Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, South Coast Air Quality Management District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 187-0076a; FRL-6137-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District,

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, South Coast

Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern rules from

the following districts: Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District

(MDAQMD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD),

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD),

and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This approval

action will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP.

The intended effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

The rules control VOC emissions from aerospace coating operations.

Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of these rules into the California

SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals,

SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards

and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 16, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by September 16,

1998. If EPA received such comment, then it will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region

IX office listed below. Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report

for each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX

office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

available for inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite

200, Victorville, CA 92392.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,

San Diego, CA 92123-1096.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office,

AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-

1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the California SIP include: MDAQMD

Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products Coating Operations;

SDCAPCD Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations; SJVUAPCD Rule 4605,

Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations; and SCAQMD

Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations.

These rules were adopted by the local air pollution control agencies on

October 28, 1996; April 30, 1997; December 19, 1996; and December 13,

1996, respectively. The above rules were submitted by the California

Air Resources Board to EPA on November 26, 1996; August 1, 1997; March

10, 1998; and August 1, 1997; respectively.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment

areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977

(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Mojave Desert portion

of San Bernardino County, San Diego County, the South Coast Air Basin

and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which encompassed the following

eight air pollution control districts (APCDs): Fresno County APCD, Kern

County APCD,1 King County APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced

County APCD, San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and

Tulare County. See 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. Because some of these

areas were unable to meet the statutory attainment date of December 31,

1982, California requested under section 172(a)(2), and EPA approved,

an extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1987.2

See 40 CFR 52.222. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of

California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

[[Page 43885]]

1977 Act, that the above districts' portions of the California SIP were

inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that

deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In

amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted

the requirement that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably

available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a

deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those

deficiencies.

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

\1\At that time, Kern County included portions of two air

basins: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Southeast Desert

Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County

was designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast Desert Air Basin

portion of Kern County was designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR

81.305 (1991).

\2\ This extension was not requested for the following counties:

Kern, King, Madera, Merced, and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date

for these counties remained December 31, 1982.

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

The SJVUAPCD was formed on March 20, 1991. The SJVUAPCD has

authority over the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which includes all of

the above eight counties except for the Southeast Desert Air Basin

portion of Kern County, which remains under jurisdiction of the Kern

County Air Pollution Control District.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment

prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or

above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and

correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172 (b) as

interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.3 EPA's SIP-Call used

that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific

nonattainment areas. The Mojave Desert portion of San Bernardino County

is classified as severe; San Diego County is classified as serious; the

San Joaquin Valley Area is classified as serious; and the South Coast-

LA Basin is classified as extreme; 4 therefore, these areas

were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline. This Federal Register action for the South Coast Air Quality

Management District excludes the Los Angeles County portion of the

Southeast Desert AQMA, otherwise known as the Antelope Valley Region in

Los Angeles County, which is now under the jurisdiction of the Antelope

Valley Air Pollution Control District as of July 1, 1997.5

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

\3\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of

those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide

policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues

Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,

Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the

Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control

technique guidelines (CTGs).

\4\ The Mojave Desert, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley

Area, and South Coast Air Basin retained that designation of

nonattainment and were classified by operation of law pursuant to

sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA.

See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

\5\ The State has recently changed the names and boundaries of

the air basins located within the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA.

Pursuant to State regulation the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area

is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg.

Sec. 60114); the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino

County and Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County is a part of

the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. Sec. 60109). In

addition, in 1996 the California Legislature established a new local

air agency, the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, to

have the responsibility for local air pollution planning and

measures in the Antelope Valley Region (California Health & Safety

Code Sec. 40106).

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

The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on November 26, 1996; August 1, 1997; March

10, 1998; including the rules being acted on in this document. This

document addresses EPA's direct-final action for MDAQMD Rule 1118,

Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule

67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations; SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace

Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations; and SCAQMD Rule 1124,

Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations.

MDAQMD adopted Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products

Coating Operations on October 28, 1996; SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.9,

Aerospace Coating Operations on April 30, 1997; SJVUAPCD adopted Rule

4605, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations on

December 19, 1996; and SCAQMD adopted Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and

Component Manufacturing Operations on December 13, 1996. These

submitted rules were found to be complete on February 3, 1997 (MDAQMD

Rule 1118), September 30, 1997 (SDCAPCD Rule 67.9 and SCAQMD Rule

1124), and May 21, 1998 (SJVUAPCD Rule 4605) pursuant to EPA's

completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V

6 and are being finalized for approval into the SIP.

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

\6\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990

(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,

revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

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

The above rules reduce VOC emissions from aircraft and aerospace

coating, assembly, cleaning and rework operations. VOCs contribute to

the production of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were

originally adopted as part of each district's effort to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response

to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The

following is EPA's evaluation and final action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate

the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA

policy guidance documents listed in footnote 3. Among those provisions

is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing

RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)

documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act

and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source

categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these

documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to

``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG

applicable to all of these rules, ``Control of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions from Coating Operations of Aerospace Manufacturing

and Rework Operations,'' was finalized on March 27, 1998 (see 63 FR

15006). Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue

Book, referred to in footnote 3. In general, these guidance documents

have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

There is currently no version of MDAQMD 1118, Aerospace Vehicle

Parts and Products Coating Operations in the SIP. The submitted rule

includes the following provisions:

Definitions needed to clarify the terms used in the rule.

VOC limits for coatings, solvents, and strippers.

Requirements for application equipment, labeling of

product containers, and storage and clean-up specifications.

Exemptions for small users, touch-up and repair,

laboratory testing, and products supplied in aerosol containers.

Recordkeeping and test methods for compliance

verification.

[[Page 43886]]

On October 3, 1984, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule

67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations that had been adopted by the SDCAPCD

on August 24, 1983. SDCAPCD submitted Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating

Operations, which includes the following significant changes from the

current SIP:

The perchloroethylene content limit for maskant was

removed because EPA added it to the exempt compound list.

VOC content limits were increased for some coatings to

reflect the current availability of those coatings. Because some of the

coating limits are less stringent than the SIP-approved rule, the

District prepared a demonstration showing that overall, the submitted

rule will get greater emission reductions than the existing rule.

Several new categories of maskants were added.

Recordkeeping requirements were revised.

Several existing test methods were revised and a few

added.

Currently, there is no SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace Assembly and

Component Coating Operations, SIP rule. The submitted rule includes the

following provisions:

VOC content limits for aerospace coatings and adhesives.

VOC content and VOC composite vapor pressure limits for

coating strippers.

Requirements for evaporative loss minimization during

surface cleaning and coating application equipment cleaning.

An add-on control equipment option in lieu of meeting the

requirements for aerospace coatings and adhesives and evaporative loss

minimization.

Administrative requirements for recordkeeping, and test

methods for compliance determinations.

On May 6, 1996, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 1124,

Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations, that had

been adopted by SCAQMD on January 13, 1995. The revised SCAQMD Rule

1124 includes the following significant changes from the current SIP

rule:

The applicability has been expanded to clarify that

aircraft operators, aircraft maintenance, and service facilities are

subject to the rule.

New sub-categories were established for primers, adhesive

bonding primers, and fuel-tank coatings.

The effective compliance date for several coating

categories were extended because SCAQMD believes that compliant

coatings are not currently available.

A limited exemption was added for non-spray applications

of rubber fuel-tank coatings until January 2002.

EPA has evaluated these submitted rules and has determined that

they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Therefore, MDAQMD Rule 1118, Aerospace Vehicle Parts and Products

Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule 67.9, Aerospace Coating Operations;

SJVUAPCD Rule 4605, Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing

Operations; and SCAQMD Rule 1124, Aerospace Assembly and Component

Manufacturing Operations are being approved under section 110(a) and

part D. The rules are inconsistent with the recently issued CTG for the

source category; however, EPA will be publishing a Federal Register

document in the near future that will specify deadlines for these

Districts to resubmit rules to meet the CTG and to require sources to

comply with limitations and work practices.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall

be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment 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

relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October

16, 1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant

adverse comments by September 16, 1998.

If the EPA received such comments, then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule

will not take effect. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any

parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this

time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on October 16, 1998 and no further action will

be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection

of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because

it is not an ``economically significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

[[Page 43887]]

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

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. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 October 16, 1998. 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 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Clyde Morris,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs

(c)(242)(i)(A)(1), (c)(248)(i)(A)(2), (c)(248)(i)(B)(1), and

(c)(254)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(242) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Mojave Desert AQMD.

(1) Rule 1118, adopted on October 28, 1996.

* * * * *

(248) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 67.9, adopted on April 30, 1997.

(B) South Coast AQMD.

(1) Rule 1124, adopted on December 13, 1996.

* * * * *

(254) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 4605, adopted on December 19, 1991 and amended on December

19, 1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-21898 Filed 8-14-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P