[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 136 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43727-43729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17878]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ-063-0026; FRL-6735-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State 
Implementation Plan Revision, Pinal County Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a disapproval of revisions to the Pinal 
County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from organic solvents, dry cleaners, coating 
operations, and degreasers. We have evaluated these revisions and are 
proposing to disapprove these revisions because they are not consistent 
with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are 
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rules and EPA's technical 
support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal business 
hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rules at the following 
locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue, 
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 31 North Pinal Street, 
Building F, Florence, AZ 85232

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
    D. What revisions do the submitted rules make to the SIP?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background Information
    A. Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the date 
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Local agency                     Rule No.                   Rule title           Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD.......................  5-9-278......................  Applicability...........     10/12/95     11/27/95
PCAQCD.......................  5-9-280......................  Organic Solvents........     10/12/95     11/27/95
PCAQCD.......................  5-10-330.....................  Petroleum Solvent Dry        10/12/95     11/27/95
                                                               Cleaning.
PCAQCD.......................  5-11-350.....................  Chlorinated Synthetic        10/12/95     11/27/95
                                                               Solvent Dry Cleaning.
PCAQCD.......................  5-12-370.....................  Architectural Coating        10/12/95     11/27/95
                                                               Operations.
PCAQCD.......................  5-13-390.....................  Spray Paint and Other        10/12/95     11/27/95
                                                               Surface Coating
                                                               Operations.
PCAQCD.......................  5-15-622.....................  Degreasers..............     10/12/95     11/27/95
PCAQCD.......................  7-3-3.4......................  Organic Solvents             10/12/95     11/27/95
                                                               (rescission).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 1996, these rule submittals were found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rules 5-9-278, 5-9-280, 5-10-330, 
5-11-350, 5-12-370, 5-13-390, and 5-15-622 (Chapter 5 Rules) in the 
SIP. These Chapter 5 Rules were adopted by the PCAQCD on October 12, 
1995 and submitted to us by the ADEQ on November 27, 1995.

[[Page 43728]]

    We approved a version of Rule 7-3-3.4 into the SIP on April 12, 
1982. The PCAQCD rescinded the SIP-approved version of Rule 7-3-3.4 on 
October 12, 1995 and ADEQ submitted the rescission request to us on 
November 27, 1995.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

    The submitted rules control emissions of VOCs from a variety of 
sources, including degreasers, dry cleaners, and coating operations. 
Except for Rule 5-9-278 which limits the applicability of Rule 5-9-280, 
the Chapter 5 Rules were meant to replace SIP approved Rule 7-3-3.4. 
Most of the provisions originally found in the SIP approved version of 
Rule 7-3-3.4 are now found in Rule 5-9-280. The TSD has more 
information about these rules.

D. What Revisions Do the Submitted Rules Make to the SIP?

    The submitted rules revise the SIP approved version of Rule 7-3-3.4 
by:
     Limiting the applicability of Rule 5-9-280 to an area 
along the northwest border of Pinal County,
     increasing the allowable discharge of organic materials 
exposed to heat from 15 to 40 pounds per day,
     Exempting sources subject to other portions of the PCAQCD 
Code of Regulations,
     Allowing some sources to exceed the 1.5 gallon disposal 
limit for photochemically reactive solvents, and
     Allowing the use of alternative ``rational control 
technology'' approved by the control officer.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The 
PCAQCD regulates an ozone attainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so the 
submitted rules are not required to meet RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate the 
submitted rules include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal 
Register document,'' (the ``Blue Book''), notice of availability 
published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules weaken the SIP by establishing less stringent emission 
limits and narrowing the scope of regulated sources. These rules are 
inconsistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet 
the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in 
the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevent approval of the SIP revision.
    1. Rule 5-9-278 relaxes the SIP by regulating potentially fewer 
sources.
    2. Rule 5-9-280 relaxes the SIP by increasing the allowable 
discharge of organic materials exposed to heat.
    3. Eliminating the 1.5 gallon disposal limit for photochemically 
reactive solvents relaxes the SIP by allowing some sources to emit more 
VOCs.
    4. Rule 5-9-280 is unenforceable because it gives the control 
officer discretion in approving the use of alternative controls.
    5. Rule 5-9-280 is unenforceable because it refers to other 
portions of the PCAQCD Code of Regulations which have not been approved 
into the SIP.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a disapproval of the submitted rules. This means that the 
version of Rule 7-3-3.4 that was approved into the SIP on April 12, 
1982 will remain in the federally enforceable SIP. If this disapproval 
is finalized, the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under 
section 110(c) will not be triggered and section 179 sanctions will not 
be imposed even if EPA fails to approve subsequent SIP revisions that 
correct the rule deficiencies because PCAQCD is an ozone attainment 
area. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the PCAQCD, 
and EPA's final disapproval would not prevent the local agency from 
enforcing them.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval 
for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of 
the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency 
VOC rules.

                       Table 2.--Ozone Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978................................  EPA promulgated a list of
                                                ozone nonattainment
                                                areas under the Clean
                                                Air Act as amended in
                                                1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                                81.305.
November 15, 1990............................  Clean Air Act Amendments
                                                of 1990 were enacted.
                                                Pub. L. 101-549, 104
                                                Stat. 2399, codified at
                                                42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.
    These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

[[Page 43729]]

C. 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 OMB 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 proposed 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 proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely acts on state rules implementing a federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

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.
    EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any 
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing 
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 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 the 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 proposed action 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 proposed Federal action acts 
on 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. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

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 et seq.

    Dated: June 28, 2000.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-17878 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P