

not subject to the limits in Rule 4603.3

Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that 

Rule 4604 does not meet RACT because 

it is not as stringent as other California 

district rules. Specifically, the 

commenter stated that neither the 

BAAQMD’s nor Sacramento Metro 

AQMD’s (SMAQMD) rules exempt 

facilities using fewer than 55 gallons per 

year, while Rule 4604 exempts these 

sources. Also, Earthjustice stated that 

Rule 4604 exempts necker lubricants, 

stripping of cured materials, and 

cleaning solvent for lab and research, 

while SCAQMD’s rule has limits for 

these categories, and that the District 

has provided no analysis to support its 

claim that these categories are 

insignificant. Lastly, the commenter 

stated that SMAQMD’s rule has more 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

2798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, EPA 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, to Air 

Branch Chiefs, Regions I–X, ‘‘Exemption for LowUse Coatings,’’ August 10, 1990. 

5See Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, September 2006, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0535, at pp. 8–9. 

6See SCAQMD Rule 1125 at section (c)(5) 

(referencing SCAQMD Rule 1171 for solvent 

cleaning operations); SCAQMD Rule 1171 at 

sections (g)(2)(G) and (g)(3)(B). 

7 Ibid. 

8See footnote 5, supra. 

9See Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plans (SIP), SJVAPCD, April 16, 

2009 (2009 RACT SIP), at pp. 4–194. 

10See SMAQMD Rule 452 at section 303.2. 

11See SJVAPCD Final Staff Report for Rules 

4603—4607, 4612, 4653, 4661, 4662, 4663, 4684, 

September 20, 2007, at pp. 10–11. 

12See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, 

at pp. 4–242. 

13See SJVAPCD Rule 4612, section 5.1. 

14Rule 4612 defines ‘‘primer’’ as follows: ‘‘any 

coating, which is labeled and formulated for 

application to a substrate to provide a bond 

between the substrate and subsequent coats, 

corrosion resistance, a smooth substrate surface, or 

resistance to penetration of subsequent coats, and 

on which a subsequent coating is applied. Primers 

may be pigmented.’’ Rule 4612 at section 3.29. 

15See Suggested Control Measure for Automotive 

Coatings, CARB, October 2005 (CARB 2005 SCM), 

Appendix D at D–5. 

16See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating 

Limits). 

17The CARB 2005 SCM defines ‘‘pretreatment 

coating’’ as ‘‘any coating that contains a minimum 

of one-half (0.5) percent acid by weight and not 

more than 16 percent solids by weight necessary to 

stringent limits for the cleaning of 3- 

piece can sheet coaters. In sum, 

Earthjustice stated that EPA should 

disapprove and require the District to 

revise Rule 4604. 

Response #3: First, EPA’s longstanding national policy allows for 

exemptions from RACT limits for ‘‘lowuse’’ coatings at sources that use small 

quantities for intermittent or specialtytype operations.4 The policy states that 

an exemption based on a plantwide 

cutoff of 55 gallons per rolling 12-month 

period for all low-use coatings in the 

aggregate used at a facility is reasonable, 

and may be approved into a SIP, 

provided the 55-gallon plantwide limit 

is accompanied by good recordkeeping 

requirements and is federally 

enforceable. The exemption in section 

4.1 of Rule 4604 for stationary sources 

that use 55 gallons or less in the 

aggregate of coatings and cleaning 

solvent per rolling 12-month period, 

together with the recordkeeping 

requirements of the rule (see section 

6.1), are consistent with this policy. 

Second, as to the commenter’s 

objection to the exemptions in Rule 

4604 for necker lubricants, stripping of 

certain cured materials, and cleaning in 

laboratory tests and analyses, we note 

that EPA’s 2006 CTG for Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents (2006 CTG) 

specifically identifies ‘‘stripping of 

cured inks, coatings, and adhesives’’ and 

‘‘research and development laboratories’’ 

among the categories that State and 

local agencies may consider for 

exclusion from RACT requirements.5

Moreover, contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, SCAQMD’s RACT rule for this 

source category exempts the use of 

cleaning solvents for stripping of cured 

materials and for cleaning in laboratory 

tests and analyses.6 Specifically, 

SCAQMD’s Rule 1125 (Metal Container, 

Closure, and Coil Coating Operations) 

requires that all solvent cleaning 

operations be carried out pursuant to 

Rule 1171 (Solvent Cleaning 

Operations), which in turn exempts 

solvent cleaning in research and 

development laboratory tests from the 

VOC limits of the rule, and exempts 

solvent cleaning for ‘‘stripping of cured 

coatings, cured ink, or cured adhesives’’ 

from all requirements of the rule.7 These 

exemptions are consistent with the 

recommendation provided in EPA’s 

2006 CTG.8 The commenter has 

provided no additional information 

about reasonably available control 

methods for these operations and we are 

not aware of more stringent RACT 

measures for them. 

Finally, as to the commenter’s 

assertion that SMAQMD’s rule for this 

source category has more stringent VOC 

limits for cleaning of 3-piece can sheet 

coaters, we note first that it is not clear 

which VOC limit(s) the commenter is 

referring to. In the absence of more 

specific information, we assume the 

commenter based its assertion on the 

information provided in SJVAPCD’s 

2009 RACT SIP, which indicates that 

SMAQMD’s Rule 452 contains a 25 g/L 

limit for 3-piece can sheet coaters.9

Specifically, however, SMAQMD’s Rule 

452 prohibits the use of solvents that 

contain more than 

25 g/L VOCs for ‘‘cleanup of container 

assembly equipment, including slitters, 

bodymakers, beaders, end seamers, 

flangers, and testers, excluding side 

seam spray application equipment.’’ 10 It 

is not clear that this language includes 

3-piece can sheet coaters. Nonetheless, 

to the extent the commenter intended to 

assert that a 25 g/L VOC limit should 

apply to cleaning of 3-piece can sheet 

coating operations in the SJV area, we 

disagree. 

According to the SJVAPCD staff report 

for Rule 4604, currently there are no 

effective cleaning solvents for can sheet 

coaters that meet a 25 g/L VOC content 

limit. The SJVAPCD staff report notes 

that SCAQMD’s Rule 1177 contains a 

25 g/L VOC limit for cleaning of 3-piece 

can sheet coaters but that this 25 g/L 

limit is not achieved in practice because 

all operations in SCAQMD that are 

required to comply with the limit use 

VOC capture and control systems.11

Given the commenter has provided no 

information to support its assertion that 

lower-VOC solvents for cleaning of 

3-piece can sheet coaters are reasonably 

available and we are not otherwise 

aware of such information, we conclude 

that the VOC limits for this activity in 

Rule 4604 represent RACT. 

Comment #4: Earthjustice stated that 

Rule 4612 does not meet RACT because 

it is not as stringent as other California 

district rules. The commenter asserted 

generally that Rule 4612 ‘‘has limits on 

precoat and topcoat-metallic iridescent 

coatings that are less stringent than Bay 

Area, South Coast, and Sacramento 

rules,’’ and that neither the District’s 

RACT SIP nor EPA’s technical support 

document explains the significance of 

these sources or whether the more 

protective limits are reasonable in 

SJVAPCD. The commenter concluded 

by stating that ‘‘[w]ithout this analysis, 

EPA has no rational basis for approving 

this rule as satisfying the RACT 

requirement.’’ 

Response #4: We note initially that 

the commenter’s assertion is stated only 

generally and does not specify which 

more stringent limits it is referring to. In 

the absence of more specific 

information, we assume the commenter 

based its assertions on the information 

provided in SJVAPCD’s 2009 RACT SIP, 

which indicates that VOC limits in 

BAAQMD’s Rule 8–45 and SMAQMD’s 

Rule 459 for ‘‘precoat’’ coatings are more 

stringent than corresponding limits in 

Rule 4612, and that a VOC limit in 

SCAQMD’s Rule 1151 for ‘‘topcoatmetallic/iridescent’’ coatings is more 

stringent than the corresponding limit 

in Rule 4612.12 Our review of the 

specific limits in these rules indicates 

that this information is not correct. 

First, Rule 4612 does not contain VOC 

limits specific to ‘‘precoat’’ coatings. The 

rule does, however, contain a VOC limit 

of 250 g/L for ‘‘primer’’ coatings and a 

limit of 660 g/L for ‘‘pretreatment’’ 

coatings.13 We note that the definition 

of ‘‘primer’’ 14 in Rule 4612 is identical 

to the definition in the California Air 

Resources Board’s 2005 Suggested 

Control Measures for Automotive 

Coatings (CARB 2005 SCM), which 

includes ‘‘precoat’’ coatings in the 

‘‘primer’’ category.15 The 2005 CARB 

SCM recommends a VOC limit of 250 

g/L for primer coatings.16 It defines 

‘‘pretreatments’’ coatings separately 17

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 2799 

provide surface etching and is labeled and 

formulated for application directly to bare metal 

surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and 

adhesion.’’ CARB 2005 SCM at section 3.23. 

18See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating 

Limits). 

19See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009 

at pp. 4–242. 

20See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 at section 5.1; 

BAAQMD Rule 8–45–301; SMAQMD Rule 459 at 

section 301; CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating 

Limits). 

21See SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301.1. 

22See e.g., SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301.1, 

which establishes a 250 g/L VOC limit for primer 

coatings and a separate 600 g/L VOC limit for 

precoat coatings; see also CARB 2005 SCM at 

Appendix D, D–4 and D–5. 

23See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 at section 5.1. 24See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 defines ‘‘color coating’’ 

as follows: ‘‘any pigmented coating, excluding 

adhesion promoters, primers, and multi-color 

coatings, that requires a subsequent clear coating 

and which is applied over a primer, adhesion 

promoter, or color coating. Color coatings include 

metallic/iridescent color coatings.’’ Section 3.15. 25See CARB 2005 SCM at section 3.12. 26See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating 

Limits). 27See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, 

at pp. 4–242. 28See SCAQMD Rule 1151 at section (c)(1)(A), 

Table 1. 29See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A. 

30See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A, sections 

(c)(12) and (d)(1), Table A. 

and recommends a VOC limit of 660 

g/L for these coatings.18 In its 2009 

RACT SIP submittal, however, 

SJVAPCD compared the VOC limit in 

Rule 4612 for ‘‘pretreatment’’ coatings 

(660 g/L) to the VOC limits in 

BAAQMD’s and SMAQMD’s rules for 

‘‘precoat’’ coatings (580 g/L and 600 g/ 

L, respectively), suggesting that 

BAAQMD’s and SMAQMD’s rules 

contain more stringent VOC limits for 

the same coating activities.19

We believe this comparison was 

inaccurate. A more appropriate 

evaluation would have been to compare 

the VOC limits for primer coatings in 

SJVAPCD’s Rule 4612 to the 

corresponding limits for primer coatings 

in BAAQMD’s and SMAQMD’s rules, 

and to also compare the VOC limits for 

pretreatment coatings among the same 

rules. The limit for primer coatings in 

SJVAPCD’s Rule 4612 (250 g/L) is 

equivalent to the limits for primer 

coatings in BAAQMD’s Rule 8–45 and 

SMAQMD’s Rule 459, and to the 

recommended limit in the CARB 2005 

SCM for Automotive Coatings.20 The 

limit for pretreatment coatings in Rule 

4612 (660 g/L) is equivalent to the limits 

for pretreatment coatings in BAAQMD’s 

Rule 8–45 and to the recommended 

limit in CARB’s 2005 SCM for 

Automotive Coatings, and is more 

stringent than the limit for 

‘‘pretreatment wash primers’’ in 

SMAQMD’s Rule 459 (780 g/L).21 To the 

extent that the limit for ‘‘primer’’ 

coatings in SJVAPCD Rule 4612 covers 

‘‘precoat’’ coating activities, consistent 

with the CARB 2005 SCM 

recommendations, SJVAPCD’s Rule 

4612 is more stringent than many other 

district rules that provide a separate, 

higher VOC limit for precoat coatings.22

As such, we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion that BAAQMD’s 

and SMAQMD’s rules contain more 

stringent VOC limits for precoat 

coatings than SJVAPCD’s Rule 4612. 

Similarly, Rule 4612 does not contain 

VOC limits specific to ‘‘topcoat-metallic/ 

iridescent’’ coatings. It does, however, 

contain a limit of 420 g/L for ‘‘color 

coating,’’ 23 which is defined to include 

metallic/iridescent color coatings.24 The 

definition of ‘‘color coating’’ in Rule 

4612 is identical to the definition in the 

CARB 2005 SCM, which also includes 

metallic/iridescent color coatings.25 The 

CARB 2005 SCM recommends a VOC 

limit of 420 g/L for color coatings.26

In its 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD 

erroneously compared the limit in Rule 

4612 for both color coatings and 

topcoat-metallic/iridescent coatings 

(420 g/L) with a 340 g/L limit in 

SCAQMD’s Rule 1151 for the same 

coating activities.27 SCAQMD’s Rule 

1151 contains a 340 g/L VOC limit for 

metallic-iridescent topcoats for certain 

vehicles that was effective between 

December 12, 1998 and July 1, 2008.28

This requirement, however, expired as 

of July 1, 2008, at which time the 

requirements of Rule 1151, Appendix A 

became effective.29 These currentlyeffective provisions establish a 420 g/L 

VOC limit for ‘‘color coating,’’ which is 

now essentially defined identically to 

the definition in SJVAPCD’s Rule 4612 

and in the CARB 2005 SCM.30

As such, to the extent the commenter 

intended to argue that the limit for 

topcoat-metallic/iridescent coatings in 

SJVAPCD’s Rule 4612 is less stringent 

than the corresponding limit in 

SCAQMD’s Rule 1151, we disagree. The 

VOC limit for topcoat-metallic/ 

iridescent coatings, which are included 

in ‘‘color coatings,’’ in SJVAPCD’s Rule 

4612 is equivalent to both the 

corresponding limit in SCAQMD’s Rule 

1151 and to the recommended limit in 

the CARB 2005 SCM. 

The commenter has provided no 

information to support its assertion that 

lower-VOC coatings for primer, 

pretreatment, and/or color coating 

(including topcoat-metallic/iridescent 

coating) activities are reasonably 

available in the SJV area and we are 

otherwise aware of no such information. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the 

limits in Rule 4612 represent RACT 

levels of control. 

Comment #5: The National Paint & 

Coatings Association (NPCA) stated that 

the revisions to Rule 4603 that EPA 

proposed to approve have not been 

adopted by the District and that the 

VOC limits for two subcategories in the 

Pleasure Craft Coatings category are too 

low to allow for effective coatings. 

NPCA also stated that the VOC limits for 

pleasure craft coatings that ultimately 

appeared in EPA’s 2008 CTG on 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings were not mentioned in EPA’s 

proposed CTG, and that the regulated 

communities were, therefore, not given 

the opportunity to comment and make 

recommendations on these limits. NPCA 

recognized that CTGs are not formal 

rulemakings and thus are not governed 

by notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements, but nonetheless stated 

that EPA should reevaluate the efficacy 

of the CTG recommendations in this 

case, given the absence of thorough 

public review and comment. 

Lastly, NPCA noted that USEPA is 

conducting a comprehensive technology 

review of pleasure craft coatings for 

purposes of setting NESHAP emission 

limits and stated that the resulting data 

will provide a more current and 

thorough understanding of RACT for 

these coating operations. NPCA 

requested that EPA ‘‘not approve the 

pleasure craft coating aspects of 

SJVAPCD’s SIP’’ during the pendency of 

this rulemaking process. 

Response #5: NPCA’s comments 

address revisions to Rule 4603 that have 

not yet been submitted for approval into 

the SIP. As such, NPCA’s comments are 

not relevant to this action. Our action 

today is limited to the version of Rule 

4603 that the District adopted and 

submitted to EPA for SIP approval on 

December 23, 2008. This version of Rule 

4603 does not contain the VOC limits 

for pleasure craft coatings recommended 

in the 2008 CTG. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 

into the California SIP. 

IV. 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

2800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does 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 March 22, 2010. 

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. 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: December 3, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

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)(354) (i)(E)(9) and 

(10) and (c)(364)(i)(A)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(354) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) * * * 

(9) Rule 4604, ‘‘Can and Coil Coating 

Operations,’’ adopted on September 20, 

2007. 

(10) Rule 4612, ‘‘Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating OperationsPhase II,’’ adopted on September 20, 

2007. 

* * * * * 

(364) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) Rule 4603, ‘‘Surface Coating of 

Metal Parts and Products,’’ adopted on 

October 16, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–747 Filed 1–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2005–0051] 

44 CFR Part 206 

RIN 1660–AA44 

Special Community Disaster Loans 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

amending its Special Community 

Disaster Loan Program regulations to 

establish loan cancellation provisions. 

The Special Community Disaster Loan 

Program, and these cancellation 

provisions, apply to communities in the 

Gulf Coast region who received Special 

Community Disaster Loans following 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The period 

for new Special Community Disaster 

Loan eligibility closed at the end of 

fiscal year 2006. This final rule 

establishes procedures and 

requirements for Special Community 

Disaster Loan recipients to apply for 

cancellation of their loan as authorized 

by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ 

Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq 

Accountability Appropriations Act, 

2007. This final rule does not cancel all 

Special Community Disaster Loans, nor 

does it apply to loans made under 

FEMA’s Community Disaster Loan 

program which is governed under 

separate regulations. This rule also 

finalizes the 2005 Special Community 

Disaster Loan Program interim rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this final rule, the 

2005 interim Rule, the 2009 notice of 

proposed rulemaking, all public 

comments received, and supplementary 

information (if any) are available 

electronically on the Federal 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES