Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 68743-68746 [E6-20073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: November 13, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§ 52.570
*
Subpart L—Georgia
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
68743
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by
adding a entry at the end of the table for
‘‘Douglas County, GA’’ to read as
follows:
I
EPA APPROVED GEORGIA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
*
Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/Park and Ride Transportation Center, Project DO–AR–211 is removed.
*
Douglas County, GA .........
[FR Doc. E6–20141 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–FL–0002–200530(a);
FRL–8246–2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans Florida:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410, to
approve a revision to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) on
June 8, 2005. The revision is sourcespecific to the Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company (LM), located in
Pinellas County, Florida, and regards
that facility’s compliance with Florida’s
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products Reasonably
Available Control Technology rule,
found at Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) Rule 62–296.513 (FL MMPP
Rule). The source-specific SIP revision
seeks to allow LM to employ as
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) the control techniques outlined
in EPA’s December 1997, ‘‘Aerospace
Control Technique Guidelines’’ (EPA’s
Aerospace CTG), instead of the RACT
described in the FL MMPP Rule. The
source-specific SIP revision is
approvable because it meets the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:50 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
09/19/06
standards for approval described in
section 110(l) of the CAA.
DATES: This direct final action is
effective January 29, 2007 without
further notice unless EPA receives
adverse comment by December 28,
2006. If adverse comment is received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final action in the Federal
Register and inform the public that the
direct final action will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2005–FL–0002, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–FL–
0002,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: James
Hou, Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–
FL–0002.’’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
*
*
11/28/06 [Insert citation of publication].
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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
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
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
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
E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM
28NOR1
68744
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–8965.
Mr. Hou can also be reached via
electronic mail at hou.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
I. Background
The FL MMPP Rule describes specific
RACT that is necessary to achieve the
specified emission rates for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
Specifically, the Rule requires sources
that apply surface coatings to any
number of metal parts and products to
limit their VOC emission rates.
Consistent with the FL MMPP Rule,
however, sources are exempt from
regulation if they emit not more than 15
pounds in any one day and not more
than three pounds in any one hour.
F.A.C. Rule 62.296.500(3)(a). The FL
MMPP Rule was incorporated into the
Florida SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR
32346), and applies to a wide range of
source categories, including aerospace
manufacturing.
Section 183 of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7511b, ‘‘Federal ozone
measures,’’ requires EPA to issue
control techniques guidelines for
categories of stationary sources of VOC
emissions. Pursuant to section 183 of
the CAA, in December 1997, EPA issued
a control techniques guideline entitled,
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Coating Operations at
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations,’’ (EPA Publication No.
EPA–453/R–97–004) (EPA’s Aerospace
CTG). The purpose of EPA’s Aerospace
CTG is to present feasible RACT control
measures for VOC emissions from
coatings and solvents used specifically
in the aerospace industry. EPA has
encouraged states to adopt EPA’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:50 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
Aerospace CTG as part of their
regulations of VOC emissions from the
aerospace industry. Although Florida
has not yet revised its SIP to include
EPA’s Aerospace CTG for all aerospace
manufacturers, it did submit a sourcespecific SIP revision on June 8, 2005, for
LM’s Pinellas County facility to utilize
the RACT described in EPA’s Aerospace
CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule,
which is not specific to the aerospace
industry.
LM produces aerospace parts and
components, primarily in support of the
manufacture and sustainability of
military aircrafts. At the present time,
the surface coating operations of LM are
exempt from the FL MMPP Rule
because its operations emit VOCs at
lower rates than the minimum rates
necessary to be regulated under that
Rule. However, LM anticipates that it
will increase production levels such
that VOC emissions from surface coating
operations in the near future would
exceed the exemption criteria of the FL
MMPP Rule, thus subjecting LM to the
RACT requirements of the FL MMPP
Rule. As will be discussed in greater
detail below, the RACT described in
EPA’s Aerospace CTG is more detailed
than the RACT required by the FL
MMPP Rule because it focuses on
specific aspects of the aerospace
industry that result in VOC emissions.
As a result, in the case of LM, the RACT
described in EPA’s Aerospace CTG is
expected to be more effective than the
RACT described in FL MMPP Rule for
controlling emissions from LM’s
Pinellas County facility.
On June 8, 2005, FDEP submitted a
source-specific SIP revision to EPA
requiring the Pinellas County LM
facility to comply with EPA’s Aerospace
CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule. In
essence, FL is requesting that EPA
approve a SIP revision subjecting LM to
the RACT described in EPA’s Aerospace
CTG. EPA is now taking direct final
action to approve that revision into the
Florida SIP.
II. Analysis of State’s Submittal
As noted above, EPA has encouraged
the adoption of its Aerospace CTG for
the regulation of VOC emissions from
the aerospace industry. This sourcespecific SIP revision, which would
require that LM comply with EPA’s
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP
Rule, is consistent with that policy.
As part of its review of this proposed
SIP revision, EPA evaluated the
proposed revision consistent with the
standards described in section 110(l) of
the CAA, ‘‘Plan revisions.’’ Section
110(l) specifies that EPA may not
approve a revision of a plan if the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment of any of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), or any other applicable
requirements of the CAA. Because
EPA’s Aerospace CTG is specific to the
aerospace industry, the applicable
RACT is better suited than the FL
MMPP Rule to control VOC emissions
from that industry.
Both the FL MMPP Rule and EPA’s
Aerospace CTG describe ‘‘RACT;’’
however, the CTG describes specific
RACT for the aerospace industry, and
therefore, can provide more effective
emissions control options for that
industry. For example, the FL MMPP
Rule describes RACT generally for
primers and topcoats that are typically
applied within a confined environment
such as a paint booth. EPA’s Aerospace
CTG has greater detail and addresses
RACT specifically for solvent cleaning
operations, adhesive and sealant
application, specialty coating materials
that are not applied in a booth, and
waste handling operations, among other
situations. As a result, the RACT
described in EPA’s Aerospace CTG may
be more stringent than the FL MMPP
Rule because the FL MMPP Rule does
not address all the specific situations
applicable to the aerospace industry.
According to data provided to EPA by
LM, LM can reduce VOC emissions to
a greater extent using EPA’s Aerospace
CTG RACT in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule
RACT. In summary, LM’s use of EPA’s
Aerospace CTG RACT is expected to
result in at least equivalent controls, if
not more stringent controls, than those
imposed by the FL MMPP Rule.
Additionally, on May 19, 2005, FDEP
issued a federally enforceable minorsource air construction permit to the
facility, limiting LM’s total VOC
emissions to 25 tpy, representing
another limit on VOC emissions from
this facility.
EPA has further determined that
approving this source-specific SIP
revision will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement, as described in section
110(l) of the CAA due to the fact that
this source-specific SIP revision will
impose more stringent RACT on LM’s
facility than would otherwise be
required under Florida Law. Based on
the foregoing analysis, EPA has
determined that the proposed sourcespecific revision to the Florida SIP is
consistent with section 110(l) of the
CAA, and is approvable.
E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM
28NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
III. Final Action
EPA is taking direct final action to
approve a revision to the Florida SIP
submitted by FDEP on June 8, 2005. The
revision is source-specific to the LM
facility located in Pinellas County,
Florida, and regards that facility’s use of
RACT to control VOC emissions. Instead
of following the RACT described in the
FL MMPP Rule, the source-specific
revision requires LM to comply with the
RACT described in EPA’s Aerospace
CTG. EPA is publishing this direct final
action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal 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 adverse
comments be filed. This direct final
action will be effective January 29, 2007
without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by
December 28, 2006.
If the EPA receives adverse
comments, then EPA will withdraw the
direct final action and inform the public
that the direct final action will not take
effect. All public comments received
will then be addressed in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. EPA
will not institute a second comment
period. Parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time.
If no such comments are received, the
public is advised that this rule will be
effective on January 29, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the
proposed action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 et seq.). Because this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:50 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
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 state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. As a result, the action does
not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
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 is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68745
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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by January 29, 2007. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 6, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52, is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K—Florida
2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by
adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ‘‘Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’’ to read as follows:
I
§ 52.520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM
28NOR1
*
*
68746
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED (STATE OR COUNTY) SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
Permit No.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company.
........................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–20073 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 61 and 63
[EPA–R01–OAR–2006–0345; FRL–8238–1]
Approval of the Clean Air Act, Section
112(l), Authority for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asbestos Management and
Control; State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to
approve New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services’ (NH DES)
request to implement and enforce its
regulation entitled ‘‘Asbestos
Management and Control’’ in lieu of the
Asbestos National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos
NESHAP) as it applies to certain
asbestos-related activities. Upon
approval, NH DES’s rule will be
federally enforceable and will apply to
all sources that otherwise would be
regulated by the Asbestos NESHAP with
the exception of inactive waste disposal
sites that ceased operation on or before
July 9, 1981. These inactive disposal
sites are already regulated by State rules
that were approved by EPA on May 23,
2003. NH DES’s request seeks to adjust
the federal rules by demonstrating the
equivalency of its rules to the federal
requirements.
This direct final rule will be
effective January 29, 2007, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
December 28, 2006. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications in this
rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of January 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
DATES:
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
State effective
date
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:50 Nov 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
04/16/05
EPA approval date
11/28/06 [Insert citation of
publication].
R01–OAR–2006–0345 by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: lancey.susan@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0656.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2006–
0345’’, Daniel Brown, Manager, Air
Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit,
Office Of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP),
Boston, MA 02114–2023.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Daniel Brown,
Manager, Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor
Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston, MA 02114–
2023. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2006–
0345. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
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 through
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
Requirement that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company comply with EPA’s Aerospace CTG at its Pinellas County facility.
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
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
In addition to the publicly available
docket materials available for inspection
electronically in the Federal Docket
Management System at
www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy
available at the Regional Office, which
are identified in the ADDRESSES section
of this Federal Register, copies of the
state submittal and EPA’s technical
support document are also available for
public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency: Air Resources
Division, Department of Environmental
Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95,
Concord, NH 03302–0095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics &
Indoor Programs Unit, Office Of
Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP),
Boston, MA 02114–2023, telephone
number (617) 918–1656, e-mail
lancey.susan@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\28NOR1.SGM
28NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68743-68746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20073]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002-200530(a); FRL-8246-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410, to approve a revision to the
Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on June 8, 2005. The
revision is source-specific to the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
(LM), located in Pinellas County, Florida, and regards that facility's
compliance with Florida's Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Reasonably Available Control Technology rule, found at
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62-296.513 (FL MMPP Rule).
The source-specific SIP revision seeks to allow LM to employ as
reasonably available control technology (RACT) the control techniques
outlined in EPA's December 1997, ``Aerospace Control Technique
Guidelines'' (EPA's Aerospace CTG), instead of the RACT described in
the FL MMPP Rule. The source-specific SIP revision is approvable
because it meets the standards for approval described in section 110(l)
of the CAA.
DATES: This direct final action is effective January 29, 2007 without
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28,
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final action in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the direct final action will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-FL-0002, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-FL-0002.'' 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 through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The 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 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
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
[[Page 68744]]
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at
hou.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The FL MMPP Rule describes specific RACT that is necessary to
achieve the specified emission rates for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Specifically, the Rule requires sources that apply surface
coatings to any number of metal parts and products to limit their VOC
emission rates. Consistent with the FL MMPP Rule, however, sources are
exempt from regulation if they emit not more than 15 pounds in any one
day and not more than three pounds in any one hour. F.A.C. Rule
62.296.500(3)(a). The FL MMPP Rule was incorporated into the Florida
SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), and applies to a wide range of
source categories, including aerospace manufacturing.
Section 183 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7511b, ``Federal ozone
measures,'' requires EPA to issue control techniques guidelines for
categories of stationary sources of VOC emissions. Pursuant to section
183 of the CAA, in December 1997, EPA issued a control techniques
guideline entitled, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations,'' (EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-97-004) (EPA's Aerospace
CTG). The purpose of EPA's Aerospace CTG is to present feasible RACT
control measures for VOC emissions from coatings and solvents used
specifically in the aerospace industry. EPA has encouraged states to
adopt EPA's Aerospace CTG as part of their regulations of VOC emissions
from the aerospace industry. Although Florida has not yet revised its
SIP to include EPA's Aerospace CTG for all aerospace manufacturers, it
did submit a source-specific SIP revision on June 8, 2005, for LM's
Pinellas County facility to utilize the RACT described in EPA's
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, which is not specific to the
aerospace industry.
LM produces aerospace parts and components, primarily in support of
the manufacture and sustainability of military aircrafts. At the
present time, the surface coating operations of LM are exempt from the
FL MMPP Rule because its operations emit VOCs at lower rates than the
minimum rates necessary to be regulated under that Rule. However, LM
anticipates that it will increase production levels such that VOC
emissions from surface coating operations in the near future would
exceed the exemption criteria of the FL MMPP Rule, thus subjecting LM
to the RACT requirements of the FL MMPP Rule. As will be discussed in
greater detail below, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG is more
detailed than the RACT required by the FL MMPP Rule because it focuses
on specific aspects of the aerospace industry that result in VOC
emissions. As a result, in the case of LM, the RACT described in EPA's
Aerospace CTG is expected to be more effective than the RACT described
in FL MMPP Rule for controlling emissions from LM's Pinellas County
facility.
On June 8, 2005, FDEP submitted a source-specific SIP revision to
EPA requiring the Pinellas County LM facility to comply with EPA's
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule. In essence, FL is requesting
that EPA approve a SIP revision subjecting LM to the RACT described in
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is now taking direct final action to approve
that revision into the Florida SIP.
II. Analysis of State's Submittal
As noted above, EPA has encouraged the adoption of its Aerospace
CTG for the regulation of VOC emissions from the aerospace industry.
This source-specific SIP revision, which would require that LM comply
with EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, is consistent
with that policy.
As part of its review of this proposed SIP revision, EPA evaluated
the proposed revision consistent with the standards described in
section 110(l) of the CAA, ``Plan revisions.'' Section 110(l) specifies
that EPA may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any other
applicable requirements of the CAA. Because EPA's Aerospace CTG is
specific to the aerospace industry, the applicable RACT is better
suited than the FL MMPP Rule to control VOC emissions from that
industry.
Both the FL MMPP Rule and EPA's Aerospace CTG describe ``RACT;''
however, the CTG describes specific RACT for the aerospace industry,
and therefore, can provide more effective emissions control options for
that industry. For example, the FL MMPP Rule describes RACT generally
for primers and topcoats that are typically applied within a confined
environment such as a paint booth. EPA's Aerospace CTG has greater
detail and addresses RACT specifically for solvent cleaning operations,
adhesive and sealant application, specialty coating materials that are
not applied in a booth, and waste handling operations, among other
situations. As a result, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG may
be more stringent than the FL MMPP Rule because the FL MMPP Rule does
not address all the specific situations applicable to the aerospace
industry. According to data provided to EPA by LM, LM can reduce VOC
emissions to a greater extent using EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT in lieu of
the FL MMPP Rule RACT. In summary, LM's use of EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT
is expected to result in at least equivalent controls, if not more
stringent controls, than those imposed by the FL MMPP Rule.
Additionally, on May 19, 2005, FDEP issued a federally enforceable
minor-source air construction permit to the facility, limiting LM's
total VOC emissions to 25 tpy, representing another limit on VOC
emissions from this facility.
EPA has further determined that approving this source-specific SIP
revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement, as described in section 110(l) of the CAA due to the fact
that this source-specific SIP revision will impose more stringent RACT
on LM's facility than would otherwise be required under Florida Law.
Based on the foregoing analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed
source-specific revision to the Florida SIP is consistent with section
110(l) of the CAA, and is approvable.
[[Page 68745]]
III. Final Action
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Florida SIP submitted by FDEP on June 8, 2005. The revision is source-
specific to the LM facility located in Pinellas County, Florida, and
regards that facility's use of RACT to control VOC emissions. Instead
of following the RACT described in the FL MMPP Rule, the source-
specific revision requires LM to comply with the RACT described in
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is publishing this direct final action without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal 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 adverse comments be filed. This direct final action
will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006.
If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will withdraw the
direct final action and inform the public that the direct final action
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. EPA will
not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
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 state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, the action does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 6, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
0
40 CFR part 52, 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 K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 68746]]
EPA Approved (State or County) Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics .............. 04/16/05 11/28/06 [Insert Requirement that
Company. citation of Lockheed Martin
publication]. Aeronautics Company
comply with EPA's
Aerospace CTG at its
Pinellas County
facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-20073 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
