Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 7038-7041 [05-2520]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 27 (Thursday, February 10, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7038-7041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2520]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ131-125; FRL-7860-8]


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). Under authority of the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving an 
emission statement rule and a negative declaration for a volatile 
organic compound (VOC) source category.

[[Page 7039]]


DATES: This rule is effective on April 11, 2005, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 14, 2005. If we 
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

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 
steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the rule and the negative declaration, 
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:

    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, Air Quality 
Division, 1110 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
    Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services, Air 
Pollution Control Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 100, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    Copies of the rule and the negative declaration may also be 
available via the Internet at the following site, https://
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: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4126, 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 rule and negative declaration did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule or negative 
declaration?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and negative 
declaration?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule and the negative declaration?
    B. Do the rule and the negative declaration meet the evaluation 
criteria?
    C. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule and Negative Declaration Did the State Submit?

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

                                Table 1.--Submitted Rule and Negative Declaration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                   Rule                Rule title           Adopted   Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD...............................  100, Sec. 504..........  Emission Statements           11-16-92   02-04-93
                                                                Required.
MCESD...............................  Negative Declaration...  Fiberglass Boat               03-24-04   04-21-04
                                                                Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 10, 1993, and October 26, 2004, Rule 100, Section 504 and 
the negative declaration, submitted on February 4, 1993, and April 21, 
2004, respectively, 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 This Rule or Negative Declaration?

    There are no previous versions of the emission statement rule nor 
the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing negative declaration.

C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule and Negative Declaration?

Emission Statement Rule
    Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the CAA requires that States with areas 
designated as nonattainment for ozone require emission statement data 
from sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) in the nonattainment areas. This requirement applies 
to all ozone nonattainment areas regardless of the classification 
(Marginal, Moderate, etc.) Emission statements were required to be 
submitted by November 15, 1993, and annually thereafter. Section 
182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA allows the States and local agencies to 
waive the requirement for emission statements for classes or categories 
of sources with less than 25 tons per year if the class or category is 
included in the base year and periodic inventories and emissions are 
calculated using emission factors established by EPA or other methods 
acceptable to EPA.
Negative Declaration
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires States to submit reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) regulations for major stationary 
sources of VOC emissions in areas designated as nonattainment and 
classified as moderate or above. In order to fulfill this requirement, 
MCESD imposed source-specific RACT standards in the Title V permit for 
their Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing source. On December 3, 2001, the 
source notified MCESD of its intent to close their Phoenix facility and 
cease operations no later than December 31, 2001. In addition, the 
source requested the cancellation of existing operating air quality 
permits as of that date. On April 21, 2004, ADEQ submitted a SIP 
revision including a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area. As part of that revision, ADEQ also 
submitted a negative declaration for the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 
source category. The negative declaration was adopted to fulfill the 
requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the CAA.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule and the Negative Declaration?

Emission Statement
    The emission statement rule requires owners or operators of sources 
which emit VOC and NOX to provide the Control Officer with a 
statement showing actual emissions of NOX and VOC annually. 
The statement must contain a certification by a responsible official of 
the company that the information contained in the statement is 
accurate. In combination with the other requirements, these rules must 
be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax 
existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we 
used to help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes 
the Bluebook (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 
Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little 
Bluebook (``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

[[Page 7040]]

Negative Declaration
    The MCESD has certified that it currently does not have any sources 
of Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing with the closure of Sea Ray Boats, 
Inc. The MCESD reviewed Department permit files, the 2002 Arizona 
Industrial Directory, and the Toxic Release Inventory System to 
determine if any other major sources of fiberglass boat manufacturing 
exist in Maricopa County. Based on this review, MCESD declares that 
there are no major sources of fiberglass boat manufacturing present in 
Maricopa County.

B. Do the Rule and the Negative Declaration Meet the Evaluation 
Criteria?

    We believe the emission statement rule and the negative declaration 
are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability and SIP revisions. The TSDs have 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 rule as a revision to the SIP and is approving 
the negative declaration as additional information to the SIP. We 
believe the rule and the negative declaration fulfill all the relevant 
requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so 
we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the 
Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously 
proposing approval of the same submitted rule and negative declaration. 
If we receive adverse comments by March 14, 2005, 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 April 11, 2005. This will 
incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP and add the 
negative declaration as additional information.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 (Pub. L. 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 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 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 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 April 11, 2005. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 22, 2004.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(78)(i)(B) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (78) * * *

[[Page 7041]]

    (i) * * *
    (B) Rule 100, Section 504 adopted on November 16, 1992.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.122 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.122  Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing was adopted on March 24, 2004 
and submitted on April 21, 2004.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-2520 Filed 2-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P