53930 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[OAR–2003–0200; FRL–7966–2] 

RIN 2060–AM98 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan and Revision to 

the Definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC)—Removal of VOC 

Exemptions for California’s Aerosol 

Coating Products Reactivity-based 

Regulation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing 

approval of a new consumer products 

regulation as part of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as 

amended in 1990. This California 

regulation adopts a new approach to 

reducing ozone formation from volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) in aerosol 

coating products. The EPA is also 

approving the use of California’s Tables 

of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

(MIR) to allow implementation of their 

rule. This action also revises EPA’s 

definition of VOCs so that compounds 

which we previously identified as 

negligibly reactive and exempt from 

EPA’s regulatory definition of VOCs 

now count towards a product’s 

reactivity-based VOC limit for the 

purpose of California’s aerosol coatings 

regulation. These revisions were 

previously proposed in the Federal 

Register on January 7, 2005 (70 FR 

1640) and are expected to help in 

California’s efforts to attain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 13, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0200. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan Docket, Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0200, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, Rulemaking Office, (AIR–

4), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San 

Francisco, CA 94105; telephone 

number: (415) 947–4122; fax number: 

(415) 947–3579; e-mail address: 

tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action applies to persons that 

sell, supply, offer for sale, apply, or 

manufacture for use in California, any 

aerosol coating, aerosol clear coating 

and aerosol stain product subject to the 

limits in California’s Aerosol Coating 

Products regulation. The regulation 

prohibits the commercial application of 

non-complying aerosol coating 

products. 

B. Throughout This Document, ‘‘We,’’

‘‘Us’’ and ‘‘Our’’ Refer to EPA 

C. Submitted Regulations 

On January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1640), EPA 

proposed to approve the following 

regulations into the California SIP. 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED REGULATIONS

Regulation title Adopted Submitted 

Aerosol Coating 

Products ........ 5/1/2001 3/13/2002 

Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivities 

(MIR) Values 5/1/2001 3/13/2002 

We proposed to approve these 

regulations because we determined that 

they complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We also proposed to 

change our definition of VOCs so that 

compounds which we previously 

identified as negligibly reactive and 

exempt from EPA’s regulatory definition 

of VOCs will now count towards a 

product’s reactivity-based VOC limit for 

the purpose of California’s aerosol 

coatings regulation. The January 7, 2005 

proposed action contains more 

information on the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB’s) regulations 

and our evaluation. 

D. Outline 

The information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background Information 

A. What is Photochemical Reactivity? 

B. What Does CARB’s Regulation Do? 

II. Response to Major Comments 

A. Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Approval 

B. Response to Questions Posed by EPA in 

the Proposal 

C. Comments Asking EPA to Update and 

Expand its Reactivity Policy 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background Information 

A. What Is Photochemical Reactivity? 

There are thousands of individual 

species of VOC chemicals that can 

combine with nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and the energy from sunlight to form 

ozone. The impact of a given VOC on 

formation of ground-level ozone is 

sometimes referred to as its ‘‘reactivity.’’

It is generally understood that not all 

VOCs are equal in their effects on 

ground-level ozone formation. Some 

VOCs react extremely slowly and 

changes in their emissions have limited 

effects on ozone pollution episodes. 

Some VOCs form ozone more quickly, 

or they may form more ozone than other 

VOCs. Others not only form ozone 

themselves, but also enhance ozone 

formation from other VOCs. By 

distinguishing between more reactive 

and less reactive VOCs, however, it 

should be possible to decrease ozone 

concentrations further or more 

efficiently than by controlling all VOCs 

equally. 

Assigning a value to the reactivity of 

a compound is a complex undertaking. 

Reactivity is not simply a property of 

the compound itself; it is a property of 

both the compound and the 

environment in which the compound is 

found. The reactivity of a single 

compound varies with VOC–NOX ratios, 

meteorological conditions, the mix of 

other VOCs in the atmosphere, and the 

time interval of interest. Designing an 

effective regulation that takes account of 

these interactions is difficult, and 

implementing and enforcing such a 

regulation carries the extra burden of 

characterizing and tracking the full 

chemical composition of VOC 

emissions. The January 7, 2005 proposal 

(70 FR 1640) contains additional 

background information on 

photochemical reactivity. Recently, EPA 

has issued guidance to States regarding 

the use of VOC reactivity information in 

the development of ozone control 

measures. This guidance is published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53931 

1http:www.arb.ca.gov/colsprod/reg/apt.pdf or 

Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 3. 

B. What Does CARB’s Regulation Do? 

The CARB has been exploring the use 

of reactivity-based regulations since the 

early 1990s as a means of achieving 

further ozone reductions. For example, 

in 1991, the CARB incorporated a 

reactivity scale for weighting vehicle 

emissions of individual VOC species in 

their low emitting vehicle and clean 

fuels regulation. In 2001, the CARB 

adopted an aerosol coatings regulation 1

that set reactivity-based VOC limits for 

six general coating categories and 29 

speciality coating categories. The 

reactivity-based limits for the general 

coatings took effect on June 1, 2002 and 

the limits for the speciality coatings 

took effect on January 1, 2003. The 

CARB had previously controlled VOC 

emissions from aerosol coatings in 

California by limiting the mass of VOCs 

in the product, with limits expressed as 

maximum allowable percent of mass of 

VOC. The CARB’s new approach 

incorporates the concept of VOC 

photochemical reactivity. This concept 

relies on the fact that the same weight/ 

amount of some VOCs (e.g., xylene) has 

the potential to form more ozone, or to 

form ozone more quickly, than the same 

weight/amount of other VOCs (e.g., 

propane) once they are emitted into the 

ambient air under the same conditions. 

The EPA’s action to approve CARB’s 

regulation into the SIP enables CARB to 

include the ozone reductions achieved 

by their aerosol coatings regulation into 

their State SIP plan. 

The CARB’s aerosol coatings 

regulation applies to aerosol coatings, 

aerosol clear coatings and aerosol stains. 

It applies to any person who sells, 

supplies, offers for sale, applies or 

manufactures for use in California any 

aerosol coating subject to the limits in 

the regulation. The regulation prohibits 

the commercial application of noncomplying aerosol coating products. 

All aerosol coating products covered 

by the CARB’s regulation were required 

to meet the new reactivity-based limits 

by January 1, 2003. The regulation 

contains a sell-through provision 

whereby products manufactured prior to 

the effective date of the regulation could 

be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or 

applied up to 3 years after that date. 

The CARB believes that some VOC 

mass-based limits in the previous 

version of their rule presented 

particularly difficult reformulation 

challenges for manufacturers of waterbased coatings, and the State concluded 

that it may not be feasible to achieve 

additional VOC reductions from a 

traditional VOC mass-based program. 

The CARB hopes to target VOC 

emissions reductions to better control a 

product’s contribution to ozone 

formation by encouraging reductions of 

higher reactivity VOCs, rather than by 

treating all VOCs in a product alike 

through a mass-based rule. The 

submitted regulation, therefore, consists 

of reactivity-based limits that replace 

the existing mass-based VOC limits for 

aerosol spray coatings. 

To discriminate among VOCs, the 

CARB has used a version of the MIR 

scale (W. P. L. Carter, ‘‘Development of 

Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile 

Organic Compounds,’’ Journal of the Air 

and Waste Management Association, 44, 

p.881–899, July 1994.) The MIR scale is 

designed using certain assumptions 

about meteorological and environmental 

conditions where ozone production is 

most sensitive to changes in 

hydrocarbon emissions and, therefore, is 

intended to represent conditions where 

VOC emission controls will be most 

effective. The MIR scale is expressed as 

grams of ozone formed per gram of 

organic compound reacted. Each 

compound is assigned an individual 

MIR value, which enables the 

reactivities of different compounds to be 

compared quantitatively. Individual 

MIR values now exist for many 

commonly used compounds, and a list 

of these individual values comprises a 

scale. Today’s action approves into the 

SIP, the CARB’s reactivity-weighted 

emission limits and the associated MIR 

scale. 

The EPA believes that reactivity-based 

approaches such as the one developed 

by the CARB can be more efficient and 

effective than traditional approaches 

that do not distinguish among VOCs 

based on reactivity. In particular, 

reactivity-based approaches may be 

useful in areas where significant VOC 

emission controls are already in place 

and further mass-based emissions 

reductions may be difficult or very 

expensive to achieve. In such situations, 

regulations that distinguish between 

individual VOCs and create an incentive 

to shift production and use from more 

reactive VOCs to less reactive VOCs may 

provide the flexibility necessary to 

continue progress towards attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS. 

To support the CARB’s aerosol 

coating reactivity-based program, EPA is 

modifying our regulatory definition of 

VOC under 40 CFR 51.100(s) so that 

compounds previously excluded from 

the definition of VOC will now be 

counted towards a product’s reactivitybased VOC limit for the limited purpose 

of the CARB’s regulation. 

II. Response to Major Comments 

In our proposal to approve the 

CARB’s aerosol coatings reactivity-based 

regulation and associated MIR tables 

into the SIP, and to change our 

definition of VOC, EPA indicated that 

interested parties could request that 

EPA hold a public hearing on the 

proposed action. The EPA received no 

requests for a public hearing. 

The EPA also provided for a 60-day 

public comment period in the proposal. 

We received six comment letters. One 

letter was submitted from a regulatory 

agency and five letters were submitted 

from industry and trade associations. 

The major comments fell into 3 

categories: (1) Comments supporting the 

proposed approval, (2) Response to 

questions posed by EPA in the proposal, 

and (3) Comments asking EPA to update 

and expand its reactivity policy. All 

comment letters are contained in the 

docket (OAR–2003–0200) for this 

action. In today’s final action, we have 

summarized the significant comments 

and provided the Agency’s responses. 

A. Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Approval 

Comment: All six comment letters 

supported the approval of the CARB’s 

reactivity-based regulation into the SIP. 

One commenter (84–1–2) stated that 

reactivity-based regulations for 

consumer products, where 

technologically feasible, were a more 

effective form of regulation. Another 

commenter (87–2–4) stated the approval 

provided the aerosol coatings industry 

with a relatively stable and reliable 

regulatory arena at least in the State of 

California and further indicated (87–2–

5) that the CARB had already taken 

steps to make sure the reactivity-based 

regulatory program remained 

enforceable and scientifically accurate 

by updating the MIR tables in December 

2003. 

Response: This final rulemaking 

approves the CARB’s aerosol coatings 

reactivity-based regulation into the SIP. 

B. Response to Questions Posed by EPA 

in the Proposal 

The EPA requested comments on the 

following areas in the proposed rule: 

how reactivity-based programs might 

affect industry compliance (e.g., 

compliance testing) and recordkeeping 

costs; and how industry and regulatory 

agency costs and staff requirements 

might change with respect to detailed 

emission inventories, manufacturing or 

material costs, product quality and 

price. 

Comment: Two commenters (82–2–1) 

and (85–3–4) stated the MIR concept 

53932 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

allows formulators greater flexibility 

and cost effectiveness in meeting 

regulatory requirements, and that the 

simplicity of determining MIR values 

for hydrocarbon solvents creates the 

incentive for the substitution and use of 

solvents with relatively low 

contribution to ozone formation in 

aerosol coating applications. 

One commenter (85–2–5) stated that 

reactivity-based regulations in general 

do not present significant or 

insurmountable problems regarding 

enforceability. This commenter stated 

that while calculating a product 

weighted average MIR is arithmetically 

slightly more complex than simply 

adding up the percent of each ingredient 

classified as a VOC, this slight increase 

in complexity does not deter 

enforceability determinations, which 

were primarily based on the product 

formulations. 

The commenter (85–3–3) further 

stated that there was nothing inherent in 

reactivity-based regulations that should 

unreasonably increase industry costs 

and that in both mass-based and 

reactivity-based cases, industry needed 

to keep records and the most significant 

costs were in the research and 

development process to develop and 

assess new product formulation 

technologies. 

Another commenter (87–3–1) stated 

that quantifying compliance and 

recordkeeping costs relative to the 

implementation of a regulation was a 

difficult task for large, medium and 

small members of the industry and there 

were significant obstacles to gathering 

this type of information. Consequently, 

they stated they were unable to respond 

with any accurate data at this time 

without further clarification on the 

exact level of data needs. 

Response: From the industry and 

trade associations responses, EPA 

concludes that in general, industry 

compliance and recordkeeping costs are 

not expected to be significantly different 

between mass-based and reactivitybased regulations and that generally, 

expenditures for formulation and 

research and development efforts 

exceed expenditures for compliance 

determination. 

The EPA’s concern in posing this 

question was whether reactivity-based 

programs resulted in a significant 

increase in compliance determination 

costs. This does not appear to be the 

case for industry, however, we are 

unsure of the potential impact on 

regulatory agencies since we did not 

receive any replies from regulatory 

agencies on this question. We believe 

that because reactivity-based programs 

rely on identifying and quantifying all 

the individual VOC ingredients in a 

coating to determine compliance, it 

appears reasonable to conclude that 

they can be more complex and costly 

than the traditional ‘‘bake and weigh’’

method employed in EPA Method 24 to 

determine compliance with a massbased VOC limit. We recognize that 

some regulatory agencies such as the 

CARB have extensive laboratory 

capabilities and capable staff to conduct 

the required analysis using gas 

chromatography, however other States 

and local regulatory agencies may not 

have these capabilities and may need to 

investigate acquiring these resources 

and skills before developing their own 

reactivity-based regulations to ensure 

their programs are enforceable and have 

the opportunity to succeed. 

C. Comments Asking EPA To Update 

and Expand Its Reactivity Policy 

Comment: One commenter (83–3–2) 

believed EPA should encourage other 

States to evaluate opportunities to 

incorporate reactivity-based approaches 

into their VOC emissions and ozone 

control regulatory programs, and should 

not limit the use of photochemical 

reactivity to situations where further 

mass-based limits are difficult to 

achieve. The commenter further urged 

EPA to state clearly that the technical 

support provided by California would 

not necessarily represent what would be 

required in each case to support a 

reactivity-based approach. 

Another commenter (85–2–4) stated 

that scientific studies provide a clear 

picture that both VOC mass and 

reactivity should be considered in ozone 

control strategies. This commenter also 

indicated that while reactivity 

reductions may not be appropriate for 

many consumer products or some other 

sources of VOC emissions, for some 

sources, reactivity reductions will 

represent the most cost-effective way to 

reduce ozone formation. The commenter 

(85–3–5) further stated that EPA should 

update and broaden its policies 

regarding reactivity and ozone 

attainment and (85–4–1) urged EPA to 

initiate a scientific-based policy review 

of its ozone attainment strategies to 

assure that the latest scientific studies 

are incorporated to encourage the most 

effective, and cost-effective control 

strategies. 

Another commenter (87–3–2) stated 

that it was important that the Federal 

agency charged with stewardship over 

environmental issues be receptive to 

reactivity-based regulations. They 

further stated that many of the 

consumer products that could be 

addressed in this rulemaking have been 

regulated several times already and that 

further efforts to lower the mass-based 

VOC limits could be impossible without 

seriously altering the performance 

characteristics of the product or 

eliminating it from the marketplace 

altogether. 

Response: Recently, EPA has issued 

interim guidance to States, which is 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register encouraging them to consider 

recent scientific information on VOC 

reactivity in the development of ozone 

control measures. This interim guidance 

summarizes recent scientific findings, 

provides examples of innovative 

applications of reactivity information in 

the development of VOC control 

measures, and clarifies the relationship 

between innovative reactivity-based 

policies and EPA’s current definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The EPA will 

continue to work with the CARB and 

other interested parties through the 

Reactivity Research Working Group 

(RRWG) (http://www.cgenv.com/Narsto/ 

reactinfo.html) to improve the scientific 

foundation of VOC reactivity-based 

regulations. The EPA will update its 

guidance to States as new information 

becomes available. 

III. Final Action 

By this final rulemaking, EPA is 

approving: the CARB’s aerosol coatings 

reactivity-based regulation and 

associated MIR tables into the SIP; the 

use of the CARB Method 310 to 

determine compliance with the CARB’s 

reactivity-based regulation, granting SIP 

credit for the equivalent mass-based 

reductions achieved by the CARB’s 

regulation, and modifying our 

regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 

51.100(s) to support the CARB’s 

regulation. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53933 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

For the change in definition of VOCs, 

EPA has determined that this final 

rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore 

not subject to the OMB review. For the 

approval of the CARB’s rule into the 

SIP, the OMB has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 

12866 review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

For the change in the definition of 

VOCs, this action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The change 

in the definition of VOCs only 

reinstates, for the purposes of 

determining compliance with 

California’s aerosol coatings rule, 

compounds which were previously 

exempted from the definition of VOC. 

The change in the definition of VOCs 

does not impose any information 

collection requirements. 

For the approval of the CARB’s 

regulation into the SIP, this final 

rulemaking does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

would require any person to provide 

information to EPA, however the 

CARB’s regulation contain requirements 

for the aerosol coating industry to 

provide information to the CARB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

this final rule. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This final 

action will not impose any requirements 

on small entities. 

SIP approvals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not 

create any new requirements but simply 

act on requirements that the State is 

already imposing. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 

million or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

For the change in the definition of 

VOCs, today’s rulemaking contains no 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

For the approval of the CARB’s 

regulation into the SIP, EPA has 

determined that the approval 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 

approves 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. 

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

In addition, EPA has determined that 

this rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments in 

accordance with section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’

This final rulemaking does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

53934 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Today’s final 

rulemaking does not impose any new 

mandates on State or local governments. 

The change to the definition of VOCs 

merely assists the CARB in 

implementing its aerosol coatings 

reactivity regulation. The approval of 

this regulation into the SIP acts on a 

State regulation implementing a Federal 

standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and 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 final rule does not 

have Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. The change to 

the definition of VOCs merely assists 

the CARB in implementing its aerosol 

coatings reactivity regulation and does 

not impose any direct compliance costs. 

The approval of the CARB’s regulation 

into the SIP acts on a State regulation 

and does not alter the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

While this final action is not subject 

to the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, we have reason 

to believe that ozone has a 

disproportionate effect on active 

children who play outdoors. (See 62 FR 

38856 and 38859; July 18, 1997). 

However, we do not expect today’s 

approval of the CARB’s regulation into 

the SIP to result in an adverse impact, 

as it is intended to at least achieve the 

same ozone reductions as the massbased limits they supplant. Also, we do 

not expect today’s change to the 

definition of VOC to result in any 

adverse impact, because it increases the 

number of compounds subject to 

regulation as VOCs for the purpose of 

California’s aerosol coatings reactivitybased regulation. 

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 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 104–113, 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

For the change in definition of VOCs, 

this final rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. For the approval 

of the CARB’s regulation into the SIP, 

the State regulation references standard 

test methods and makes modifications 

to methods adopted by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) D3074–94, D3063–94, and 

D2879–97 to support the regulatory 

objectives. These ASTM methods can be 

obtained through the ASTM Web site at: 

http://www.astm.org. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 14, 2005. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. [See section 

307(b)(2)]. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compound. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compound. 

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

Dated: September 2, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ Parts 51 and 52, Chapter I, title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations are 

amended as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53935 

PART 51—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q. 

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended by 

adding paragraph (s)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.100 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(6) For the purposes of determining 

compliance with California’s aerosol 

coatings reactivity-based regulation, (as 

described in the California Code of 

Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 3), 

any organic compound in the volatile 

portion of an aerosol coating is counted 

towards that product’s reactivity-based 

limit. Therefore, the compounds 

identified in paragraph (s) of this 

section as negligibly reactive and 

excluded from EPA’s definition of VOCs 

are to be counted towards a product’s 

reactivity limit for the purposes of 

determining compliance with 

California’s aerosol coatings reactivitybased regulation. 

* * * * * 

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 paragraph (c)(338) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(338) New and amended regulations 

for the following agency were submitted 

on March 13, 2002, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) California Code of Regulations, 

Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, 

Subchapter 8.5, Consumer Products, 

Article 3, Aerosol Coating Products, 

Sections 94520 to 94528, and 

Subchapter 8.6, Maximum Incremental 

Reactivity, Article 1, Tables of 

Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) 

Values, Sections 94700 to 94701, both 

adopted on May 1, 2001. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18016 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA–319–0488c; FRL–7966–5] 

Interim Final Determination To Stay 

and/or Defer Sanctions, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to stay and/or defer 

imposition of sanctions based on a 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

The revisions concern San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District Rule 4623—Storage of Organic 

Liquids. 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on September 13, 2005. 

However, comments will be accepted 

until October 13, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 or email to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted rule revisions, EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD), and 

public comments at our Region IX office 

during normal business hours by 

appointment. You may also see copies 

of the submitted rule revisions by 

appointment at the following locations: 

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air 

Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; 

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814; and 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, 1990 East 

Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726. 

A copy of the rule may also be 

available via the Internet at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. 

Please be advised that this is not an EPA 

Web site and may not contain the same 

version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On January 22, 2004 (69 Federal 

Register (FR) 3012), we published a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 as 

adopted locally on December 20, 2001 

and submitted by the State on March 15, 

2002. We based our limited disapproval 

action on certain deficiencies in the 

submittal. This disapproval action 

started a sanctions clock for imposition 

of offset sanctions 18 months after 

February 23, 2004 and highway 

sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to 

section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. 

On May 19, 2005, SJVUAPCD adopted 

revisions to Rule 4623 that were 

intended to correct the deficiencies 

identified in our limited disapproval 

action. On July 15, 2005, the State 

submitted these revisions to EPA. In the 

Proposed Rules section of today’s 

Federal Register, we have proposed 

approval of this submittal because we 

believe it corrects the deficiencies 

identified in our January 22, 2004 

disapproval action. Based on today’s 

proposed approval, we are taking this 

final rulemaking action, effective on 

publication, to stay and/or defer 

imposition of sanctions that were 

triggered by our January 22, 2004 

limited disapproval. 

EPA is providing the public with an 

opportunity to comment on this stay/ 

deferral of sanctions. If comments are 

submitted that change our assessment 

described in this final determination 

and the proposed full approval of 

revised SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, we 

intend to take subsequent final action to 

reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.31(d). If no comments are submitted 

that change our assessment, then all 

sanctions and sanction clocks will be 

permanently terminated on the effective 

date of a final rule approval. 

II. EPA Action 

We are making an interim final 

determination to stay and/or defer CAA 

section 179 sanctions associated with 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 based on our 

concurrent proposal to approve the 

State’s SIP revision as correcting 

deficiencies that initiated sanctions. 

Because EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the State has corrected 

the deficiencies identified in EPA’s