[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14616-14618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5718]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 136-086; FRL-7888-5]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa 
County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County 
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions 
concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polystyrene foam 
molding operations. We are proposing to approve Maricopa County Rule 
358 to regulate these emission sources for purposes of reasonably 
available control technology 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 April 22, 2005.

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 (TSDs), 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: Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 1100 West Washington 
Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85007; and, Maricopa County, Air Quality 
Department, 1001 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-1942.
    A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.maricopa.gov/Aq/Rules/Workshops.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: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 947-4111, [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?
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.

[[Page 14617]]

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it will be considered for adoption by Maricopa County. We 
anticipate that the Arizona Departmental of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ) will submit the adopted rule and its companion documents soon 
after April 22, 2005.

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           To be
                 Local agency                   Rule              Rule title              adopted     submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maricopa County..............................     358  Polystyrene Foam Operations....     04/22/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2005, ADEQ requested EPA to parallel process our 
review of Rule 358 concurrently with Maricopa County's rule adoption 
process. We have agreed to parallel process Rule 358 using our 
authority under 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. Arizona's parallel 
processing request and proposed SIP revision request consist of a SIP 
Completeness Checklist with the following documents as appendices: A 
Maricopa County SIP Completeness and Enforceability Checklist; Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, Rule 358 --Polystyrene Foam Operations, published February 
11, 2005 in the Arizona Administrative Register, Volume 1, Issue 7, 
pages 703-714; ``Schedule for Final Adoption, Rule 358 --Polystyrene 
Foam Operations''; and, ``RACT Analysis for Rule 358 --Polystyrene Foam 
Operations'', Draft January 28, 2005, Maricopa County, Planning and 
Analysis Section, Air Quality Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
    According to the ``Schedule for Final Adoption'' provided by 
Maricopa County, the administrative hearing and oral proceeding is 
scheduled for March 17, 2005, all public comments concerning the 
proposed rulemaking are due March 18, 2005, and the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors will meet on April 20, 2005 to consider Rule 358 
for adoption.
    After reviewing the ADEQ's February 22, 2005 parallel processing 
submittal against the completeness criteria at 40 CFR, Part 51, 
Appendix V, 2.3.1., we find that the ADEQ's parallel processing 
submittal is complete. These criteria are used specifically for 
parallel processing submittals. Once we have received ADEQ's 
supplemental submittal after Rule 358 has been adopted by Maricopa 
County, we will determine whether or not the submittal is complete 
according to the general completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 
Appendix V, 2.0. This completeness finding will be made as part of our 
subsequent final action on this proposal.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    There is no previous version of Rule 358 in the SIP and the rule 
has not been previously adopted and amended.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    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. Maricopa County Rule 
358--Polystyrene Foam Operations, is a rule designed to reduce VOC 
emissions at sites processing and molding raw polystyrene beads into 
blocks, shapes, and containers, such as cups and bowls. Rule 358 
incorporates emissions standards on the basis of pounds per hundred 
weight of raw beads processed. Manufacturers will demonstrate 
compliance with these emission standards through annual compliance 
tests overseen by Maricopa County. These annual compliance tests 
provide the basis for facility permits and determining daily compliance 
with the emission standards. Manufacturers may use any combination of 
lower VOC content raw beads, manufacturing process changes, VOC 
emission collection systems, and VOC destruction devices to meet the 
rule's emission standards. The Technical Support Document (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(1) and 193). 
Maricopa Country regulates a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see 40 
CFR 81), so Rule 358 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
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. ``Control of VOC Emissions From Polystyrene Foam 
Manufacturing,'' USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1990, EPA-450/3-90-020.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe Rule 358 is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. While we 
propose to approve Maricopa County's RACT determination, our approval 
does not represent a national RACT determination.
    EPA has defined RACT as the, ``lowest emission limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and 
economic feasibility'' (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979). Maricopa 
County has the primary obligation to analyze the source category and 
determine RACT controls applicable to their jurisdiction and sources. 
In turn, EPA has authority either to approve, or to disapprove the 
state determination. EPA has reviewed Maricopa County's RACT 
determination using our published RACT criteria as applied to 
polystyrene foam molding operations within Maricopa County, only.
    Our action on Rule 358 will not define a presumptive national RACT 
standard for polystyrene foam molding operations, nor will it create 
any precedent concerning BACT or LAER

[[Page 14618]]

for these sources. The RACT standard differs from the standard 
applicable to BACT, the ``best available control technology'' defined 
at section 169(3) of the Act. See also 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12). The RACT 
standard is also less stringent than LAER, the lowest achievable 
emission rate, which is defined at section 171(3) of the Act. Thus, a 
New Source Review determination for a source subject to Rule 358 could 
require a control technology or an emission rate which is more 
stringent that the floor created by Rule 358.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes Rule 358 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 that would cause us to reconsider our 
proposed approval, we intend to publish a final approval action that 
will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Also, because our proposed action is based on a parallel processing 
submittal, the adopted and submitted version of Rule 358 must be 
similar in meaning and content to the February 11, 2005 version of the 
rule published in the Arizona Administrative Register submitted for 
parallel processing. Should there be substantial and meaningful 
differences between the two submitted rules, we will publish a new 
proposal based on the most recent adopted and submitted version of Rule 
358.

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 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: March 8, 2005.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-5718 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M