[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49833-49834]
[DOCID:fr29se09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0547; FRL-8963-8]

 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the comment period for a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38154) and corrected
on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 43653). In the NPR, EPA proposed to determine
that Berkeley County, part of the Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV
nonattainment area; Wood County and the Grant Tax District in Pleasants
County, part of the Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH nonattainment area; and
Marshall County and Ohio County, part of the Wheeling WV-OH
nonattainment area for the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for fine particulate (PM25) have clean data for the
1997 PM25 NAAQS. EPA received comments from EarthJustice
pertaining to the design value calculations for the Hagerston-
Martinsburg nonattainment area. EarthJustice also requested that the
2009 monitored data referred to in the proposed rule be made available
as part of the record and that the proposed rule either be revised or
the comment period reopened to allow the public to consider the data.
EPA is therefore reopening the comment period and including the data
that was relied upon for the clean data determination as well as the
2009 monitored data. The data relied upon by EPA is now provided in a
Technical Support Document which is included in the record for this
rulemaking. EPA is reopening the comment period through October 29,
2009. All comments received on or before October 29, 2009 will be
entered into the public record and considered by EPA before taking
final action on the proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0547 by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0547, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0547. 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://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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov. or e-mail. 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.
    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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov. or in hard copy during normal business hours at
the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 18, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-23500 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6112-6114]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0066; Product Identifier 2017-CE-046-AD; Amendment
39-19187; AD 2018-03-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific
Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as non-conforming fuel tank caps, which could lead to fuel
loss during flight. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 5, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 5,
2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific
Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton
3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email:
[email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation
Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0066.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0066; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand, has issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/20 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace
Limited Model 750XL airplanes. To accompany that MCAI, the CAA issued
Notification of Airworthiness Directive issued for New Zealand
Aeronautical Products IAW ICAO Annex 8, dated December 8, 2017; the
Notification states:

    The [CAA] AD is prompted by the possibility that non-conforming
fuel tank caps may be installed on certain aircraft, which could
result in fuel loss from the aircraft fuel tanks. The POH supplement
requires an inspection of the fuel tank caps before every flight,
and careful monitoring of the aircraft quantity indication system
for fuel use above normal consumption throughout the flight, until a
maintenance engineer inspects the fuel tank caps per requirements 2
of the [CAA] AD.

This AD requires inspection of the fuel tank caps and replacement of
the fuel tank caps if damaged or non-conforming caps are found. You may
examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0066.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pacific Aerospace Limited issued Pacific Aerospace Mandatory
Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01; dated December 8, 2017, which
describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the fuel tank
caps. The CAA issued Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2,
Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, which is a supplement
to the pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual and describes
procedures for inspection of the fuel tank caps and procedures for
monitoring fuel consumption. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section of the AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because non-
conforming fuel tank caps could result in fuel loss and lead to fuel
starvation and inflight engine shutdown. Therefore, we determined that
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0066; Directorate
Identifier 2017-CE-046-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $5,610, or $255 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $1,540, for a cost of
$2,220 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2018-03-14 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-19187; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0066; Product Identifier 2017-CE-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 5,
2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models 750XL
airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 205, 208, 210, 214, and 216,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as non-conforming
fuel tank caps. We are issuing this AD to detect and address non-
conforming fuel tank caps, which could result in fuel loss and lead
to fuel starvation and inflight engine shutdown.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 15 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of
this AD), insert the CAA, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand,
Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations,
Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, into the pilot's operating
handbook/airplane flight manual (POH/AFM).
    (2) Within 45 days after March 5, 2018 (the effective date of
this AD), inspect the fuel tank caps, part number (P/N) 457-1015-12,
following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace
Mandatory Service Bulletin, PACSB/XL/089, Issue 01, dated December
8, 2017.
    (3) If a damaged or non-conforming fuel tank cap is found during
the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before
further flight, replace any damaged or non-conforming fuel tank cap
with a modified fuel tank cap, P/N 11-21087-1.
    (4) After replacement of damaged or non-conforming fuel tank
caps with P/N 11-21087-1, as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this
AD, remove the CAA Supplement to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2,
Limitations, Revision 1, dated December 8, 2017, from the POH/AFM.
    (5) Replacement of damaged or non-conforming fuel tank caps with
P/N 11-21087-1, as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD,
terminates the repetitive inspections required in the CAA Supplement
to AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated
December 8, 2017.
    (6) Long-range aircraft delivery ferry flights and oceanic
flights are prohibited until the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD and any necessary replacements required by
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD have been completed.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, FAA; or the CAA, which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI from the CAA, AD DCA/750XL/20, dated December 8,
2017; Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089,
Issue 01, dated December 8, 2017; and CAA Supplement to AIR 2825 and
AIR 3237 (POH/AFM), Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated
December 8, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0066.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/089,
Issue 01, dated December 8, 2017.
    (ii) CAA, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Supplement to
AIR 2825 and AIR 3237, Section 2, Limitations, Revision 1, dated
December 8, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027,
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134;
email: [email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-0066.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 25, 2018.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02611 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10806-10807]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04166]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112; FRL-9906-46]

Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Testing; Receipt of Test
Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant
to a test rule issued by EPA under section 4 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). This document identifies a chemical substance for
which test data have been received; lists uses or intended uses of such
chemical substance; and describes the nature of the test data received.
This is also part of EPA's commitment to strengthen its chemicals
management programs by improving access to and the usefulness of
chemical information. The goal is for people to easily get information
to make safe chemical choices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8089; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are concerned about data
on public health and/or environmental effects and other characteristics
of this chemical. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Test Data Submissions

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data
submitted pursuant to test rules promulgated under section 4(a) (15
U.S.C. 2603(a)). Each notice must:
    1. Identify the chemical substance or mixture for which data have
been received.
    2. List the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance or
mixture and the information required by the applicable standards for
the development of test data.
    3. Describe the nature of the test data developed.
    EPA has received test data for the following test rule:
    EPA received data on the chemical substance benzene, 1-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-, (CAS No. 98-56-6) listed in the TSCA section 4 test
rule titled ``Testing for Certain High Production Volume Chemicals;
Third Group of Chemicals,'' published in the Federal Register issue of
October 21, 2011 (76 FR 65385) (FRL-8885-5) (docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2009-0112).
    The table in this unit contains the described information required
by TSCA section 4(d). See the applicable CFR citation, listed in the
title of the table, for test data requirements. Data received can be
found by referencing the docket ID number and document number listed in
the table. See Unit I.B. for additional information about dockets. EPA
reviews of test data are added to the appropriate docket upon
completion.

 Data Received in Response to TSCA Section 4 Test Rule at 40 CFR 799.5089; Docket Identification Number EPA-HQ-
                                                 OPPT-2009-0112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Document
           Chemical  identity                         Uses                     Data  received          number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene, 1-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-   Solvent for industrial          Toxicity to Green Algae..         0224
 (CAS No. 98-56-6).                       cleaning, aerosols,
                                          adhesives, coatings, inks,
                                          and electronic applications;
                                          dye intermediate; dielectric
                                          fluid; dinitroaniline
                                          herbicide intermediate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CAS No. = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2603.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: February 13, 2014.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2014-04166 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2796-2800]
[FR Doc No: 2010-747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0350; FRL-9097-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2009 and concern volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from coating of metal parts, large appliances, metal
furniture, motor vehicles, mobile equipment, cans, coils, organic
solvent cleaning, and storage and disposal related to such operations.
We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0350]
for this action. The index to the docket 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: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28467), EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD...........................            4603  Surface Coating of Metal            10/16/08        12/23/08
                                                     Parts and Products.
SJVAPCD...........................            4604  Can and Coil Coating                09/20/07        03/07/08
                                                     Operations.
SJVAPCD...........................            4612  Motor Vehicle and Mobile            09/20/07        03/07/08
                                                     Equipment Coating
                                                     Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following party.
    1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice; letter dated July 15, 2009 and
received July 15, 2009.
    After the close of the comment period, we also received comments
from the following party.
    2. Jim Sell, National Paint & Coatings Association; letter dated
July 17, 2009 and received July 17, 2009.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below. Although we
are not obligated to address comments submitted after the close of the
comment period, we are addressing below the comments from both parties.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice stated that Rule 4603 does not meet
Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements because it
is not as stringent as EPA's 2008 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The commenter noted
that the limit for baked extreme performance coatings in the rule is
less stringent than the limit in the CTG and that the rule exempts
repair and touch-up operations, while the CTG recommends limits for
those operations. The commenter stated that unavailability of the CTG
during the period of rule development is ``not an excuse for approving
a rule that everyone acknowledges does not meet the minimum level of
control currently considered for RACT.'' The commenter further stated
that SJVAPCD adopted Rule 4603 one month after EPA released the CTG.
    Response #1: EPA's 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts Coatings (2008 CTG) generally defines presumptive RACT for this
activity nationwide. All requirements in Rule 4603 are equivalent to or
more stringent than the recommendations in the 2008 CTG, except the VOC
limit for baked extreme performance coatings and the exemption for
repair and touch-up operations. As to the emission limit for baked
extreme performance coatings, the VOC limit in Rule 4603 is 420 grams/
liter (g/L) and the 2008 CTG recommends a VOC level of 360 g/L. We note
that the difference between the two limits for this particular baked
coating operation is relatively small, and that the rule contains VOC
limits for four other coating categories that are more restrictive than
the CTG recommendations for those operations, as shown below.

VOC Content Limits for Specialty Coatings, Except for Large Appliance Parts or Products, and Metal Furniture--in
                                                       g/L
                                                  [lbs/gallon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rule 4603 VOC   CTG VOC limit   Rule 4603 VOC   CTG VOC limit
                  Coating type                       limit for       for baked    limit for air-   for air-dried
                                                  baked coatings     coatings     dried coatings     coatings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camouflage......................................       360 (3.0)       420 (3.5)       420 (3.5)       420 (3.5)
Extreme Performance.............................       420 (3.5)       360 (3.0)       420 (3.5)       420 (3.5)
High Performance Architectural..................       420 (3.5)       740 (6.2)       420 (3.5)       740 (6.2)
Metallic Coating................................       360 (3.0)       420 (3.5)       420 (3.5)       420 (3.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At EPA's request, SJVAPCD staff examined recent inspection reports
and notified us that only one facility in the SJV area uses extreme
performance coatings. That facility operates by air drying and not
baking.\1\ As such, we are not aware of any baked coating operations in
SJVAPCD that use extreme performance coatings. Additionally, SJVAPCD's
RACT SIP analysis indicates that operators do not use special coatings
for touch-up and repair operations. The same VOC-compliant coatings
that are used in the fabrication process are used for touch-up and
repair operations. As such, the emissions limit in Rule 4603 for baked
extreme performance coatings and the exemption for repair and touch-up
operations have no emissions impacts in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV)
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See e-mail correspondence dated July 23, 2009, between
Nicole Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno (SJVAPCD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA policy provides that SIP VOC rules may exceed the levels
recommended in a CTG or contain limited exemptions if the total
emissions in the area allowed under the SIP rule exceed the total
emissions allowed by EPA's recommended emission levels by less than 5
percent.\2\ In the absence of any extreme performance baked coating
operations or special coatings for touch-up and repair operations in
the SJV area, the total emissions allowed in the area under Rule 4603
are not greater than the total emissions allowed under the CTG levels
and are permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, May 25, 1988, at 2-2 and Attachment 2; Memorandum from
Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief, to Rulemaking Office, EPA
Region IX, ``Screening Analysis for 5% De Minimis Determinations for
Coating Rules,'' December 4, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter has provided no additional information about
reasonably available control methods for these operations. Given that
the VOC limits in Rule 4603 for this source category are generally more
stringent than EPA's CTG recommendations, and given the de minimis
emission impacts of those rule elements that are less stringent than
the CTG recommendations, we do not believe these elements of Rule 4603
constitute RACT deficiencies. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245, 1254 (DC
Cir. 2009) (upholding EPA's case-by-case approach to RACT
determinations).
    Finally, regarding the comment that the 2008 CTG was released one
month before SJVAPCD adopted the subject version of 4603, we note that
SJVAPCD: (1) Was already far along in an extensive local process to
develop this rule revision; (2) is allowed a year following EPA's
issuance of the CTG to submit a rule that reflects current-day RACT for
this source category; and (3) has since adopted a new version of Rule
4603 that contains emission limits for baked extreme performance
coating and repair and touch-up operations consistent with the limits
recommended in the 2008 CTG. We expect this version will be submitted
to EPA for inclusion in the SIP in the near future.
    Comment #2: Earthjustice further stated that Rule 4603 does not
meet RACT requirements because it is not as stringent as other
California district rules. Specifically, the commenter stated that the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) rule has more
stringent VOC limits for extreme high gloss coatings and does not
exempt repair and touch-up coatings; that the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's (BAAQMD) rule has a more stringent VOC limit for
baked metallic topcoats; and that Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District's (VCAPCD) rule has more stringent VOC limits for all air-
dried coatings, baked extreme performance coatings, and baked and air-
dried pretreatment wash primers. Earthjustice stated that the District
``justifies the lack of stringency by claiming that other more
stringent limits in its rule make up for the weaker limits,'' and that
this assertion ``has no factual or technical support.'' The commenter
further stated the appropriate test is whether the limits in the rule
represent reasonably available control technology, and that neither
SJVAPCD nor EPA has explained why the more protective limits are not
reasonable in SJVAPCD.
    Response #2: State and local agencies rely heavily on CTGs to help
define RACT when they are issued. When a CTG has not been issued for a
category for many years, it is reasonable to consider whether RACT has
evolved over time by examining analogous control requirements in other
areas. For this source category, however, we have no information
indicating that new control methods have become reasonably available
since issuance of EPA's 2008 CTG. As such, we believe that the levels
recommended in the 2008 CTG continue to reflect RACT level controls.
Even upon an evaluation of the VOC limits in the other rules cited by
the commenter, we have not identified any widely available and
significantly more stringent requirements that compel us to reevaluate
the limits in Rule 4603. The following table summarizes the more
stringent requirements identified by the commenter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SJVAPCD VOC     BAAQMD VOC      SCAQMD VOC      VCAPCD VOC
                Coating category                   limit  (g/L)    limit  (g/L)    limit  (g/L)    limit  (g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme high gloss (Air-dried)..................             420             420             340             420
Large appliance metallic topcoat (baked)........             420             360        No limit       No limit.
Pretreatment wash primer (baked/air-dried)......         420/420         420/420         420/420         275/340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In each case, the more stringent limit exists in only one other
district, and we are not aware of the same limit having been adopted in
any other area. We also note that extreme high gloss coatings, large
appliance metallic topcoats, and pretreatment wash primers are
relatively small source categories in the District. To our knowledge,
the District has identified only one permitted facility that uses
metallic surface coatings on large appliances, but this facility uses
powdered metallic coatings, which are not subject to the limits in Rule
4603.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See phone conversation dated August 4, 2009, between Nicole
Law (EPA) and Joven Nazareno (SJVAPCD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that Rule 4604 does not meet RACT
because it is not as stringent as other California district rules.
Specifically, the commenter stated that neither the BAAQMD's nor
Sacramento Metro AQMD's (SMAQMD) rules exempt facilities using fewer
than 55 gallons per year, while Rule 4604 exempts these sources. Also,
Earthjustice stated that Rule 4604 exempts necker lubricants, stripping
of cured materials, and cleaning solvent for lab and research, while
SCAQMD's rule has limits for these categories, and that the District
has provided no analysis to support its claim that these categories are
insignificant. Lastly, the commenter stated that SMAQMD's rule has more

stringent limits for the cleaning of 3-piece can sheet coaters. In sum,
Earthjustice stated that EPA should disapprove and require the District
to revise Rule 4604.
    Response #3: First, EPA's long-standing national policy allows for
exemptions from RACT limits for ``low-use'' coatings at sources that
use small quantities for intermittent or specialty-type operations.\4\
The policy states that an exemption based on a plantwide cutoff of 55
gallons per rolling 12-month period for all low-use coatings in the
aggregate used at a facility is reasonable, and may be approved into a
SIP, provided the 55-gallon plantwide limit is accompanied by good
recordkeeping requirements and is federally enforceable. The exemption
in section 4.1 of Rule 4604 for stationary sources that use 55 gallons
or less in the aggregate of coatings and cleaning solvent per rolling
12-month period, together with the recordkeeping requirements of the
rule (see section 6.1), are consistent with this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, EPA Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X,
``Exemption for Low-Use Coatings,'' August 10, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as to the commenter's objection to the exemptions in Rule
4604 for necker lubricants, stripping of certain cured materials, and
cleaning in laboratory tests and analyses, we note that EPA's 2006 CTG
for Industrial Cleaning Solvents (2006 CTG) specifically identifies
``stripping of cured inks, coatings, and adhesives'' and ``research and
development laboratories'' among the categories that State and local
agencies may consider for exclusion from RACT requirements.\5\
Moreover, contrary to the commenter's assertion, SCAQMD's RACT rule for
this source category exempts the use of cleaning solvents for stripping
of cured materials and for cleaning in laboratory tests and
analyses.\6\ Specifically, SCAQMD's Rule 1125 (Metal Container,
Closure, and Coil Coating Operations) requires that all solvent
cleaning operations be carried out pursuant to Rule 1171 (Solvent
Cleaning Operations), which in turn exempts solvent cleaning in
research and development laboratory tests from the VOC limits of the
rule, and exempts solvent cleaning for ``stripping of cured coatings,
cured ink, or cured adhesives'' from all requirements of the rule.\7\
These exemptions are consistent with the recommendation provided in
EPA's 2006 CTG.\8\ The commenter has provided no additional information
about reasonably available control methods for these operations and we
are not aware of more stringent RACT measures for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning
Solvents, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 2006, EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0535, at pp. 8-9.
    \6\ See SCAQMD Rule 1125 at section (c)(5) (referencing SCAQMD
Rule 1171 for solvent cleaning operations); SCAQMD Rule 1171 at
sections (g)(2)(G) and (g)(3)(B).
    \7\ Ibid.
    \8\ See footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as to the commenter's assertion that SMAQMD's rule for
this source category has more stringent VOC limits for cleaning of 3-
piece can sheet coaters, we note first that it is not clear which VOC
limit(s) the commenter is referring to. In the absence of more specific
information, we assume the commenter based its assertion on the
information provided in SJVAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP, which indicates that
SMAQMD's Rule 452 contains a 25 g/L limit for 3-piece can sheet
coaters.\9\ Specifically, however, SMAQMD's Rule 452 prohibits the use
of solvents that contain more than 25 g/L VOCs for ``cleanup of
container assembly equipment, including slitters, bodymakers, beaders,
end seamers, flangers, and testers, excluding side seam spray
application equipment.'' \10\ It is not clear that this language
includes 3-piece can sheet coaters. Nonetheless, to the extent the
commenter intended to assert that a 25 g/L VOC limit should apply to
cleaning of 3-piece can sheet coating operations in the SJV area, we
disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP), SJVAPCD,
April 16, 2009 (2009 RACT SIP), at pp. 4-194.
    \10\ See SMAQMD Rule 452 at section 303.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the SJVAPCD staff report for Rule 4604, currently
there are no effective cleaning solvents for can sheet coaters that
meet a 25 g/L VOC content limit. The SJVAPCD staff report notes that
SCAQMD's Rule 1177 contains a 25 g/L VOC limit for cleaning of 3-piece
can sheet coaters but that this 25 g/L limit is not achieved in
practice because all operations in SCAQMD that are required to comply
with the limit use VOC capture and control systems.\11\ Given the
commenter has provided no information to support its assertion that
lower-VOC solvents for cleaning of 3-piece can sheet coaters are
reasonably available and we are not otherwise aware of such
information, we conclude that the VOC limits for this activity in Rule
4604 represent RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SJVAPCD Final Staff Report for Rules 4603--4607, 4612,
4653, 4661, 4662, 4663, 4684, September 20, 2007, at pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: Earthjustice stated that Rule 4612 does not meet RACT
because it is not as stringent as other California district rules. The
commenter asserted generally that Rule 4612 ``has limits on precoat and
topcoat-metallic iridescent coatings that are less stringent than Bay
Area, South Coast, and Sacramento rules,'' and that neither the
District's RACT SIP nor EPA's technical support document explains the
significance of these sources or whether the more protective limits are
reasonable in SJVAPCD. The commenter concluded by stating that
``[w]ithout this analysis, EPA has no rational basis for approving this
rule as satisfying the RACT requirement.''
    Response #4: We note initially that the commenter's assertion is
stated only generally and does not specify which more stringent limits
it is referring to. In the absence of more specific information, we
assume the commenter based its assertions on the information provided
in SJVAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP, which indicates that VOC limits in BAAQMD's
Rule 8-45 and SMAQMD's Rule 459 for ``precoat'' coatings are more
stringent than corresponding limits in Rule 4612, and that a VOC limit
in SCAQMD's Rule 1151 for ``topcoat-metallic/iridescent'' coatings is
more stringent than the corresponding limit in Rule 4612.\12\ Our
review of the specific limits in these rules indicates that this
information is not correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, at pp. 4-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Rule 4612 does not contain VOC limits specific to
``precoat'' coatings. The rule does, however, contain a VOC limit of
250 g/L for ``primer'' coatings and a limit of 660 g/L for
``pretreatment'' coatings.\13\ We note that the definition of
``primer'' \14\ in Rule 4612 is identical to the definition in the
California Air Resources Board's 2005 Suggested Control Measures for
Automotive Coatings (CARB 2005 SCM), which includes ``precoat''
coatings in the ``primer'' category.\15\ The 2005 CARB SCM recommends a
VOC limit of 250 g/L for primer coatings.\16\ It defines
``pretreatments'' coatings separately \17\

and recommends a VOC limit of 660 g/L for these coatings.\18\ In its
2009 RACT SIP submittal, however, SJVAPCD compared the VOC limit in
Rule 4612 for ``pretreatment'' coatings (660 g/L) to the VOC limits in
BAAQMD's and SMAQMD's rules for ``precoat'' coatings (580 g/L and 600
g/L, respectively), suggesting that BAAQMD's and SMAQMD's rules contain
more stringent VOC limits for the same coating activities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612, section 5.1.
    \14\ Rule 4612 defines ``primer'' as follows: ``any coating,
which is labeled and formulated for application to a substrate to
provide a bond between the substrate and subsequent coats, corrosion
resistance, a smooth substrate surface, or resistance to penetration
of subsequent coats, and on which a subsequent coating is applied.
Primers may be pigmented.'' Rule 4612 at section 3.29.
    \15\ See Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,
CARB, October 2005 (CARB 2005 SCM), Appendix D at D-5.
    \16\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
    \17\ The CARB 2005 SCM defines ``pretreatment coating'' as ``any
coating that contains a minimum of one-half (0.5) percent acid by
weight and not more than 16 percent solids by weight necessary to
provide surface etching and is labeled and formulated for
application directly to bare metal surfaces to provide corrosion
resistance and adhesion.'' CARB 2005 SCM at section 3.23.
    \18\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
    \19\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009 at pp. 4-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe this comparison was inaccurate. A more appropriate
evaluation would have been to compare the VOC limits for primer
coatings in SJVAPCD's Rule 4612 to the corresponding limits for primer
coatings in BAAQMD's and SMAQMD's rules, and to also compare the VOC
limits for pretreatment coatings among the same rules. The limit for
primer coatings in SJVAPCD's Rule 4612 (250 g/L) is equivalent to the
limits for primer coatings in BAAQMD's Rule 8-45 and SMAQMD's Rule 459,
and to the recommended limit in the CARB 2005 SCM for Automotive
Coatings.\20\ The limit for pretreatment coatings in Rule 4612 (660 g/
L) is equivalent to the limits for pretreatment coatings in BAAQMD's
Rule 8-45 and to the recommended limit in CARB's 2005 SCM for
Automotive Coatings, and is more stringent than the limit for
``pretreatment wash primers'' in SMAQMD's Rule 459 (780 g/L).\21\ To
the extent that the limit for ``primer'' coatings in SJVAPCD Rule 4612
covers ``precoat'' coating activities, consistent with the CARB 2005
SCM recommendations, SJVAPCD's Rule 4612 is more stringent than many
other district rules that provide a separate, higher VOC limit for
precoat coatings.\22\ As such, we disagree with the commenter's
assertion that BAAQMD's and SMAQMD's rules contain more stringent VOC
limits for precoat coatings than SJVAPCD's Rule 4612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 at section 5.1; BAAQMD Rule 8-45-301;
SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301; CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1
(Coating Limits).
    \21\ See SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301.1.
    \22\ See e.g., SMAQMD Rule 459 at section 301.1, which
establishes a 250 g/L VOC limit for primer coatings and a separate
600 g/L VOC limit for precoat coatings; see also CARB 2005 SCM at
Appendix D, D-4 and D-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Rule 4612 does not contain VOC limits specific to
``topcoat-metallic/iridescent'' coatings. It does, however, contain a
limit of 420 g/L for ``color coating,'' \23\ which is defined to
include metallic/iridescent color coatings.\24\ The definition of
``color coating'' in Rule 4612 is identical to the definition in the
CARB 2005 SCM, which also includes metallic/iridescent color
coatings.\25\ The CARB 2005 SCM recommends a VOC limit of 420 g/L for
color coatings.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 at section 5.1.
    \24\ See SJVAPCD Rule 4612 defines ``color coating'' as follows:
``any pigmented coating, excluding adhesion promoters, primers, and
multi-color coatings, that requires a subsequent clear coating and
which is applied over a primer, adhesion promoter, or color coating.
Color coatings include metallic/iridescent color coatings.'' Section
3.15.
    \25\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 3.12.
    \26\ See CARB 2005 SCM at section 4.1 (Coating Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD erroneously compared the limit in
Rule 4612 for both color coatings and topcoat-metallic/iridescent
coatings (420 g/L) with a 340 g/L limit in SCAQMD's Rule 1151 for the
same coating activities.\27\ SCAQMD's Rule 1151 contains a 340 g/L VOC
limit for metallic-iridescent topcoats for certain vehicles that was
effective between December 12, 1998 and July 1, 2008.\28\ This
requirement, however, expired as of July 1, 2008, at which time the
requirements of Rule 1151, Appendix A became effective.\29\ These
currently-effective provisions establish a 420 g/L VOC limit for
``color coating,'' which is now essentially defined identically to the
definition in SJVAPCD's Rule 4612 and in the CARB 2005 SCM.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 2009 RACT SIP, SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009, at pp. 4-242.
    \28\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151 at section (c)(1)(A), Table 1.
    \29\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A.
    \30\ See SCAQMD Rule 1151, Appendix A, sections (c)(12) and
(d)(1), Table A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, to the extent the commenter intended to argue that the
limit for topcoat-metallic/iridescent coatings in SJVAPCD's Rule 4612
is less stringent than the corresponding limit in SCAQMD's Rule 1151,
we disagree. The VOC limit for topcoat-metallic/iridescent coatings,
which are included in ``color coatings,'' in SJVAPCD's Rule 4612 is
equivalent to both the corresponding limit in SCAQMD's Rule 1151 and to
the recommended limit in the CARB 2005 SCM.
    The commenter has provided no information to support its assertion
that lower-VOC coatings for primer, pretreatment, and/or color coating
(including topcoat-metallic/iridescent coating) activities are
reasonably available in the SJV area and we are otherwise aware of no
such information. Accordingly, we conclude that the limits in Rule 4612
represent RACT levels of control.
    Comment #5: The National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA) stated
that the revisions to Rule 4603 that EPA proposed to approve have not
been adopted by the District and that the VOC limits for two
subcategories in the Pleasure Craft Coatings category are too low to
allow for effective coatings. NPCA also stated that the VOC limits for
pleasure craft coatings that ultimately appeared in EPA's 2008 CTG on
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings were not mentioned in
EPA's proposed CTG, and that the regulated communities were, therefore,
not given the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on these
limits. NPCA recognized that CTGs are not formal rulemakings and thus
are not governed by notice and comment rulemaking requirements, but
nonetheless stated that EPA should reevaluate the efficacy of the CTG
recommendations in this case, given the absence of thorough public
review and comment.
    Lastly, NPCA noted that USEPA is conducting a comprehensive
technology review of pleasure craft coatings for purposes of setting
NESHAP emission limits and stated that the resulting data will provide
a more current and thorough understanding of RACT for these coating
operations. NPCA requested that EPA ``not approve the pleasure craft
coating aspects of SJVAPCD's SIP'' during the pendency of this
rulemaking process.
    Response #5: NPCA's comments address revisions to Rule 4603 that
have not yet been submitted for approval into the SIP. As such, NPCA's
comments are not relevant to this action. Our action today is limited
to the version of Rule 4603 that the District adopted and submitted to
EPA for SIP approval on December 23, 2008. This version of Rule 4603
does not contain the VOC limits for pleasure craft coatings recommended
in the 2008 CTG.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.

IV. 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.
    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 action 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 March 22, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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: December 3, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    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 paragraphs (c)(354) (i)(E)(9)
and (10) and (c)(364)(i)(A)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (354) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (9) Rule 4604, ``Can and Coil Coating Operations,'' adopted on
September 20, 2007.
    (10) Rule 4612, ``Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating
Operations-Phase II,'' adopted on September 20, 2007.
* * * * *
    (364) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 4603, ``Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,''
adopted on October 16, 2008.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-747 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P