[Federal Register: June 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 108)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 38630-38632]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05jn02-15]                         


[[Page 38630]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 241-0310b; FRL-7224-3]

 
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, California 
State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department 
(MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), and the 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) portion of the 
California SIP. These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from solvent cleaning operations. 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 July 5, 2002.

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 documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP 
revisions at the following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 3033 North 
Central Avenue (T5109), Phoenix, Arizona, 85012.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality 
Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, Arizona 
85004.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Stationary Source Division, 
Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, California 94109.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1153.

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 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. 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 local air agencies and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency               Rule No.               Rule title                 Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD................................        331  Solvent Cleaning....................     04/07/99     08/04/99
BAAQMD...............................       8-16  Solvent Cleaning Operations.........     09/16/98     03/28/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 18, 1999 and May 19, 2000, 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?

    MCESD and BAAQMD adopted earlier versions of these rules on June 
19, 1996 and June 15, 1994, and ADEQ and CARB submitted them to us on 
February 26, 1997 and September 28, 1994. We approved these versions 
into the SIP on February 9, 1998 and December 9, 1994.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

    Rule 331 applies to all operations using solvents containing VOCs 
including batch-loaded and in-line, non-vapor and vapor degreasers. 
Rule 331 does not apply to degreasing operations using solvents 
containing hazardous air pollutants which are regulated by the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for 
halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR part 63, subpart T).
    Rule 8-16 implements control measure A-18 of the BAAQMD's Clean Air 
Plans. It was adopted by the BAAQMD as part of its June 16, 1999 Ozone 
Attainment Plan in response to EPA's July 10, 1998 redesignation of the 
Bay Area as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (63 FR 37258). Rule 8-16 applies to cold and vapor 
cleaners using solvents containing VOCs.
    Both rules establish work practice standards and other requirements 
designed to control VOC emissions. The TSDs have 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(1) and 193). The 
MCESD and BAAQMD regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 
81), so Rule 331 and Rule 8-16 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements 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; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal 
Register Document,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in 
the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    3. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal 
Cleaning, (EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977).
    4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Control Technology for

[[Page 38631]]

Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations (CARB, July 18, 
1991).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules improve the SIP by establishing more stringent emission 
limits and by clarifying monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping 
provisions. These 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 TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevent full approval of the SIP revisions.
    Rule 331 Deficiencies:
    1. The provisions of this rule exempt sources that are not 
necessarily covered by another federally approved rule.
    2. Subsections of this rule provide methods of determining capture 
efficiency, but do not refer to EPA's January 9, 1995 guidance 
document, ``Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency'' describing 
calculation procedures.
    3. Sections II and III of the appendix to this rule do not clarify 
which and how standards are adjusted for boiling point.
    4. Section II-6 of the appendix to this rule raise the threshold 
limit for additional control (from 10.75 ft 2 to 13 ft 
2) without adequately justifying this relaxation.
    Rule 8-16 Deficiencies:
    1. Section 8-16-501.2 allows facility-wide make-up solvent 
recording on an annual basis, which is not sufficient to ensure that 
the rule is enforceable pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
    2. Rule 8-16 contains a number of incorrect section references that 
may result in enforcement ambiguity.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    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.

E. 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 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 disapproval 
is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act 
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule 
deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed 
according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the 
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 
Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the MCESD and 
BAAQMD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local 
agency from enforcing them.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval 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. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 1998.................  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
                                Act.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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

[[Page 38632]]

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. 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 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 disapproval 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 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 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).

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.

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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

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

    Dated: May 20, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-14038 Filed 6-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P