Skip to Content


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, Sacramento Metropolitan and San Diego Air Pollution Agencies

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document including its time on Public Inspection. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.


Direct final rule.


EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from automotive parts and component, automobile refinishing, metal parts and products, and miscellaneous coating and refinishing operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).


This rule is effective on October 9, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 10, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.


Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0332, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email:

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through or email. is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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.


Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3576,


Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State' Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

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 (CARB).

Table 1—Submitted Rules

Local agencyRule No.Rule titleAdoptedSubmitted
NSAQMD228Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products04/25/1109/27/11
SDCAPCD66.1Miscellaneous Coating02/24/1007/20/10
MDAQMD1116Automotive Refinishing08/23/1004/05/11
SMAQMD459Automotive, Mobile Equipment and Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations08/25/1102/23/12

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

We approved an earlier version of MDAQMD Rule 1116 into the SIP on April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18901). No other version of SDCAPCD Rule 66.1 or Northern Sierra Rule 228 has been submitted, although EPA previously approved SDCAPCD Rule 66. An earlier version of SMAQMD Rule 459 was approved into the SIP on November 13, 1998 (63 FR 63410).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions by limiting VOC content in coatings used for metal parts and products, miscellaneous uses, automobile refinishing processes and automotive equipment, parts and compounds. In addition, the rules also limit emission of VOCs by regulating organic solvent cleaning, storage and disposal relating to the coating operations. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(1) and 193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook),

2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” EPA, Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook),

3. “Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 2005,

4. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,” EPA (EPA-453/R-08-006) September 2008,

5. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA, (EPA-453/R-08-003), September 2008,

6. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources,” Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations (EPA-450/2-76-028, 11/76), and

7. “Control Techniques Guidelines Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning”, (EPA-450/2-77-022, 11/77).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

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.

C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public comment and final action

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 Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by September 10, 2012, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on October 9, 2012. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

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.

III. 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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 October 9, 2012. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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

Dated: May 22, 2012.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:


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)(381)(i) (J), (c)(388)(i)(F), (c)(404)(i)(B), and (c)(411) to read as follows:

Identification of plan.
* * * * *

(c) * * *

(381) * * *

(i) * * *

(J) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 66.1, “Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations and Other Processes Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds,” adopted on February 24, 2010.

* * * * *

(388) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 1116, “Automotive Refinishing Operations,” amended on August 23, 2010.

* * * * *

(404) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 228, “Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,” amended on April 25, 2011.

* * * * *

(411) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on February 23, 2012.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 459, “Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations,” amended August 25, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2012-19318 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]