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

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