[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66040-66042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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