[Federal Register: March 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14616-14618]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr05-45]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.
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