[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6487-6489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ017-0008; FRL-5957-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed
in the Federal Register on December 17, 1997. This final action will
incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. The intended
effect of this action is to regulate volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions according to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised rule controls VOC
emissions from various surface coating operations using primarily metal
and plastic
[[Page 6488]]
substrates. Thus, EPA is finalizing a simultaneous limited approval and
limited disapproval under CAA provisions regarding EPA action on SIP
submittals and general rulemaking authority because these revisions,
while strengthening the SIP, also do not fully meet the CAA provisions
regarding plan submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas. As
a result of this limited disapproval, EPA will be required under the
CAA to impose highway funding or emission offset sanctions unless
Arizona submits and EPA approves corrections to the identified
deficiencies within eighteen months of the effective date of this
disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be required to promulgate a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) unless the deficiencies are corrected within
twenty-four months of the effective date of this disapproval.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on March 11, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Rule 336 and EPA's evaluation report are available
for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal business
hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also 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 94105-3901,
(415) 744-1226.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3003 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 2406 S. 24th Street,
Suite E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.
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 94105-3901, (415) 744-1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The rule being approved into the Arizona SIP is Maricopa County
Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations. This rule was submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA on February
26, 1997.
II. Background
On December 17, 1997 in 62 FR 66040, EPA proposed granting a
limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 336, Surface Coating
Operations and incorporating the rule into the Arizona SIP. Rule 336
was adopted by Maricopa County on June 19, 1996. This rule was
submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to EPA on
February 26, 1997. This rule was submitted in response to EPA's 1988
SIP Call and the CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement that
nonattainment areas fix their reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules for ozone in accordance with EPA guidance that interpreted
the requirements of the pre-amendment 1990 Clean Air Act. A detailed
discussion of the background for Rule 336 and nonattainment areas is
provided in the proposed rule cited above.
EPA has evaluated Rule 336 for consistency with the requirements of
the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA's interpretation of these
requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance documents
referenced in the proposed rule. EPA is finalizing the limited approval
of this rule to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the limited
disapproval requiring the correction of the remaining deficiencies
within Rule 336.
Rule 336's VOC emission limits conform to the respective CTG or ACT
requirement and the rule contains adequate record keeping and test
method provisions for monitoring the compliance of regulated
facilities. However, several portions of the rule are unclear or
contradict the subject CTG. The following sections should 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.
A detailed discussion of Rule 336's provisions and EPA's evaluation has
been provided in the proposed rule and in the technical support
document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office (TSD dated October
1997).
III. Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in 62 FR 66040. EPA
received no comments on this proposed rule.
IV. EPA Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of
Rule 336. The limited approval of this rule is finalized under section
110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to
adopt regulations necessary to further air quality by strengthening the
SIP. The approval is limited in the sense that Rule 336 strengthens the
SIP. However, while Rule 336 strengthens the SIP, it does not meet the
section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because of the rule's deficiencies
discussed in the proposed rule. Thus, to strengthen the SIP, EPA is
granting limited approval of Rule 336 under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the CAA. This action approves Rule 336 into the SIP as a
federally enforceable rule.
At the same time, EPA is finalizing the limited disapproval of Rule
336 because it contains deficiencies that have not been corrected as
required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such, the rule
does not meet the requirements of Part D of the Act. As stated in the
proposed rule, upon the effective date of this final action, the
eighteen month clock for sanctions and the twenty-four month FIP clock
will begin. (See Sections 179(a) and 110(c) of the CAA.) If the State
does not submit the required corrections and EPA does not approve the
submittal within eighteen months of this final action, either the
highway sanction or the offset sanction will be imposed at the eighteen
month mark. It should be noted that Rule 336 has been adopted by
Maricopa County and is in effect within the county. EPA's limited
disapproval action will not prevent Maricopa County, the State of
Arizona, or EPA from enforcing Rule 336.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities
[[Page 6489]]
with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its action 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).
C. 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
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 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
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. 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 April 10, 1998. 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.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Arizona was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: January 15, 1998.
David P. Howekamp,
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)(83)(i)(B) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(83) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Rule 336, adopted on July 13, 1988 and revised on June 19,
1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-3023 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
