[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50759-50762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24431]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 086-0017a FRL-6438-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on a revision to the Arizona
State Implementation Plan. This revision concerns two rules from
Maricopa County: Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations; and, Rule 348--
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations. This final action will
incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP and stop the
sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan clocks started on February 9,
1998 when EPA published a final limited disapproval of the State's
previous submittal of Rule 336. The intended effect of approving these
rules is to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
according to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act). Rule 336 controls VOC emissions from different
surface coating operations using primarily metal and plastic
substrates. Rule 348 controls VOC emissions from aerospace
manufacturing and rework operations. EPA is finalizing the approval of
this revision into the Arizona SIP under provisions of the CAA
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for
nonattainment areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 19, 1999 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 20, 1999. If
EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal Federal
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's
evaluation report for each rule are available for public inspection at
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the
submitted rule revisions are available for inspection at the following
locations:
Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105;
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M''
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460;
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3003 North Central
Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012; and,
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 N. Central
Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office,
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The Maricopa County rules being approved into the Arizona SIP are
Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations and Rule 348--Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Operations. These rules were submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to EPA on August 4, 1999.
II. Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977
(1977 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included Maricopa County. 43 FR
8964; 40 CFR 81.305. On March 19, 1979, EPA changed the name and
modified the geographic boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area to
the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Urban Planning Area. 44
FR 16391, 40 CFR 81303. On February 24, 1984, EPA notified the Governor
of Arizona, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act,
that MAG's portion of the Arizona SIP was inadequate to attain and
maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the
existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call, 49 FR 18827, May 3, 1984).
On May 26, 1988, EPA again notified the Governor of Arizona that MAG's
portion of the SIP was inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone
standard and requested that deficiencies relating to VOC controls and
the application of reasonably available control technology (RACT) in
the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's second SIP-Call, 53 FR 34500,
September 7, 1988). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA,
Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that nonattainment areas
fix their deficient reasonably available control technology (RACT)
rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15, 1991 for states
to submit corrections of those deficiencies. Section 182(a)(2)(A)
applies to areas designated as nonattainment prior to enactment of the
amendments and classified as marginal or above as of the date of
enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and correct RACT rules
pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as interpreted in pre-amendment
guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used that guidance to indicate the
necessary corrections for specific nonattainment areas. The MAG Urban
Planning Area is classified as serious; 2 therefore, this
[[Page 50760]]
area was subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTGs).
\2\ The MAG Urban Planning Area retained its designations of
nonattainment and was classified by operation of law pursuant to
sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA.
See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On November 6, 1997 EPA
published a final rule reclassifying the MAG Urban Planning Area
from moderate to serious (FR 62 60001). This reclassification became
effective on December 8, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Arizona submitted many revised RACT rules for
incorporation into its SIP on August 4, 1999, including Maricopa
County's Rule 336 and Rule 348 being acted on today. This document
addresses EPA's direct-final action for Maricopa County Rule 336--
Surface Coating Operations and Rule 348--Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Operations. Maricopa County adopted both Rule 336 and Rule 348
on April 7, 1999. These submitted rules were found to be complete on
August 25, 1999 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set
forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.3 Now, EPA is approving
Rule 336 and Rule 348 for inclusion within the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two rules reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in
different industries. Rule 336 reduces VOC emissions at industrial
sites engaged in preparing and coating a variety of substrates such as
metal, paper, film, fabric, vinyl, and plastic. The provisions of Rule
336 apply to surface preparation and coating operation in the following
industries: metal can and coil, metal furniture, large appliances,
miscellaneous metal parts and products, paper, film, fabric, vinyl,
plastic, and other flexible parts and products. Rule 348 controls VOC
emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework operations where
various coatings are applied to primarily metal substrates.
VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog.
Rule 336 and Rule 348 were adopted originally as part of Maricopa
County's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA's evaluation and final action for
this rule follow in the next section.
III. EPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote one. Among those
provisions is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum,
provide for the implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC
emissions. This requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act
and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source
categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these
documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to
``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). The following
CTGs are applicable to Rule 336:
--``Control of Volatile Organic Emission from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and light Duty Trucks,'' USEPA, May 1977, EPA-450/2-77-
008;
--``Control of Volatile Organic Emission from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,'' USEPA,
December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-034; and,
--``Control of Volatile Organic Emission from Existing Stationary
Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products,'' USEPA, June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-015.
The following Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document was
consulted for its recommended emission limits and other applicable
provisions:
--``Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine
Plastic Parts,'' USEPA, EPA 453/R-94-017.
The following CTG was used to evaluate Rule 348:
--``Guideline Series: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations,'' USEPA, EPA-453/R-97-004, December, 1997.
Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book,
referred to in footnote one. In general, these guidance documents have
been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and
strengthen or maintain the SIP.
On February 9, 1998, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited
disapproval of Rule 336. Although Rule 336 strengthened the SIP, the
rule contained deficiencies that were required to be corrected pursuant
to the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirements of Part D of the CAA. EPA
required that the following sections be amended to be consistent with
the applicable CTG and EPA policy:
--Section 306.4, Exemptions, Special Facilities/Operations;
--Section 306.5, Exemptions Small Sources; and,
--Section 402, Administrative Requirements, Minimal Use Days.
Further discussion of these deficiencies can be found at 62 FR 66040
(December 17, 1997) or in EPA's Technical Support Document for that
December 1997 rulemaking.
Maricopa County's submitted Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations
includes the following significant changes from the current SIP
version:
--Requirements for more efficient paint application equipment;
--More stringent clean-up requirements;
--VOC limits for adhesives used on paper and metal substrates;
--More explicit recordkeeping requirements;
--Aerospace coating limits and requirements were deleted and included
within Rule 348--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations; and,
--Two exemptions were deleted and one was added for bond rubber sheets
for abrasion protection on metal machinery.
Within the version of Rule 336 adopted on April 7, 1999, the
deficiencies identified by EPA in its February 9, 1998 rulemaking were
corrected in the following ways:
--Section 306.4, Exemptions, Special Facilities/Operations and its 40
pounds per day size cutoff was deleted and the CTG size cut-off of 15
lbs per day was retained;
--Section 306.5, Exemptions, Small Sources was amended at Sections 243
and 305.4(d) to address EPA's ``once in, always in'' policy; and,
--Section 402, Administrative Requirements, Minimal Use Days and its
waiver provisions was deleted.
The submitted Rule 336 does not interfere with reasonable further
progress, attainment, or other provisions of the CAA. The amendments to
Rule 336 are consistent with the CAA's Section 110(1) requirement for
several reasons. First, Rule 336's amendments correct the deficiencies
within the rule
[[Page 50761]]
and increase VOC emission reductions compared to the previous 1996
version of the rule within the SIP. Emission reductions are estimated
to be 40 tons per year resulting from the Section 302 requirement to
use an efficient coating application method. Second, the emission
limits within Rule 336 meet the relevant CTG. Finally, although
aerospace coating limits and requirements were deleted from Rule 336,
they were included within Rule 348--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations. Rule 348 and its emission limits are being approved
concurrently with this rulemaking action on Rule 336.
EPA has evaluated the submitted Rule 336 and has determined that it
is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,
Maricopa County Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations is being approved
under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of
section 110(a) and part D. This approval action will incorporate this
rule into the federally approved SIP and also stop the sanctions
process and Federal Implementation Plan clock, which were started on
February 9, 1998 when a limited disapproval action was published in the
Federal Register (see 63 FR 6487.)
There is no version of Maricopa County Rule 348--Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Operations in the SIP. The submitted Rule 348
includes the following general provisions:
--General purpose and applicability;
--Definitions of terms used within the rule;
--Requirements for VOC content of coatings, surface preparation, and
storage of VOC containing materials;
--Exemptions from the rule;
--Requirements for using air pollution control equipment;--record
keeping to demonstrate compliance with the rule; and,
--Test methods for determining compliance with the rule.
EPA has evaluated Rule 348 and has determined that it is consistent
with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, Maricopa
County Rule 348--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations is being
approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements
of section 110(a) and part D.
EPA is publishing this approval action without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective November
19, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse
comments by October 20, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
did not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested
in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule is
effective on November 19, 1999 and no further action will be taken on
the proposed rule.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
[[Page 50762]]
E. 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
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).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. 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 November 19, 1999. 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 3, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(94) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(94) New and amended rules and regulations for the Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department-Air Pollution Control were submitted
on August 4, 1999, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule 336, adopted on July 13, 1988 and revised on April 7, 1999
and Rule 348, adopted on April 7, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99-24431 Filed 9-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
