Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ017-0006; FRL-5935-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of

a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning

the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from surface

coating operations, Rule 336. The intended effect of proposing limited

approval and limited disapproval of this rule is to regulate VOC

emissions according to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this proposal

will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. Using CAA

provisions regarding EPA actions on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority, EPA has evaluated this rule and is proposing a

simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval because, while

strengthening the SIP, this revision does not fully meet the CAA

provisions and regulatory Control Technique Guidelines regarding

regulatory requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking

Office, (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

Copies of Rule 336 and EPA's evaluation report of the rule 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:

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 proposed for limited approval (and limited

disapproval) 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 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 (see 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 (see

44 FR 16391, 40 CFR 81.303). 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, see 49 FR 18827, May

3, 1984). On May 26, 1988, again EPA 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, see 53 FR

34500, September 7, 1988). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted (see 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 adopted statutorily the requirement

that nonattainment areas fix their deficient 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

[[Page 66041]]

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 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

document,'' (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 (62 FR 60001). This reclassification became

effective on December 8, 1997.

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

The State of Arizona submitted RACT rule, Maricopa County, Rule

336--Surface Coating Operations, for incorporation into its SIP on

February 26, 1997. This document addresses EPA's proposed action for

Maricopa County's Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations. Maricopa County

adopted Rule 336 on June 19, 1996. EPA found Rule 336 complete on June

5, 1997 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria set forth in 40 CFR

part 51 Appendix V 3. Now, EPA proposes a limited approval

and limited disapproval of Rule 336.

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

\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).

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

Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations, reduces volatile organic

compound (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 this rule apply to surface

preparation and coating operations in the following industries: Metal

can and coil, metal furniture, large appliances, miscellaneous metal

parts and products, aerospace assembly items and other components,

paper, film, fabric, vinyl, plastic, and other flexible parts and

products. VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and

smog. Rule 336 was adopted as part of Maricopa County's efforts 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. Rule 336 is a new rule adopted by Maricopa County to meet

EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA's

evaluation and proposed action for Rule 336 follows below.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In reviewing a VOC rule for approval, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations in

section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). EPA's

interpretation of these requirements, forming 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.

To assist 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

presumptive norms defining RACT for specific source categories. Under

the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these documents and 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 Emissions 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 Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,'' USEPA,

December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-032;

--``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances,'' USEPA,

December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-034; and,

--``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 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.

Accordingly, Rule 336 was evaluated for consistency with the

general RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA section 110 and

part D). 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.

There is no version of Rule 336--Surface Coating Operations in the

SIP. The submitted rule includes the following provisions:

--A purpose statement,

--Definition of terms,

--Surface coating emission limits expressed in mass of VOC per unit

volume of coating less water and non-precursor organic compounds,

--Emission control system, VOC clean-up, and VOC handling requirements,

--General and specific exemptions,

--Administrative requirements,

--Monitoring and record keeping requirements, and

--Compliance test methods.

Although Rule 336 strengthens the SIP, this rule contains

deficiencies which were required to be corrected pursuant to the

section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of part D of the CAA. 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.

Sections 306.4 and 306.5 exempt some source categories in a manner

inconsistent with their applicable CTG. Maricopa County should limit

these exemptions to specific source categories consistent with their

applicable CTG. Also, these sections are inconsistent with the Blue

Book established applicability cut-off of three pounds per hour or

fifteen pounds per day of VOC emissions. Two essential component

concepts of the Blue Book's size cut-off policy are absent from the

rule. First, a source's VOC emissions for comparison to the size cutoff

should be determined

[[Page 66042]]

assuming no add-on controls. Second, once a source's VOC emissions

exceed the size cutoff, that source is subject to the emission control

requirements of the rule, even if those emissions later fall below the

cutoff limit. A more detailed discussion of the rule's deficiencies can

be found in the technical support document for Rule 336 available at

the U.S. EPA, Region 9 office.

Given these deficiencies, the rule is not approvable pursuant to

the section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Also, EPA cannot grant full

approval of this rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Because the

submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule 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 because EPA's action also contains a

simultaneous limited disapproval. To strengthen the SIP, EPA is

proposing a limited approval of Maricopa County's submitted Rule 336

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. At the same time, EPA

is proposing a limited disapproval of this rule 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 fully meet the

requirements of part D of the Act.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a

submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment,

based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements

required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions

set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected

within eighteen months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two

sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and emission

offsets. The eighteen month period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Also,

the final disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP)

requirement under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rule

covered by this proposed rule making has been adopted by Maricopa

County and is in effect. EPA's final limited disapproval action will

not prevent Maricopa County, the State of Arizona, or EPA from

enforcing this rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, 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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. 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 with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies 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 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).

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 proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: December 5, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-32786 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U