Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0457-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Revisions to Aerospace VOC Rule
Posted Date: 2020-01-13T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1796-1798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00327]

[[Page 1796]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0457; FRL-10004-06-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Revisions to Aerospace VOC Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
(GA EPD), on June 6, 2019, for the purpose of updating Georgia's rule 
titled Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities. EPA is proposing action on this 
Georgia SIP revision under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0457 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to 
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at 
adams.evan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. EPA's Action

A. Background

    The action being proposed revises the reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) standard for VOC emissions at aerospace manufacturing 
and rework facilities in the State of Georgia. Additionally, other 
administrative changes are being proposed in this action.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt RACT rules 
for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as 
moderate or above. Under Section 182(b)(2), these RACT requirements 
apply to: (1) Sources covered by an existing Control Technique 
Guideline (CTG) (i.e., a CTG issued prior to enactment of the 1990 
amendments to the CAA); (2) sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; 
and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG (i.e., non-CTG sources). 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165, a major source for a moderate ozone area is 
a source that emits 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOC or nitrogen 
oxides (NOX).
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limit that a particular 
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology 
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic 
feasibility.'' See 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979). EPA has 
issued CTGs that present feasible RACT control measures for VOC source 
categories. The CTGs recommend a ``presumptive norm'' or ``presumptive 
RACT'' that EPA believes satisfies the definition of RACT.
    The CTGs established by EPA are guidance to the states and only 
provide recommendations. A state can develop its own strategy for what 
constitutes RACT for the various CTG categories. EPA will review that 
strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine whether it 
meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing 
regulations.
    EPA promulgated a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities on September 1, 1995. See 60 FR 45948. The NESHAP is 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. Subsequently, in December 1997, 
EPA published a CTG titled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Operations.'' \1\ EPA subsequently amended the NESHAP on December 7, 
2015 (80 FR 76152) to incorporate revisions to the emission standards 
for specialty coatings, allow for annual purchase records of certain 
coatings, exempt two additional application methods, and update 
definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ctg_act/199712_voc_epa453_r-97-004_aerospace_rework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA initially approved GA EPD's RACT for aerospace manufacturing 
and rework facilities--codified at Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk)--on July 
10, 2001 (66 FR 35906). EPA approved subsequent amendments to that rule 
on September 28, 2012 (77 FR 55994) and March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16783) 
(correcting amendments), including Georgia's expansion of the rule's 
applicability to include all the counties in the Atlanta nonattainment 
area. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from aerospace 
manufacturing and rework facilities that are located within or 
contribute to ozone levels in ozone nonattainment areas. The rules also 
limit VOC emissions from major sources (emitting greater than 100 tpy 
of VOC emissions) located outside the ozone nonattainment area.

B. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    Georgia's June 6, 2019, submission amends RACT requirements 
applicable to VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework 
facilities at Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). The rule changes 
incorporate EPA's December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76152) revisions to the 
NESHAP. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to conclude that the 
revisions are consistent with the CAA and the CTG.
    The changes in the June 6, 2019, submittal replicate updates made 
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, and are compliant with the State's RACT 
requirements. The amendments begin at Table (kkk)-1 Specialty Coating 
VOC Limitations and make changes to include the metric equivalent of 
the VOC Content Limit. The addition of the VOC Content Limit (g/L) 
column replicates Table 4-1. Specialty Coatings VOC Content Limit (g/L) 
in the CTG guidance document. This specific revision provides no 
substantive change and better serves the regulated community.
    Georgia also revises the allowable application techniques for 
primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings under subparagraph 3 of the 
Rule. First, GA EPD adds language clarifying that the

[[Page 1797]]

limits on application techniques apply only to ``spray applied'' 
methods. GA EPD also removes from the list all non-spray application 
methods, such as brush, roll, and dip coating. As EPA explained in its 
final rule amending the NESHAP applicable to aerospace facilities, non-
spray application techniques are properly exempted from the scope of 
the rule because they do not cause VOC emissions. See 80 FR at 76155.
    GA EPD also adds to subparagraph 9 several activities that would be 
exempted from Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). First, GA EPD exempts chemical 
milling, as well as specific primers, topcoats, specialty coatings, 
chemical milling maskants, strippers, and cleaning solvents that meet 
the definition of non-VOC materials. EPA notes that these types of 
coatings are not regulated by the CTG or the NESHAP.\2\ Moreover, GA 
EPD retains requirements applicable to chemical milling maskants 
(defined as coatings that are applied directly to aluminum components 
to protect surface areas when chemical milling the component with a 
Type I or Type II etchant), as well as maskants that must be used with 
a combination of Type I or II etchants and any of the above types of 
maskants (i.e., bonding, critical use and line sealer, and seal 
coat).\3\ EPA has preliminarily concluded that these changes are 
consistent with the CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Non-VOC materials are defined as a primer, topcoat, 
specialty coating, chemical milling maskant, cleaning solvent or 
stripper that contains no more than 1.0 percent by mass VOC in 
Subparagraph 17 of this Rule.
    \3\ See EPA's action on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76152), 
``National Emissions Standard for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities Risk and Technology Review''; see also Type I and Type II 
etchant definitions in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Subparagraph 9(xiv), parts and assemblies not critical to the 
structural integrity of the vehicle or flight performance would be 
exempted from Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk). This provision would exempt 
from the RACT requirements the manufacture or rework of certain non-
critical airplane components, such as tray tables and seat panels. EPA 
notes that the manufacture or rework of these non-critical components 
are already subject to separate RACT requirements under Georgia's SIP-
approved Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(vvv)--VOC Emissions from Surface Coating 
of Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products.\4\ Thus, EPA believes that 
the exemption of these activities from Georgia's aerospace RACT rule 
will not negatively impact VOC emissions. Accordingly, EPA is 
preliminarily concluding that the exemption of these activities from 
the aerospace-specific Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) is consistent with the 
CTG and with RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 67 FR 72276, 72280 (Dec. 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk) would provide an 
exemption for primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings that meet the 
definition of ``classified national security information'' in 
Subparagraph 17(xvii). This exemption is consistent with RACT, as well 
as Executive Order 13526, ``Classified National Security Information,'' 
December 29, 2009, which outlines the different components and 
restrictions applicable to certain classified materials.
    Finally, GA EPD adds an exemption for the rework of aircraft or 
aircraft components if the holder of the Federal Aviation 
Administration design approval, or the holder's licensee, is not 
actively manufacturing the aircraft or aircraft components. As EPA 
noted in its September 1, 1998 rulemaking amending 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart GG, this exemption would apply to facilities that rework 
aircraft or aircraft components whose original manufacturer has gone 
out of business. See 63 FR 46526, 46528 (Sept. 1, 1998). EPA also noted 
that this exemption only affects small numbers of aircraft, and that 
compliance with VOC limits in these circumstances would involve 
considerable expense. Id. For these reasons, EPA is preliminarily 
concluding that this exemption is consistent with RACT.
    At subparagraph 10, GA EPD removes an exemption from specialty 
coating requirements for low volume specialty coatings used under a 
specified twelve-month average quantity. EPA believes the removal of 
this exemption will be SIP strengthening and is, thus, proposing to 
approve it.
    At Subparagraph 11, GA EPD removes the exemption for specialty 
coatings and exempts spray applications of no more than 3.0 fluid 
ounces of coating in a single application from a hand-held device with 
a paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces. 
EPA believes that application of this quantity of coating will cause 
minimal, if any, emissions.
    The revision would also exempt adhesives, sealants, maskants, 
caulking materials, and inks under Subparagraph 11, as well as the 
application of coatings that contain less than 0.17 pounds of VOC per 
gallon of coating. EPA notes that adhesives, sealants, maskants, 
caulking materials, and inks are not atomized in the same way as other 
coatings during application and, therefore, are not high emitters of 
VOCs during the application process. In addition, coatings that contain 
less than 0.17 pounds of VOC per gallon (20 grams/liter) are low 
category emitters.\5\ EPA also notes that activities qualifying for the 
exemption must comply with the emission limits at subparagraphs 1 and 
2--and are only exempted from certain operational limits in 
Subparagraphs 3 and 4 (i.e., limits on application techniques, 
requirement to comply with applicable operational procedures). In these 
circumstances, EPA has preliminarily concluded that GA EPD's revisions 
to the exemption at Subparagraph 11 are consistent with RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA notes that the CTG and GA's RACT rule regulate coatings 
with significantly higher VOC concentrations at Table 4-1 of the CTG 
and Table (kkk)-1 of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In subparagraph 15, GA EPD adds additional recordkeeping 
requirements, as determined by the specific compliance option chosen at 
Subparagraph 2. EPA believes the addition of these recordkeeping 
requirements will be SIP strengthening it requires affected facilities 
to retain certain records that are directly related to their chosen 
method of compliance. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that these 
requirements are consistent with the CTG's monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements.
    GA EPD also makes minor administrative changes throughout the rule, 
such as revising definitions at Subparagraph 17 and renumbering certain 
sections and subparagraphs. In conclusion, EPA has preliminarily 
determined the standard in the Georgia SIP that regulates aerospace and 
rework facilities aligns with the applicable CTG and meets the RACT 
requirements. Furthermore, EPA does not foresee any emissions increase 
from this SIP revision. EPA is thus proposing to approve changes to 
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(kkk), as included in Georgia's June 6, 2019 
submittal.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a proposed EPA 
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In 
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to 
incorporate by reference the Georgia Regulation subparagraph 391-3-
1-.02(2)(kkk) entitled ``VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and 
Rework Facilities,'' effective February 17, 2019, which incorporates 
revisions to the emission standards for specialty coatings, allows for 
annual purchase records of certain coatings, exempts two

[[Page 1798]]

additional application methods, and updates definitions.
    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office 
(please contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information 
Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Georgia SIP revision to Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(kkk), ``VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Facilities,'' submitted on June 6, 2019. EPA has evaluated Georgia's 
submittal and preliminarily determined that they meet the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 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 CAA. This action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 CAA; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 26, 2019.
Blake M. Ashbee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-00327 Filed 1-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P