```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2796-2800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-747]

[[Page 2796]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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            10/16/08        12/23/08
                                                     Parts and Products.
SJVAPCD...........................            4604  Can and Coil Coating                09/20/07        03/07/08
                                                     Operations.
SJVAPCD...........................            4612  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            09/20/07        03/07/08
                                                     Equipment Coating
                                                     Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rule 4603 VOC   CTG VOC limit   Rule 4603 VOC   CTG VOC limit
                  Coating type                       limit for       for baked    limit for air-   for air-dried
                                                  baked coatings     coatings     dried coatings     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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2797]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See e-mail correspondence dated July 23, 2009, between 
Nicole Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno (SJVAPCD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SJVAPCD VOC     BAAQMD VOC      SCAQMD VOC      VCAPCD VOC
                Coating category                   limit  (g/L)    limit  (g/L)    limit  (g/L)    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See phone conversation dated August 4, 2009, between Nicole 
Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno (SJVAPCD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2798]]

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 long-standing national policy allows for 
exemptions from RACT limits for ``low-use'' coatings at sources that 
use small quantities for intermittent or specialty-type 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, EPA Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, 
``Exemption for Low-Use Coatings,'' August 10, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
    \6\ See 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.
    \8\ See footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP), SJVAPCD, 
April 16, 2009 (2009 RACT SIP), at pp. 4-194.
    \10\ See SMAQMD Rule 452 at section 303.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SJVAPCD Final Staff Report for Rules 4603--4607, 4612, 
4653, 4661, 4662, 4663, 4684, September 20, 2007, at pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ``topcoat-metallic/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, at pp. 4-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

[[Page 2799]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612, section 5.1.
    \14\ Rule 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.
    \15\ See Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings, 
CARB, October 2005 (CARB 2005 SCM), Appendix D at D-5.
    \16\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
    \17\ The 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 
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.
    \18\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
    \19\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009 at pp. 4-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 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).
    \21\ See SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301.1.
    \22\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 at section 5.1.
    \24\ See 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.
    \25\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 3.12.
    \26\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
currently-effective 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, at pp. 4-242.
    \28\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151 at section (c)(1)(A), Table 1.
    \29\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A.
    \30\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A, sections (c)(12) and 
(d)(1), Table A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2800]]

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]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(354) (i)(E)(9) 
and (10) and (c)(364)(i)(A)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
Operations-Phase 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
```