```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50891-50893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0545; FRL-9447-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the SCAQMD portion 
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were 
proposed in the Federal Register on October 5, 2010 and concern 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. 
We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0545 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., 
confidential business information (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: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3019, grounds.david@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. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61367), EPA proposed to approve the 
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD............................            1113  Architectural Coatings......        07/13/07        03/07/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it 
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action 
contains more information on the rule 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 parties.
    1. Dan Pourreau and Dave Roznowski, Lyondell Chemical; letter dated 
October 25, 2010.
    2. David Darling, American Coatings Association; letter dated 
November 3, 2010.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Lyondell Chemical commented that, in 2009, they 
requested that EPA remove all reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
for tertiary-butyl acetate (TBAc), but has not yet received a formal 
response from EPA. Lyondell's comment requests that EPA respond to the 
2009 request by removing the unique tracking requirement for TBAc and 
moving TBAc to the 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) list of exempt compounds. 
Lyondell further requests that EPA remove the proposed recommendation 
to include a recordkeeping requirement for future Rule 1113 revisions, 
because this is complicating the rule development process and making 
TBAc a less attractive VOC-compliance option than it should be 
regarding Rule 1113 as well as coatings subject to other South Coast 
rules.
    In support of these requests, Lyondell states that EPA is not using 
the TBAc data for modeling purposes and does not require reporting for 
any other exempt compound with ``borderline'' reactivity, that TBAc has 
low toxicity and negligible environmental impact, and that reporting 
and tracking its emissions does not help protect human health or the 
environment. Lyondell also states most States do not track and report 
TBAc emissions. Lyondell feels that tracking and reporting TBAc 
emissions is a new and burdensome

[[Page 50892]]

requirement, and that Lyondell has provided and continues to provide 
TBAc sales data by State to the EPA, so requiring that users and the 
States also report emissions is redundant, an unnecessary bureaucratic 
burden, and fraught with error.
    American Coatings Association (ACA) similarly objects to EPA's 
recordkeeping recommendations on the grounds that the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements created in 2004 specifically for TBAc in 40 
CFR 51.100(s)(5) are burdensome, arbitrary, contrary to the goals of 
the CAA, and should be rescinded.
    Response #1: Similar comments were summarized and replied to in 
EPA's final action to revise treatment of TBAc in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5) 
(See 69 FR 69298, November 29, 2004). The comments have not provided 
new information that changes EPA's previous response to these issues. 
In addition, we note that TBAc is only addressed in recommendations 
discussed in the preamble to today's action. Today's final action does 
not require any revisions to South Coast's treatment of TBAc.
    Comment #2: ACA states it is questionable whether the Averaging 
Compliance Option is an Economic Incentive Program (EIP) as defined in 
EPA's guidance. Emissions occur during the activity of applying 
coatings, which is not regulated under Rule 1113. The limits of Rule 
1113 apply to the VOC contents, not emissions, of coating expressed as 
mass of VOC per volume of coating, not activity level. ACA further 
comments that, given the extremely low limits of Rule 1113, additional 
discounting is not feasible for specific compliance, averaging 
compliance, or a combination of the two.
    Response #2: As ACA noted, part of the regulatory approach in 
architectural coatings requires manufacturers to meet specified VOC 
standards in their products. EPA's EIP guidance applies broadly and is 
not limited to only direct emitters of pollution. EIP is defined as a 
program which may include State established measures directed toward 
stationary, area, and/or mobile sources, to achieve emissions 
reductions milestones, to attain and maintain ambient air quality 
standards, and/or provide more flexible, lower-cost approaches to 
meeting environmental goals. The Averaging Compliance Option in Rule 
1113 provides manufacturers a more flexible and potentially lower cost 
approaches to meeting the standards. As such, Rule 1113 is an EIP. 
Please see page 158 of the EIP Guidance (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf).
    Comment #3: ACA states that a shorter averaging period is not 
feasible because of the complexity involved in gathering and verifying 
retail sales data, and making program adjustments to ensure continuous 
compliance.
    Response #3: The recommendation was made based on the EIP guidance. 
However, after a review of the provision, we feel an averaging period 
longer than 30 days is acceptable for this rule. Therefore, we are no 
longer recommending the district reduce the averaging period to 30 days 
or less and we have communicated this to the district.

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 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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 October 17, 2011. 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)).

[[Page 50893]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
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 paragraph (c)(354)(i)(A)(5) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (354) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) Rule 1113, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on July 13, 
2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-20842 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```