
[Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 3996-4000]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ja10-7]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0475; FRL-9104-7]

 
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 a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on July 
17, 2009 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
steam-enhanced crude oil production well vents, aerospace coating 
operations, and polyester resin operations. Under authority of the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action 
simultaneously approves local rules that regulate these emission 
sources and directs California to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0475 for 
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at 
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, law.nicole@epa.gov.

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. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34704), EPA proposed a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for 
incorporation into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.               Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD...............................            4401  Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil           12/14/06     05/08/07
                                                         Production Wells.
SJVAPCD...............................            4605  Aerospace Assembly and             09/20/07     03/07/08
                                                         Component Coating Operations.
SJVAPCD...............................            4684  Polyester Resin Operations....     09/20/07     03/07/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these 
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA 
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because 
some rule provisions do not fully satisfy requirements of section 110 
and part D of the Act. The deficiencies include the following:
    1. Rule 4401 authorizes the District to grant a waiver from SIP 
requirements, in section 6.2.4.
    2. SJVAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4605 and Rule 
4684 implement RACT.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this 
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

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. Scott Nester, Director of Planning, San Joaquin Valley Air 
Pollution Control District; letter dated and received August 17, 2009.
    After the close of the comment period, we also received comments 
from the following party.
    2. Sayed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer 
of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; letter dated 
August 27, 2009 and received August 31, 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 both the District's August 17 
comments and those comments in the District's August 27 letter that 
pertain to the rules we are acting on today.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #1: The District stated that its staff has 
proposed to amend Rule 4684 to implement requirements in the September 
2008 Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) for fiberglass boat 
manufacturing materials.
    EPA Response: We appreciate SJVAPCD's efforts to promptly address 
RACT requirements for sources covered by the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass 
Boat Manufacturing Materials (2008 CTG), but we are obligated to act at 
this time on the submitted version of Rule 4684. In addition, we note 
that Rule 4684 should be revised to address RACT

[[Page 3997]]

requirements not only for sources covered by the 2008 CTG, but also for 
VOC major sources that are subject to Rule 4684 but not addressed by 
the 2008 CTG. See 74 FR 34705.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #2: The District stated that EPA had 
commented that the VOC limits, emission control system efficiency, and 
application methods in existing Rule 4684 for non-fiberglass boat 
manufacturing facilities are less stringent than other air districts' 
rules and, therefore, constitute RACT deficiencies. The District 
encouraged EPA to fully approve Rule 4684 because: (1) According to 
District staff research, no ozone nonattainment areas in other states 
have specific regulations on polyester resin operations, (2) the VOC 
limits and emission control requirements of Rule 4684 are consistent 
with the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) ``Determination of 
Reasonably Available and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for 
Polyester Resin Operations,'' which should define RACT requirements in 
the absence of a CTG for this category, and (3) although the limits in 
Rule 4684 are not identical to those in other California air districts' 
rules, those rules have been recently amended and their limits are 
considered beyond RACT.
    EPA Response: The District's characterization of the Rule 4684 
deficiencies identified in our proposed action is not entirely 
accurate. To clarify, we noted that Rule 4684 appears to apply to major 
VOC sources that are not covered by the 2008 CTG, and that the District 
had not demonstrated that the more stringent requirements for these 
types of sources identified in other California rules are not feasible 
in the San Joaquin Valley or otherwise adequately demonstrated that 
Rule 4684 implements RACT for these major sources. 74 FR 34704 at 
34705.
    As to the District's specific arguments in support of full 
approval, we do not agree that these provide a basis for full approval. 
First, whether or not any other states with ozone nonattainment areas 
have RACT rules for polyester resin operations, SJVAPCD is required to 
have such rules under CAA Sec.  182(b)(2) because it regulates 
facilities within this source category that are major sources of VOCs. 
As noted in the TSD for our proposed action, the RACT rules in three of 
four nearby districts that SJVAPCD reviewed as part of its 2009 RACT 
SIP contain more stringent monomer content requirements and more 
stringent overall capture and control efficiency requirements than Rule 
4684.\1\ The District has not demonstrated that these more stringent 
requirements are not reasonably achievable or that the requirements in 
Rule 4684 implement RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources in the San 
Joaquin Valley (i.e., sources other than fiberglass boat manufacturing 
facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Technical Support Document For EPA's Notice of Direct Final 
Rulemaking On Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan: 
EPA's Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District's Rule 4684, Polyester Resin Operations, EPA Region IX, May 
2009 (Rule 4684 TSD), at pp. 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we do not agree with the District's assertion that CARB's 
``Determination of Reasonably Available and Best Available Retrofit 
Control Technology for Polyester Resin Operations'' (RACT and BARCT 
Guidance) defines RACT in the absence of a CTG for this source 
category. States are required to consider the latest information 
available in making RACT determinations and to provide supporting 
information with their RACT submissions to EPA.\2\ This is because RACT 
can change over time as new technology becomes available or the cost of 
technology decreases.
    Indeed, CARB's RACT and BARCT Guidance is dated January 8, 1991, 
and since then several California districts near the SJVAPCD have 
revised their polyester resin rules to incorporate more stringent 
limits. The District has not supported its evaluation of Rule 4684 with 
a demonstration that these more stringent requirements are not 
economically or technically feasible for major source polyester resin 
operations in the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 70 FR 71612 at 71655 (November 29, 2005) (Final Rule to 
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Phase 2); see also NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245, 1254 (DC Cir. 2009) 
(holding that EPA's case-by-case approach to RACT ensures that 
``RACT determinations will reflect advances in technology'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that the more stringent monomer content and 
overall capture and control efficiency requirements in the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air 
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) polyester resin rules that SJVAPCD 
reviewed have been effective for many years.\3\ Specifically, the 
monomer content limits in section (c)(2)(A) of SCAQMD's polyester resin 
rule (Rule 1162) became effective in 2003,\4\ and the 90% overall 
capture and control efficiency requirement in the rule has been 
effective for at least 15 years.\5\ The monomer content limits in 
VCAPCD's polyester resin rule (Rule 74.14) and the 90% overall capture 
and control efficiency requirement have been effective since 2005.\6\ 
As such, we do not believe the District has adequately supported its 
assertion that the limits in these rules are ``beyond RACT.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See pg. 4-349 and 4-350 of SJVAPCD's April 16, 2009 RACT 
Demonstration for the District's review of SCAQMD Rule 1162 and 
VCAPCD Rule 74.14.
    \4\ See SCAQMD Rule 1162, amended July 11, 2003. SCAQMD 
subsequently made other amendments to Rule 1162 that did not alter 
the monomer content limits. See SCAQMD Rule 1162 amended July 9, 
2004 and SCAQMD Rule 1162 amended July 8, 2005.
    \5\ See SCAQMD Rule 1162, amended May 13, 1994.
    \6\ See VCAPCD Rule 74.14, amended April 12, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #3: The District stated that its staff will 
review the benefits and costs of ``strengthening this rule beyond RACT 
in the context of an attainment plan control measure.''
    EPA Response: We appreciate the District's efforts to strengthen 
these rules as part of its broader attainment goals, and we expect 
these efforts can proceed consistent with the CAA deadlines associated 
with today's final action on Rule 4684.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #1: SJVAPCD requested that we reflect on 
its positive working relationship with EPA and its record of 
accomplishments, and stated that its enclosed responses would address 
most of EPA's concerns. The District stated that the San Joaquin Valley 
needs emission reductions as quickly as feasible and that it was, 
therefore, hesitant to ``divert resources to unnecessary bureaucratic 
work associated with rulemaking projects that are not demonstrated to 
have significant potential for additional reductions or 
enforceability.'' The District urged that its ``efforts not be delayed 
or hampered, and that [the District] receive a full approval for [its] 
regulatory efforts.''
    EPA Response: We appreciate the District's efforts to improve air 
quality in the San Joaquin Valley as expeditiously as possible. Our 
concerns, however, are based on CAA RACT requirements that the District 
is required to address in accordance with specified deadlines. These 
RACT requirements apply independent of the significance of the 
resulting emission reductions or other air quality improvement efforts. 
We discuss these requirements further below and in our proposal.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #2: SJVAPCD acknowledged that EPA had 
proposed a limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4401 because of 
the provision that states that waiver requests are ``deemed approved'' 
by EPA if EPA does not object within 45 days. The District stated, 
however, that EPA

[[Page 3998]]

should approve Rule 4401 for two reasons. First, the District stated 
that precedent for this language can be found in the October 1998 
``Title V Review Protocol Agreement'' between the District and EPA 
Region IX, which states that ``During this period, the EPA may approve 
the district's proposal either in writing, or by choosing not to 
provide written comments.'' The district stated that this language is 
identical to the language in Section 6.2.4 of Rule 4401, that Rule 2520 
(Federally Mandated Operating Permits) also contains similar language, 
and that EPA had not objected to the requirements of Section 6.2.4 in 
Rule 4401 during the rulemaking process. Second, the District stated 
that ``[w]hile the Clean Air Act may prohibit the District from 
requiring the EPA to take action, it does not preclude the EPA from 
agreeing to a reasonable timeframe in which to take action, as 
indicated by the referenced memo.'' The District further explained that 
operators need timely notification of whether their waiver requests 
have been approved, due to the time needed to schedule and perform 
expensive and time-consuming source tests, and that Rule 4401 should 
take these needs into account.
    EPA Response: We disagree with the District's assertion that the 
October 1998 ``Title V Review Protocol Agreement'' between the District 
and EPA (Title V Agreement) provides precedent for the language in Rule 
4401. Title V of the CAA specifically authorizes EPA to object to a 
title V operating permit that is not in compliance with CAA applicable 
requirements within 45 days after receiving a copy of the proposed 
permit from the state/local permitting agency. CAA Sec.  505(b)(1); 40 
CFR 70.8(c). The District refers to language in the Title V Agreement 
that describes the process following EPA's 45-day review period through 
which SJVAPCD will resolve title V objections that EPA has raised.\7\ 
In this context, where the District has timely submitted information 
adequately addressing EPA's objections, EPA has agreed that the 
District may in some cases treat our silence as concurrence with the 
District's revised proposal.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Title V Permit Review Protocol Agreement: San Joaquin 
Valley Unified APCD, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX,'' October 1998.
    \8\ If the permitting agency fails to adequately address EPA's 
objection(s) within 90 days, title V authorizes EPA to issue or deny 
the title V permit. CAA Sec.  505(b)(3); 40 CFR 70.8(c). The 
District also references SJVAPCD Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated 
Operating Permits), which implements title V requirements. These 
provisions related to the District's title V operating permit 
program are not relevant to our action today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA does not establish any such process for state/local waivers 
to the requirements of a federally-approved SIP. To the contrary, 
section 110(i) of the Act specifically prohibits EPA and the States 
from taking any ``action modifying any requirement of an applicable 
implementation plan * * * with respect to any stationary source'' 
except as otherwise authorized by the Act. Section 6.2.4 of Rule 4401 
effectively allows the District to grant a waiver to federally-approved 
SIP requirements if EPA does not object within 45 days of receiving the 
District's request for concurrence. Without a process that ensures that 
any such waiver is granted only upon EPA approval in accordance with 
CAA requirements, this provision is inconsistent with the requirements 
of the Act and cannot be approved.
    We note that the District may address these concerns by providing 
explicit and replicable procedures within the rule that tightly define 
how the District's discretion will be exercised to assure equivalent 
emission reductions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies (A.K.A., The Little Bluebook), U.S. EPA Region IX, 
Revised August 21, 2001, at pg. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the District's comment that EPA did not object to this 
provision during its local rulemaking process, we regret not 
identifying this issue earlier but note that our failure to do so does 
not remove our obligation to ensure full compliance with the CAA when 
taking formal action on SIP submittals.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #3: SJVAPCD acknowledged that EPA had 
proposed a limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4605 because of 
concerns about certain VOC coating limits, but stated that EPA should 
approve Rule 4605 for two reasons. First, the District stated that its 
staff had compared the limits in Rule 4605 to the limits in EPA's 1997 
CTG for coating operations at aerospace facilities and in other 
California district rules, and found that (1) Rule 4605's VOC limit for 
Sealant (Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable) is consistent with BAAQMD's 
Rule 8-29, and (2) Rule 4605's limit for Sealant (Fastener) is 
consistent with SCAQMD's Rule 1124 and Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District's Rule 74.13. Second, the District stated that it 
plans to amend Rule 4605 during the first quarter of 2010 to 
incorporate the coating types and limits contained in the 1997 CTG, and 
that it would also consider the additional recommendations provided in 
EPA's TSD in its next rule revision process.
    EPA Response: EPA's 1997 CTG on Control of Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing 
and Rework Operations (1997 CTG) generally defines presumptive RACT for 
this activity nationwide. In our proposed action (74 FR at 34705), we 
noted that the District had not adequately addressed recommendations in 
the 1997 CTG for 19 coating categories. The District now identifies 
rules in neighboring districts that are consistent with Rule 4605 for 
two of these coating categories, but it fails to demonstrate that the 
CTG recommendations for those two categories are not reasonably 
achievable in the San Joaquin Valley. Moreover, the District fails to 
address the other 17 coating categories for which the 1997 CTG 
recommends specific limits. In order to satisfy CAA RACT requirements, 
the District must either demonstrate that Rule 4605 implements current-
day RACT for all of these coating operations or certify, where 
appropriate, that certain coating operations do not occur in the San 
Joaquin Valley.
    As to the District's statement that it plans to amend Rule 4605 
during the first quarter of 2010 to incorporate the CTG recommendations 
and EPA's additional recommendations, we appreciate these rule 
improvement efforts but note that we are obligated to act at this time 
on the submitted version of Rule 4605.
    SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #4: The District acknowledged that EPA had 
proposed a limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4684 because of 
concerns about the resin and gel coat monomer content limits and 
capture and control efficiency requirements. The District stated, 
however, that EPA should fully approve the rule for two reasons. First, 
the District asserted that the rules in the other districts cited by 
EPA should be considered beyond RACT as those rules were recently 
adopted, and because there is no CTG for non-fiberglass boat 
manufacturing or general polyester resin fiberglass boat manufacturing. 
The District stated that ``EPA's long-standing historical position is 
that in the absence of a CTG * * * the standards that have been 
successfully implemented in other districts or states [are] minimum 
RACT unless demonstrated that those standards are beyond RACT,'' and 
that the District had made such a demonstration (that the other 
districts' rules are beyond RACT) in its RACT analysis for Rule 4686. 
The District further stated that some of these rules were developed 
after SJVAPCD began developing Rule 4686 and, therefore,

[[Page 3999]]

``could not be utilized in the Rule 4686 development process.''
    Second, the District stated that although EPA is not calling out 
deficiencies related to the September 2008 fiberglass boat 
manufacturing CTG, the District is in the process of amending Rule 4684 
to incorporate the CTG recommendations and that rule adoption is 
scheduled for September 17, 2009.
    EPA Response: First, we disagree with the District's assertion that 
it has demonstrated that the more stringent limits in other districts' 
rules are beyond RACT. See response to SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment 
2, above. Second, we also disagree with the District's 
statement that some of the more stringent rules in other districts were 
developed after the District had begun its Rule 4684 development 
process. The District adopted the version of Rule 4684 that we are 
acting on today in 2007, and the more stringent polyester resin rules 
that the District referenced in its 2009 RACT SIP were last modified in 
2005 or earlier. See response to SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment 2, 
above. Finally, as to the District's statement that it is in the 
process of amending Rule 4684 to incorporate the CTG recommendations, 
we appreciate the District's ongoing rule improvement efforts and will 
evaluate those rule revisions when they are submitted to us for 
incorporation into the SIP. See response to SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment 
1.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules 
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited 
approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted 
rules into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as 
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously 
finalizing a limited disapproval of the rules. As a result, sanctions 
will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that 
correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of 
this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the 
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a 
federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we 
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies 
within 24 months of the effective date of this action. Note that the 
submitted rules have been adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Pollution Control District, and EPA's final limited disapproval does 
not prevent the local agency from enforcing them.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals 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 
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any 
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of 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).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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 
the 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. EPA has determined that 
the limited approval/limited disapproval 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 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the

[[Page 4000]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 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. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a 
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on February 25, 2010.

K. 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 March 29, 2010. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 11, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(350)(i)(C)(2), 
(354)(i)(E)(11) and (354)(i)(E)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (350) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Rule 4401, ``Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells,'' 
adopted on December 14, 2006.
* * * * *
    (354) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) * * *
    (11) Rule 4605, ``Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 
Operations,'' adopted on September 20, 2007.
    (12) 4684, ``Polyester Resin Operations,'' adopted on September 20, 
2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-1385 Filed 1-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

