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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: August 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 165)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54741-54743]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au02-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 100-0056a; FRL-7266-3]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source
categories regulated by the MCESD. We are approving these negative
declarations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 25, 2002 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 25, 2002. If
we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take
effect.

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 document (TSD) 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, 3033 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, Arizona 85012.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 North Central,
No. 595, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4126. e-
mail: Rose.julie@EPA.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
A. What negative declarations did the State submit?
B. What is the purpose of the submitted negative declarations?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the negative declarations?
B. Do the negative declarations meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public comment and final action.
III. Background Information
Why were these negative declarations submitted initially?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Negative Declarations Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the negative declarations we are approving with the
dates that they were adopted by the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department (MCESD) and submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

Table 1.--Submitted Negative Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD...................................... Refinery Sources................... 04-26-00 12-14-00
Automobile and Light Duty Trucks...
Magnet Wire........................
Flatwood Paneling..................
Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
Rubber Tire Manufacturing..........
Polymer Manufacturing..............
SOCMI..............................
Batch Processes....................
Industrial Wastewater..............
Ship Building Repair...............
SOCMI Reactor/Distillation.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 54742]]

On September 3, 2000, this submittal was found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Negative Declarations?

The negative declarations were submitted to meet the requirements
of CAA section 182(a)(2)(A). Nonattainment areas are required to adopt
volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations for the published Control
Technique Guideline (CTG) categories. If a nonattainment area does not
have stationary sources for which EPA has published a CTG, then the
area is required to submit a negative declaration. The negative
declarations were submitted because there are no applicable sources
within the MCESD jurisdiction.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Negative Declarations?

The negative declarations are submitted as SIP revisions and must
be consistent with Clean Air Act requirements for Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACT) (see section 182(a)(2)(A)) and SIP
relaxations (see sections 110(1) and 193.) To do so, the submittal
should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG
requirements currently exist or are planned for the MCESD.

B. Do the Negative Declarations Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe these negative declarations are consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding RACT and SIP relaxations. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted negative declarations as additional information
to the SIP because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements.
We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the
approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of these negative declarations. If we receive adverse comments
by September 25, 2002, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval
will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent
final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on October 25, 2002.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Negative Declarations Submitted?

These negative declarations were submitted to fulfill the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(2)(A). Section 182 requires that
ozone nonattainment areas adopt VOC regulations found in the Control
Techniques Guideline Series for all major sources in their geographic
area. Maricopa County is a nonattainment area for ozone and thus is
required to adopt regulations for all major sources of VOCs. 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 negative declarations.

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, 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 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

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 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 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 approves 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 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 approves a state action
responding to a Federal requirement, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This 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

[[Page 54743]]

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 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.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

Dated: August 6, 2002.
Keith A. Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

2. Subpart D is amended by adding Sec. 52.122 to read as follows:

Sec. 52.122 Negative declarations.

(a) The following air pollution control districts submitted
negative declarations for volatile organic compound source categories
to satisfy the requirements of section 182 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. The following negative declarations are approved as additional
information to the State Implementation Plan.
(1) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.
(i) Refinery Sources (Refinery Process Turnarounds), Automobile and
Light Duty Trucks, Magnet Wire, Flatwood Paneling, Pharmaceuticals and
Cosmetic Manufacturing Operations, Rubber Tire Manufacturing, Polymer
Manufacturing, Industrial Wastewater, Ship Building and Repair,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Batch
Processing, SOCMI Reactors, and SOCMI Distillation were adopted on
April 26, 2000 and submitted on December 14, 2000.
(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 02-21558 Filed 8-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation