[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63354-63358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25856]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 078-0030; FRL-7393-2]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a simultaneous limited approval and limited 
disapproval of revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
concerning definitions, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
dry cleaning and spray painting and as well as visible emissions from 
mobile equipment. We are also proposing full approval of revisions to 
the ADEQ portion of the Arizona State SIP concerning VOC emissions from 
petroleum storage tanks and visible emissions from mobile equipment.
    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: Any comments must arrive by November 12, 2002.

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

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 West Washington 
Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

    A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.sosaz.com/public_services/Title_18/18_table.htm. Please be 
advised that this is not an EPA website and may not contain the same 
version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 947-4118.

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 are the changes in the submitted rules?
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 proposed for limited approval and limited 
disapproval with the date that they were adopted and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                  Rule No.               Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ............................  R18-2-701             Definitions.............        11/15/93        07/15/98
ADEQ............................  R18-2-725             Standards of Performance        11/15/93        07/15/98
                                                         for Existing Dry
                                                         Cleaning Plants.
ADEQ............................  R18-2-727             Standards of Performance        11/15/93        07/15/98
                                                         for Spray Painting
                                                         Operations.
ADEQ............................  R18-2-801             Classification of Mobile        11/15/93        07/15/98
                                                         Sources.
ADEQ............................  R18-2-802             Off-Road Machinery......        11/15/93        07/15/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 18, 1998, we determined that the rule submittals in Table 1 
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must 
be met before formal EPA review.
    Table 2 lists the rules proposed for full approval with the date 
that they were adopted and submitted by the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

[[Page 63355]]



                                            Table 2.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                  Rule No.               Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ............................  R18-2-710             Standards of Performance        11/15/93        07/15/98
                                                         for Existing Vessels
                                                         for Petroleum Liquids.
ADEQ............................  R18-2-803             Heater-Planer Units.....        11/15/93        07/15/98
ADEQ............................  R18-2-804             Roadway and Site                11/15/93        07/15/98
                                                         cleaning Machinery.
ADEQ............................  R18-2-805             Asphalt or Tar Kettles..        11/15/93        07/15/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 18, 1998, we determined that the rule submittals in Table 2 
met the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    There is no prior version of submitted Rule R18-2-701. We approved 
versions of submitted Rules R18-2-710, R18-2-725, and R18-2-727 as SIP 
Rules R9-3-510, R9-3-525, and R9-3-527, respectively, on April 23, 1982 
(47 FR 17485). We approved versions of submitted Rules R18-2-801, R18-
2-802, R18-2-803, R18-2-804, and R18-2-805 as SIP Rules R9-3-601, R9-3-
602, R9-3-603, R9-3-604, and R9-3-605, respectively, on April 23, 1982 
(47 FR 17485).

C. What Are the Changes in the Submitted Rules?

    [sbull] The new Rule R18-2-701 lists 33 definitions that apply to 
the rules in article 7 (the R18-2-7xx series).
    [sbull] Rule R18-2-710 deletes section E concerning seasonal 
volatility adjustments of gasoline. Section E required a seasonal 
schedule for delivery of four different volatility grades of gasoline.
    [sbull] Rule R18-2-725 adds a definition for ``photochemically 
reactive solvents.''
    [sbull] Rule R18-2-727 adds a definition for ``photochemically 
reactive solvents,'' adds a prohibition on the use of a photochemically 
reactive solvent in architectural coatings for commercial purposes, and 
adds a prohibition on the dilution of architectural coatings with a 
photochemically reactive solvent.
    [sbull] Rules R18-2-801, R18-2-802, and R18-2-803 are renumbered, 
and Rule R18-2-801 is renamed.
    [sbull] Rules R18-2-804 and R18-2-805 are renumbered and 
reformatted.

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). All 
areas regulated by ADEQ rules are ozone attainment (see 40 CFR part 
81), and VOC rules need not meet the requirements of RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements for VOC rules include the 
following:
    [sbull] Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    [sbull] 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 published 
in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    [sbull] Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of 
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks, EPA-450/2-77-036 (December 
1977).
    [sbull] Control of Volatile Organic Emissions Petroleum Liquid 
Storage in External floating Roof Tanks, EPA-450/2-78-047 (December 
1978).
    [sbull] Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems, EPA-450/2-78-050 (December 
1978).
    [sbull] Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Large Petroleum 
Dry Cleaners, EPA-450/3-82-009 (September 1982).
    [sbull] Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 
Stationary Sources--Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating 
Operations, EPA-450/2-76-028 (November 1976).
    Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), including RACT for stationary sources of PM-10. The areas 
regulated by the rules include PM-10 nonattainment areas. RACM/RACT is 
required to be fulfilled for all source categories unless there are no 
major sources of PM-10 and a particular source category does not 
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS (i.e., 
de minimis sources). See General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 
(April 16, 1992) and Addendum to the General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 
FR 41998, 42011 (August 16, 1994). The activities subject to Rules R18-
2-801, R18-2-802, R18-2-803, R18-2-804 and R18-2-805 do not have major 
sources or emit a significant amount of PM-10 according to the PM-10 
attainment plans in the relevant nonattainment areas and therefore the 
rules are not required to meet RACM/RACT control levels.
    The guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and SIP relaxation requirements for PM-10 rules are as 
follows:
    [sbull] Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 51.
    [sbull] PM-10 Guideline Document, (EPA-452/R093-008).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    The rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. Rule 
provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized 
below and discussed further in the TSDs.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    Rule R18-2-701 has the following deficiencies:
    [sbull] ``Calcine'' should not be limited to only lime plants.
    [sbull] ``Process Weight'' should be eliminated, because it has no 
meaning unless it is given for a specific time period.
    [sbull] ``Process Weight Rate'' should be defined in the rule and 
not be based on Rule R18-2-702, which is not in the SIP.
    Rule R18-2-725 has the following deficiencies:
    [sbull] The enforceability is limited, because there are no 
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.
    [sbull] The enforceability is limited, because there is no test 
method given for the efficiency of recovery of solvent emmissions.
    Rule R18-2-727 has the following deficiencies:

[[Page 63356]]

Rules R18-2-801 and R18-2-802 have the following deficiencies:

    [sbull] The rules should be restricted to apply to used or in-use 
nonroad engines and not to new nonroad engines. Section 209(e) of the 
CAA prohibits states from adopting or attempting to enforce any 
standard relating to the control of emissions from (A) new engines 
which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm 
equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower and (B) 
new (or remanufactered) locomotives or new (or remanufactered) engines 
which are used in locomotives. States are not precluded under section 
209(e) from regulating the use and operation of nonroad engines, 
including regulating daily mass emission limits (such as through an 
opacity standard), once the engine is no longer new, according to 40 
CFR part 89, subpart A, appendix A.
    [sbull] The rules should exclude from applicability locomotives or 
engines which are used in locomotives. Locomotives are required to be 
in compliance with Federal emission standards throughout their useful 
life.
    [sbull] The rules should exempt nonroad engines from any potential 
requirement to retrofit in order to meet the opacity standard unless 
California has an identical retrofitting requirement. States are 
precluded from requiring retrofitting of used nonroad engines to meet 
emission standards, except that states may adopt and enforce 
retrofitting requirements identical to California retrofitting 
requirements which have been authorized by EPA, according to 40 CFR 
part 89, subpart A, appendix A.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of Rules R18-2-701, R18-2-725, R18-2-727, 
R18-2-801, and R18-2-802 to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action 
would incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, including those 
provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because 
EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rules 
under section 110(k)(3). If this limited disapproval is finalized, 
sanctions will not be imposed under section 179 of the CAA because 
these are not required submittals. Note that the submitted rules have 
been adopted by the ADEQ, and our final limited disapproval would not 
prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
    We are also granting full approval to Rules R18-2-710, R18-2-803, 
R18-2-804, and R18-2-805.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapprovals and the proposed full approvals 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 3 lists some of 
the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency 
VOC rules.

                Table 3.--Ozone Nonattainment 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.
May 26, 1988.................  EPA notified Governors that parts of
                                their SIPs were inadequate to attain and
                                maintain the ozone standard and
                                requested that they correct the
                                deficiencies (EPA's SIP-Call). See
                                section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended
                                CAA.
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.
May 15, 1991.................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone
                                nonattainment areas correct deficient
                                RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the 
CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. 
Table 4 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal 
of local agency PM-10 rules.

                Table 4.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978................  EPA promulgated a list of total suspended
                                particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas
                                under the Clean Air Act, as amended in
                                1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.
July 1, 1987.................  EPA replaced the TSP standards with new
                                PM standards applying only up to 10
                                microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR
                                24672.
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.
November 15, 1990............  PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of
                                section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were
                                designated nonattainment by operation of
                                law and classified as moderate pursuant
                                to section 188(a). States are required
                                by section 110(a) to submit rules
                                regulating PM-10 emissions in order to
                                achieve the attainment dates specified
                                in section 188(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply,

[[Page 63357]]

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

C. 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.
    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 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

F. 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 CAA 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 disapproval of the state request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 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 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
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).

G. 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 proposed action 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 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.

[[Page 63358]]

H. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 19, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-25856 Filed 10-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P