[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58375-58377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21825]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 134-082; FRL-7819-9]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa 
County Environmental Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning. We are proposing to 
approve local rules to 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 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to 
[email protected], or submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's 
technical support documents (TSD), and public comments at our Region IX 
office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see 
copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following 
locations:

    Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
    Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington 
Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.
    Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 N. 
Central Avenue, Suite 695, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

    A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/AIR/ruledesc.asp. Please be advised that this 
is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule 
that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA 
Region IX, (415)972-3956, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
    B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

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

[[Page 58376]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD.................................             331  Solvent Cleaning........        04/21/04        07/28/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 26, 2004, 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 331 into the SIP on April 16, 2003. 
The MCESD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on April 21, 
2004 and ADEQ submitted them to us on July 28, 2004.

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

    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. This rule applies to 
all cleaning operations using solvents that contain VOCs. Submitted 
Rule 331 makes the following changes to the SIP-approved rule.
     Sections 102.2(a), 308.1(a) and 308.1(c)(1) have been 
changed to specify that solvent cleaning operations must be subject to 
or specifically exempted by an EPA-approved version of another rule 
within Regulation III of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 
Rules, in order to qualify for an exemption to Rule 331.
     A reference to EPA's January 9, 1995, guidance document, 
Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency, has been added to 
sections 502.1(c)(2), 502.2(d), and 502.2(h).
     Sections II(2) and III(2) of the appendix to Rule 331 have 
been added. These sections specify that batch vapor cleaning machines 
and in-line vapor cleaning machines shall not be operated, unless such 
machines have a vapor/air interface Fahrenheit temperature no greater 
than 30% of the solvent's boiling point temperature or no greater than 
40.0 degrees F (4.4 degrees C), whichever is lower.
     To correct a previous relaxation, the evaporative surface 
threshold for additional controls for certain batch vapor cleaning 
machines has been lowered to 10.75 square feet (1.0 square meter) in 
section II(3)(F) of the appendix to Rule 331.
     Other revisions to the rule language have been made, to 
improve clarity and increase rule enforceability.
    The TSD has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    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 
MCESD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so 
Rule 331 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Control Technology for Organic Solvent Cleaning and 
Degreasing Operations,'' California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The rule 
revisions correct the deficiencies highlighted by EPA in its limited 
disapproval of the SIP-approved rule. The TSD has more information on 
our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    EPA has no recommended changes for future revisions of Rule 331.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 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 incorporate this rule into the federally 
enforceable SIP. This action would permanently terminate all sanction 
and FIP implications of our limited disapproval of a previous version 
of this rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will 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). This action also does not 
have federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely

[[Page 58377]]

proposes to approve 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 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

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

    Dated: September 10, 2004.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-21825 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P