[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