Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On July 23, 2007, the submittal of MDAQMD Rule 1106 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On October 24, 2006, the submittal of VCAPCD Rule 74.30 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There is no previous version of Rule 1106 in the MDAQMD SIP, although the MDAQMD adopted an earlier version of this rule on August 28, 2006, and CARB submitted it to us on May 8, 2007. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. A version of SCAQMD Rule 1106 adopted on November 4, 1988 and amended on August 2, 1991, was approved into the SIP on July 14, 1995 (60 FR 36227) and
A version of VCAPCD Rule 74.30 was approved into the SIP on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61561).
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air districts' programs to control these pollutants.
MDAQMD Rule 1106 reduces VOC emissions from marine coatings operations. The provisions of this rule apply to all marine coating operations of both commercial boats and ships, pleasure craft and their appurtenances, and to coating of buoy and oil drilling rigs, or their parts and components intended for the marine environment.
VCAPCD Rule 74.30 revisions involve a reduction in reactive organic compound (ROC) content for surface preparation and cleanup material. Currently, the effective date of the revisions are 90 days from the date of adoption. The revisions are required because, under the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 40914(b)(2), staff is required to demonstrate that the District's plan to attain the California ambient ozone standard provides for expeditious implementation of `every feasible measure' to reduce ozone precursor emission (including ROC). In addition, revisions include the removal of obsolete language and the rewording of certain subsections for clarity. EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The MDAQMD and VCAPCD regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so MDAQMD Rule 1106 and VCAPCD Rule 74.30 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. Alternative Control Techniques Document: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, EPA Region 9, April 1994 (EPA 453/R-94-932).
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
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
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
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 September 15, 2008. 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(347) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(350) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *