[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 142 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45566-45569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18643]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ-063-0028; FRL-6839-6]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County 
Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Pinal 
County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from stationary storage tanks, dock 
loading and leakages from pumps and compressors. We are proposing 
action on local rules that regulate these emission sources under 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 must arrive by August 23, 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 SIP revisions and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions 
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, Building F, 31 North Pinal 
Street, (P.O. Box 987), Florence, AZ 85232.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Fantillo, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1183.

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 rule revisions?
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. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background information
    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 dates 
that they were adopted by PCAQCD and submitted by the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

[[Page 45567]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local  agency              Rule  No.                Rule title                Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD..............................     5-18-740  Storage of Volatile Organic             02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                    Compounds--Organic Compound
                                                    Emissions.
PCAQCD..............................     5-19-800  General............................     02/22/95     11/27/95
PCAQCD..............................    5-24-1055  Pumps and Compressors--Organic          02/22/95     11/27/95
                                                    Compound Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 previous versions of Rules 5-18-740, 5-19-800, and 5-24-
1055 in the SIP. We approved a version of the above rules into the SIP 
on November 15, 1978. The PCAQCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 
version on February 2, 1995 and ADEQ submitted them to us on November 
27, 1995.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    The only purpose of the submitted rule revisions was the 
renumbering of the SIP approved version. Rule 7-3-2.1 was renumbered as 
5-18-740, Rule 7-3-3.2 was renumbered as 5-19-800, and Rule 7-3-3.3 was 
renumbered as 5-24-1055. The TSD has more information about these 
rules.

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 RACT 
requirements do not apply.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability include the following:
    1. ``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 published in 
the May 25, 1988 Federal Register (This applies to all the above 
rules).
    2. Control Technique Guideline Document (CTG) entitled ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-
Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036, U.S.EPA, December 1977 (applies to Rule 
5-18-740).
    3. Control Technique Guideline Document (CTG) entitled ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 
Floating Roof Tanks, `` EPA-450/2-78-047, December, 1977 (applies to 
Rule 5-18-740).
    4. Control Technique Guideline Document (CTG) entitled ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants,'' EPA-450/2-77-
035, December 1977 (applies to Rule 5-19-800).
    5. Control Technique Guideline Document (CTG) entitled ``Control of 
Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,'' EPA-450/2-
77-026, October 1977 (applies to Rule 5-19-800).
    6. Control Technique Guideline Document (CTG) entitled ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and 
Polymer Manufacturing Equipment,'' EPA-450/3-83-006 (applies to Rule 5-
24-1055).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules are essentially inconsistent with the relevant policy 
and guidance regarding enforceability. Rule provisions which do not 
meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further 
in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    We have identified the following deficiencies:
    1. None of the above rules adequately specify or reference 
applicability, exemptions, definitions, test methods, recordkeeping and 
monitoring requirements to make each rule federally enforceable.
    2. SIP version of Rule 3-1-160 (Test Method and Procedures) which 
may be applicable to the above rules has a ``Director Discretion'' 
which needs to be deleted/corrected. If PCAQCD wishes to retain this 
part in the rule, the phrase should be worded to include EPA's 
approval.
    These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to the SIP. If 
finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into the 
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient and will 
supercede Rules 7-3-3.1, 7-3-3.2, and 7-3-3.3 from the SIP. This 
approval is limited because of the preceding deficiencies. Note that 
the submitted rules have been adopted by the PCAQCD, and EPA's final 
limited approval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing 
them. Because this is an attainment area, EPA is not simultaneously 
proposing a limited disapproval of the rules. As a result, no sanction 
clocks under section 179 or FIP clocks under section 110(c) are 
associated with this action.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

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.

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

[[Page 45568]]

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.

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 a state rule 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.
    This proposed 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 act on 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.
    EPA's proposed limited approval 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 limited approval. 
Federal limited approval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's limited approval 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 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

[[Page 45569]]

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: July 13, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-18643 Filed 7-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P