[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37204-37206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17833]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 063-0042; FRL-7013-8]


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 to approve a revision to the Pinal County Air 
Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from organic solvents, dry cleaners, coating 
operations, and degreasers. We are proposing to remove from the SIP a 
local rule regulating these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). This action is a reproposal of EPA's 
July 14, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 43727) to disapprove this revision 
to the Arizona SIP. We do not plan to finalize our July 14, 2000 
proposed disapproval. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan 
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 16, 2001.

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 revision and EPA's 
technical support document (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revision 
at the following locations:

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), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (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    A. What rule is the State requesting to be rescinded?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

[[Page 37205]]

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule rescission?
    B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public comment and reproposal.
III. Background Information
    Why was this rule submitted and why is it being rescinded?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Is the State Requesting To Be Rescinded?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                     Table 1.--Rule Proposed for Rescission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                  Rule No.             Rule title             Adopted      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD...................................      7-7-3.4   Organic Solvents...........     10/12/95      11/27/95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PCAQCD concluded that Rule 7-3-3.4 was not necessary for purposes 
of attaining and maintaining the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) and the ADEQ forwarded to us the PCAQCD's request to 
rescind the rule. On February 2, 1996, this rule submittal was 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 This Rule?

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

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

    The submitted rule revision removes a previously approved rule from 
the SIP. The TSD has more information about why this rule was 
originally adopted by the PCAQCD and why it is now being removed from 
the SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule Rescission?

    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 
is not required.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements include ``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 Federal Register on May 
25, 1988.

B. Does the Rule Rescission Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe this rule rescission is consistent with the relevant 
policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 
relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Reproposal

    On July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43727), EPA proposed to disapprove the 
rescission of Rule 7-3-3.4 because this revision was submitted with 
several other replacement rules which weakened the SIP by establishing 
less stringent emissions limits and by narrowing the scope of regulated 
sources. During the original 30-day comment period provided in 65 FR 
43727 and the subsequent 30-day reopening of the comment period 
provided in 65 FR 53962, EPA received extensive comments from the 
PCAQCD and local area businesses.
    PCAQCD commented that the rescission of Rule 7-3-3.4 should be 
approved because it is not necessary to ensure continued attainment of 
the NAAQS and that the replacement provisions determined by EPA to not 
be enforceable should also be approved into the SIP as voluntary 
elements. Alternatively, the PCAQCD commented that EPA could rescind 
the current SIP rule without approving the replacement provisions.
    Pinal County has never been classified as nonattainment for ozone 
pursuant to section 107 of the Act and Rule 7-3-3.4 is not specifically 
required by the Act. Supporting documentation submitted during the 
comment period by the PCAQCD on October 6, 2000 attests that 
anticipated changes in emissions associated with rescission of Rule 7-
3-3.4 will not have a meaningful impact on Pinal County's continued 
ozone NAAQS attainment status. The TSD has more information on our 
evaluation.
    EPA concurs that the rescission of Rule 7-3-3.4 will not have an 
adverse air quality impact or otherwise interfere with section 110, 
111, 112, or any applicable provision of the Act. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to fully approve the rescission of Rule 7-3-3.4 as described 
in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. At this time we are not finalizing 
action on the other associated replacement rules included in our 
original July 14, 2000 proposal.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the 
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the 
comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will 
remove this rule from the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted and Why Is It Being Rescinded?

    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 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 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.
Nov. 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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and

[[Page 37206]]

Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999), because it merely approves 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. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. 
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.).

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, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-17833 Filed 7-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P