Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0613-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: California State Implementation Plan: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Posted Date: 2010-10-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 61367-61369]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-18]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0613; FRL-9210-1]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions 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). We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0613, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to 
EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and

[[Page 61368]]

included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http:[sol][sol]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. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule.
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.............................            1113  Architectural Coatings.....        07/12/07        03/07/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2008, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1113 was found to 
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must 
be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1113 into the SIP on June 
21, 1999 (64 FR 33018). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on December 6, 2002, December 5, 2003, July 9, 2004, 
and June 9, 2006, and CARB submitted them to us on December 29, 2006. 
The latest amendment occurred on July 12, 2007 and CARB submitted it to 
us on March 7, 2008. While we can act on only the most recently 
submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1113 
incorporates more stringent VOC limits and expands the averaging 
compliance option. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more 
information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate requirements 
consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings,'' CARB, 
October 2007.
    4. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA, 
January 2001.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. We note 
that Rule 1113's definition of ``volatile organic compound'' excludes 
tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) when used in industrial maintenance 
coatings. EPA has exempted TBAc from the definition of VOC for purposes 
of control requirements such as VOC emissions limitations and content 
requirements, but continues to require records and reporting of TBAc 
emissions information. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5); 69 FR 69298 (Nov. 29, 
2004). EPA believes Rule 1113's exemption does not present a 
disapproval issue because the State of California performs these TBAc 
emissions and inventory reporting requirements. In addition, industrial 
maintenance coatings make up a very small percentage of the overall 
architectural coatings category. For these reasons, EPA believes that 
additional recordkeeping and reporting at the District level is not 
necessary.
    Rule 1113, section (c)(6) contains an emissions averaging 
provision. We evaluated this provision for consistency with EPA's EIP 
Guidance. EPA believes that section (c)(6) fulfills the EIP's 
``environmental benefit principle'' because the averaging provision was 
important in enabling SCAQMD to adopt VOC limits for 10 coating 
categories that are more stringent than the national and current 
District architectural coating regulations.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation with respect to both 
of these issues.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule 
disapproval, but are recommended for the next time the rule is amended.
    1. Although tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) is exempt as a VOC in 
industrial maintenance coatings, include a recordkeeping requirement 
for materials containing TBAc. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5).
    2. Include a discount of emissions reductions of at least 10% into 
the averaging compliance option in section (c)(6), as recommended by 
the EIP guidance.
    3. Reduce the averaging period to 30 days or less as recommended by 
the EIP guidance.

[[Page 61369]]

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new 
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final 
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally 
enforceable SIP.

III. 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, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-24924 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P