Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0276-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
Posted Date: 2007-09-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 52791-52793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17se07-8]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0276; FRL-8456-4]

 
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave 
Desert Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the 
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the usage of solvents. 
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: This rule is effective on November 16, 2007 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 17, 2007. If we 
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number RO9-OAR-2007-
0276, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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://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://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://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 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://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: Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4120, allen.cynthia@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 we are approving with the date that the 
amended rule was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

[[Page 52792]]

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Local                      Rule No.             Rule title             Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD....................................          442  Usage of Solvents............     02/27/06     10/05/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2006, we determined the submittal of October 5, 2006 
met 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 a version of San Bernardino County Air Pollution 
Control District Rule 442 into the SIP on June 9, 1982 (47 FR 25013). 
This rule remains effective in the portion of San Bernardino County 
that is under the MDAQMD's jurisdiction. We also approved a version of 
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 442 into the SIP on 
November 16, 1983 (48 FR 52054). This rule remains effective in the 
portion of Riverside County that is under the MDAQMD's jurisdiction.

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. This rule was 
developed as part of the local air district's programs to control these 
pollutants.
    The purposes of the MDAQMD Rule 442 revisions relative to the SIP 
rule are as follows:
     The rule is revised to conform to present MDAQMD rule 
format and to be consistent with other District rules.
     Section (A)--This section has been renamed ``General'' to 
conform with standard MDAQMD rule format. Subsections (A)(1) `Purpose' 
and (A)(2) `Applicability' have been revised to update terminology to 
reflect current regulatory trends and to remove unnecessary and 
obsolete references.
     Section (B)--This section has been modified to update the 
terminology to reflect current regulatory trends. A variety of other 
terms have been added and revised to conform to definitions contained 
in Regulation XIII. The organic materials definition was revised to 
more accurately reflect language that could be used to demonstrate 
compliance with other District rules requiring recording and labeling 
of VOC materials.
     Section (C)--This section has been renamed 
``Requirements'' and all procedural requirements have been moved to 
this section. The rule amendments remove restrictions to the use of 
non-photochemically reactive solvents and change the VOC usage 
restriction from 39.6 lbs/day to a monthly limit of 1190 lbs/month.
     Section (D)--This section has been renamed ``Exemptions'' 
because all exemptions have been moved to this section. An exemption 
for aerosol products has been added.
     Section (E)--This section has been renamed ``Monitoring, 
Recordkeeping and Reporting.'' The language in this section has been 
modified for consistency with other MDAQMD rules and regulations.
     Section (F)--This section has been named ``Test Methods'' 
and contains the methods for determining VOC content. Test methods have 
been defined and language has been updated for consistency with other 
MDAQMD rules and regulations.
     The current VOC emissions limit that allows disposal of up 
to 1.3 gallons per day of VOC by any means is made more stringent by 
prohibiting disposal of VOC in a manner that would allow evaporation of 
VOC into the atmosphere.
     The current emissions limit of 18 kg (39.6 pounds) per day 
of photochemically reactive solvents is converted to the monthly 
emission limit of 540 kg (1,190 pounds) of VOC per month.
     The current emissions limit for organic materials that 
come in contact with a flame, are baked, are heater cured, or are heat 
polymerized of 195 kg (429 pounds) per month is removed; however, the 
VOC emissions limit for these processes are covered by other rules in 
Regulations IV and XI.
     The current emissions limit deletes the 8,036 kg (18,000 
pounds) per day limit for ``non-photochemically reactive'' solvents. A 
part of these solvents are covered by the ``VOC'' limit and a part do 
not have a limit because they are not precursors to ozone.
     A limit on VOC emissions from coating aerospace assemblies 
and a limit for tire manufactures expired by their own terms.
     Exemptions for high solid or ultra-high solid materials 
are removed due to a change in VOC terminology.
    The revised Rule 442 will apply throughout the MDAQMD and will 
supersede the two SIP versions of the rule identified above.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about 
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not interfere with existing requirements concerning attainment of 
air quality standards (see section 110(1)) or relax existing control 
requirements (see section 193). The MDAQMD regulates an 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81). However, RACT is not required 
for Rule 442, because no major sources of VOC are expected to be 
covered by Rule 442. Major sources are covered by other rules in 
Regulations IV and XI.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the 
enforceability and legal sufficiency of this rule include the 
following:
    1. ``Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans,'' U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for 
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' September 23, 1987.
    5. ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' at 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant requirements 
and policy regarding enforceability, legal sufficiency, and SIP 
relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's

[[Page 52793]]

current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency 
modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted MDAQMD Rule 442 because we believe it fulfills 
all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we 
receive adverse comments by October 17, 2007, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on November 16, 2007. This will incorporate the 
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 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). 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 November 16, 2007. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
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)(347)(i)(C) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (347) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 442, Adopted: 5/7/76; CARB Ex. Ord. G-73: 02/01/77; 
Readopted: 07/25/77; Amended: 02/02/79; Amended: 02/27/06.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E7-18064 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P