Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Posted Date: 2006-11-28T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 68743-68746]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28no06-6]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002-200530(a); FRL-8246-2]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida: 
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410, to approve a revision to the 
Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on June 8, 2005. The 
revision is source-specific to the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company 
(LM), located in Pinellas County, Florida, and regards that facility's 
compliance with Florida's Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
and Products Reasonably Available Control Technology rule, found at 
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62-296.513 (FL MMPP Rule). 
The source-specific SIP revision seeks to allow LM to employ as 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) the control techniques 
outlined in EPA's December 1997, ``Aerospace Control Technique 
Guidelines'' (EPA's Aerospace CTG), instead of the RACT described in 
the FL MMPP Rule. The source-specific SIP revision is approvable 
because it meets the standards for approval described in section 110(l) 
of the CAA.

DATES: This direct final action is effective January 29, 2007 without 
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28, 
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final action in the Federal Register and 
inform the public that the direct final action will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-FL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002,'' Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: James Hou, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-FL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http: //http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available (i.e., 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

[[Page 68744]]

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA 
requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at 
hou.james@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FL MMPP Rule describes specific RACT that is necessary to 
achieve the specified emission rates for volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs). Specifically, the Rule requires sources that apply surface 
coatings to any number of metal parts and products to limit their VOC 
emission rates. Consistent with the FL MMPP Rule, however, sources are 
exempt from regulation if they emit not more than 15 pounds in any one 
day and not more than three pounds in any one hour. F.A.C. Rule 
62.296.500(3)(a). The FL MMPP Rule was incorporated into the Florida 
SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), and applies to a wide range of 
source categories, including aerospace manufacturing.
    Section 183 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7511b, ``Federal ozone 
measures,'' requires EPA to issue control techniques guidelines for 
categories of stationary sources of VOC emissions. Pursuant to section 
183 of the CAA, in December 1997, EPA issued a control techniques 
guideline entitled, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 
from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Operations,'' (EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-97-004) (EPA's Aerospace 
CTG). The purpose of EPA's Aerospace CTG is to present feasible RACT 
control measures for VOC emissions from coatings and solvents used 
specifically in the aerospace industry. EPA has encouraged states to 
adopt EPA's Aerospace CTG as part of their regulations of VOC emissions 
from the aerospace industry. Although Florida has not yet revised its 
SIP to include EPA's Aerospace CTG for all aerospace manufacturers, it 
did submit a source-specific SIP revision on June 8, 2005, for LM's 
Pinellas County facility to utilize the RACT described in EPA's 
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, which is not specific to the 
aerospace industry.
    LM produces aerospace parts and components, primarily in support of 
the manufacture and sustainability of military aircrafts. At the 
present time, the surface coating operations of LM are exempt from the 
FL MMPP Rule because its operations emit VOCs at lower rates than the 
minimum rates necessary to be regulated under that Rule. However, LM 
anticipates that it will increase production levels such that VOC 
emissions from surface coating operations in the near future would 
exceed the exemption criteria of the FL MMPP Rule, thus subjecting LM 
to the RACT requirements of the FL MMPP Rule. As will be discussed in 
greater detail below, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG is more 
detailed than the RACT required by the FL MMPP Rule because it focuses 
on specific aspects of the aerospace industry that result in VOC 
emissions. As a result, in the case of LM, the RACT described in EPA's 
Aerospace CTG is expected to be more effective than the RACT described 
in FL MMPP Rule for controlling emissions from LM's Pinellas County 
facility.
    On June 8, 2005, FDEP submitted a source-specific SIP revision to 
EPA requiring the Pinellas County LM facility to comply with EPA's 
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule. In essence, FL is requesting 
that EPA approve a SIP revision subjecting LM to the RACT described in 
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is now taking direct final action to approve 
that revision into the Florida SIP.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    As noted above, EPA has encouraged the adoption of its Aerospace 
CTG for the regulation of VOC emissions from the aerospace industry. 
This source-specific SIP revision, which would require that LM comply 
with EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, is consistent 
with that policy.
    As part of its review of this proposed SIP revision, EPA evaluated 
the proposed revision consistent with the standards described in 
section 110(l) of the CAA, ``Plan revisions.'' Section 110(l) specifies 
that EPA may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any 
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any other 
applicable requirements of the CAA. Because EPA's Aerospace CTG is 
specific to the aerospace industry, the applicable RACT is better 
suited than the FL MMPP Rule to control VOC emissions from that 
industry.
    Both the FL MMPP Rule and EPA's Aerospace CTG describe ``RACT;'' 
however, the CTG describes specific RACT for the aerospace industry, 
and therefore, can provide more effective emissions control options for 
that industry. For example, the FL MMPP Rule describes RACT generally 
for primers and topcoats that are typically applied within a confined 
environment such as a paint booth. EPA's Aerospace CTG has greater 
detail and addresses RACT specifically for solvent cleaning operations, 
adhesive and sealant application, specialty coating materials that are 
not applied in a booth, and waste handling operations, among other 
situations. As a result, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG may 
be more stringent than the FL MMPP Rule because the FL MMPP Rule does 
not address all the specific situations applicable to the aerospace 
industry. According to data provided to EPA by LM, LM can reduce VOC 
emissions to a greater extent using EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT in lieu of 
the FL MMPP Rule RACT. In summary, LM's use of EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT 
is expected to result in at least equivalent controls, if not more 
stringent controls, than those imposed by the FL MMPP Rule. 
Additionally, on May 19, 2005, FDEP issued a federally enforceable 
minor-source air construction permit to the facility, limiting LM's 
total VOC emissions to 25 tpy, representing another limit on VOC 
emissions from this facility.
    EPA has further determined that approving this source-specific SIP 
revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable 
requirement, as described in section 110(l) of the CAA due to the fact 
that this source-specific SIP revision will impose more stringent RACT 
on LM's facility than would otherwise be required under Florida Law. 
Based on the foregoing analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed 
source-specific revision to the Florida SIP is consistent with section 
110(l) of the CAA, and is approvable.

[[Page 68745]]

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the 
Florida SIP submitted by FDEP on June 8, 2005. The revision is source-
specific to the LM facility located in Pinellas County, Florida, and 
regards that facility's use of RACT to control VOC emissions. Instead 
of following the RACT described in the FL MMPP Rule, the source-
specific revision requires LM to comply with the RACT described in 
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is publishing this direct final action without 
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed 
rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP 
revision should adverse comments be filed. This direct final action 
will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the 
Agency receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will withdraw the 
direct final action and inform the public that the direct final action 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. EPA will 
not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed action.

IV. 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 state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, the action does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 29, 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52, 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 K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the 
table for ``Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 68746]]

                           EPA Approved (State or County) Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
          Name of source              Permit No.    effective date    EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics         ..............        04/16/05  11/28/06 [Insert       Requirement that
 Company.                                                            citation of            Lockheed Martin
                                                                     publication].          Aeronautics Company
                                                                                            comply with EPA's
                                                                                            Aerospace CTG at its
                                                                                            Pinellas County
                                                                                            facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-20073 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P