Air Plan Conditional Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County, 4928-4932 [2020-01466]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4928
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this action does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
As discussed above, the SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land in Washington, or any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction (excluding non-trust land
within the exterior boundaries of the
Puyallup Indian Reservation), as
described in Section IV.D above. In
those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
provided a consultation opportunity to
the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated
October 18, 2019.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 13, 2020.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020–01465 Filed 1–27–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0423; FRL–10004–
66–Region 9]
Air Plan Conditional Approval;
Arizona; Maricopa County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve revisions to the
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD or the ‘‘County’’)
portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from surface
coating operations. We are proposing to
conditionally approve a local rule to
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ‘‘Act’’)
and to conditionally approve the
County’s demonstration regarding
Reasonably Available Control
Technology requirements for the 2008 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the
Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment
area, with respect to surface coating
operations. We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
February 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0423 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
SUMMARY:
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3024 or by
email at lazarus.arnold@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these SIP
revisions?
C. What is the purpose of the SIP
revisions?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the SIP
revisions?
B. Do the SIP revisions meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. What are the commitments to remedy
the deficiencies?
E. The EPA’s Recommendations To Further
Improve the SIP Revisions
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed
by this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency
and submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ or the ‘‘State’’).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS
Local agency
Document
MCAQD ............
Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP).
Rule 336: Surface Coating Operations ....................................................................................
MCAQD ............
On December 22, 2017, the submittal
containing the documents listed in
Table 1 was deemed by operation of law
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 27, 2020
Jkt 250001
Revised
to meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review. In
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
06/16/2017
06/22/2017
11/02/2016
06/22/2017
addition to these SIP submittals, the
County and the ADEQ transmitted a
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules
commitment letter to EPA 1 2 to adopt
and submit specific enforceable
measures within a year of our final
action that would remedy the
deficiencies identified in this notice and
further described in the associated TSD
for this action.
B. Are there other versions of these SIP
revisions?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 336 listed in Table 1 into the SIP
on September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759).
There is no previously approved version
of the RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard in the MCAQD portion
of the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ
previously submitted the documents in
Table 1 in a SIP revision on December
19, 2016, along with the County’s RACT
SIP. However, this submittal did not
include documentation that showed the
entirety of the County’s SIP revision had
met the public notice requirements
required for completeness under 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix V. The County’s June
22, 2017 submittal was provided to
address this issue, and the State
withdrew the December 19, 2016
submittal on May 17, 2019.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What is the purpose of the SIP
revisions?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to
ground-level ozone, or smog, and
particulate matter, which harm human
health and the environment. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit regulations that control VOC
emissions. Section 182(b)(2) requires
that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or above
implement RACT for any source
covered by a Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) document and for any
major sources of VOCs. The MCAQD is
subject to this requirement as it
regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area, which is
classified as Moderate for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
The rule and RACT SIP in Table 1 were
submitted to control VOC emissions
from CTG VOC source categories of
surface coating operations.
Section III.D of the preamble to the
EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008
ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6,
2015) discusses RACT requirements. It
states in part that RACT SIPs must
contain adopted RACT regulations;
1 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A.
McNeely, Director, Maricopa County Air Control
Department, to Misael Cabrera, Director, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality.
2 Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Misael Cabrera,
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, to Michael Stoker, Region Administrator,
EPA, Region IX.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 27, 2020
Jkt 250001
certifications where appropriate that
existing provisions are RACT; and/or
negative declarations that no sources in
the nonattainment area are covered by a
specific CTG.3 It also provides that
states must submit appropriate
supporting information for their RACT
submissions as described in the EPA’s
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. See Id. and 70 FR 71612,
71652 (November 29, 2005). The
submitted RACT SIP and negative
declarations provide MCAQD’s analyses
of its compliance with the CAA section
182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about the submitted
rules and RACT SIP.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating these SIP
revisions?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable
(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)),
and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas
without ensuring equivalent or greater
emissions reductions (see CAA section
193).
Generally, SIP rules must require
RACT for each category of sources
covered by a CTG document as well as
each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area, which is classified
as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr ozone
NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore,
these rules must implement RACT.
We are also evaluating the County’s
RACT SIP with respect to the source
categories covered by the CTGs listed in
numbers four through eleven below.
Those CTG sources are regulated by
Rule 336. Thus, our evaluation of the
approvability of the MCAQD RACT SIP
with respect to those CTG VOC source
categories is dependent on the
approvability of Rule 336. Guidance and
policy documents that we used to
evaluate enforceability, revision/
relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
3 (80
PO 00000
FR 12278), March 6, 2015.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4929
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4 ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,’’
EPA–450/2–77–008, May 1977.
5. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture,’’ EPA–450/2–77–032,
December 1977.
6. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of
Large Appliances,’’ EPA–450/2–77–034,
December 1977.
7. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products,’’ EPA–450/2–78–15, June
1978.
8. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003,
September 2008.
9. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–
07–005 September 2007.
10. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines
for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,’’
EPA–453/R–07–003, September 2007.
11. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines
for Large Appliance Coatings,’’ (EPA
453/R–07–004, September 2007)
B. Do the SIP revisions meet the
evaluation criteria?
Rule 336 applies to sources of VOC
emissions from surface coating
operations in the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area. Rule 336 is as
stringent as the applicable CTGs, and
has requirements for surface coating
operations that are generally consistent
with other local air district rules for
these source categories and are largely
consistent with the applicable CAA
requirements. However, as identified
below, the rule contains deficiencies
that preclude full approval. In a letter
dated January 28, 2019 and modified on
December 5, 2019 (the ‘‘commitment
letter’’), the County committed to revise
those provisions in accordance with
EPA guidance, and submit the revised
rule within eleven months of a
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
4930
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules
conditional approval.4 On February 25,
2019, the ADEQ provided their own
commitment to submit the County’s
revised rule to the EPA within one
month after the County’s action and
request for SIP revision.5 Because the
commitments by the County would
remedy the identified rule deficiencies,
we propose to conditionally approve
Rule 336 and the RACT SIP with respect
to VOC sources covered by Rule 336.
Summaries of the specific rule
deficiencies and the County’s
commitments to address those
deficiencies are included in the
following sections. The EPA’s TSD for
Rule 336 provides further details on our
evaluation for this conditional approval.
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
The following provisions of Rule 336
do not fully satisfy the requirements of
section 110 and part D of title I of the
Act and prevents full approval of Rule
336.
1. Section 300, Standards, Table 336–
2 contains VOC content limits for the
categories of End Sealing Compound:
Food or Beverage, End Sealing
Compound: Non Food, Sheet Basecoat
(Interior and Exterior) and Overvarnish,
Two Piece Can Interior Body Spray,
Three Piece Can Interior Body Spray,
Two Piece Can Exterior Base Coat
Overvarnish, and Two Piece Can
Exterior End (Spray or Roll Coat), which
comply with the 1977 CTG, ‘‘EPA–450/
2–77–008, Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics Automobiles
and Light Duty Trucks,’’ May 1977, but
are generally significantly higher than
the same limits in currently SIPapproved rules such as SCAQMD Rule
1125, Sacramento AQMD Rule 452,
BAAQMD Rule 8–11, and SJVUAPCD
Rule 4604. Because the lower limits
have been achieved in other areas for
some time, the limits in Rule 336 do not
demonstrate current RACT.
2. Section 103.2 exempts Extreme
Performance Coatings from the VOC
limits when used on:
(a) Internal combustion engines
components that are normally above 250
degrees Fahrenheit during use or
(b) items that are used at temperatures
above 250 degrees Fahrenheit that are
included under various NAICS codes for
telecommunications equipment and are
electronic products in space vehicles
and/or are communications equipment.
The 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts (MMPP), 2007 Metal
Furniture, and 2007 Large Appliance
CTGs do not exempt Extreme
Performance Coatings. In addition, Rule
336, Tables 336–1, 336–3, 336–5 contain
the appropriate VOC content limits for
this category and are consistent with the
CTGs.
3. Section 103.5.e exempts Tactical
Military-Equipment coatings that are in
a District-approved permit based on a
demonstration that no compliant
substitute exists. The rule does not
define ‘‘Tactical Military-Equipment’’
and the 2008 MMPP CTG does not
include this exemption.
4. Rule 336 is missing the VOC limits
and categories for ‘‘Motor Vehicle
Materials’’ as is found in Table 6 Motor
Vehicle Materials VOC Content Limits
of the MMPP CTG. Rule 336 Table 336–
4 ‘‘Coating Limits for Business
Machines’’ is missing the VOC limits
and categories for Automotive/
Transportation Coatings as is found in
the MMPP CTG Table 4 for
‘‘Automotive/Transportation and
Business Machine Plastic Parts VOC
Content Limits.’’ The missing categories
also do not appear in Maricopa Rule 345
Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating.
5. Section 300, Standards, Table 336–
1 contains VOC limits for the category
‘‘Other Metal Parts and Products:
Includes Non-Adhesive Coating,
Adhesive, Adhesive Primer, Beaded
Sealant, and Caulking’’ which does not
comply with the 2008 CTG, ‘‘EPA–453/
R–08–003, Control Techniques
Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings’’ (MMPP)
September 2008. Because the limits for
General One Component and General
Multi Component Coatings are lower in
the CTG, the limits in Rule 336 do not
meet the presumptive RACT standard
established in the CTG.
6. Section 300, Standards Table 336–
3 contains VOC limits for ‘‘Flexible
Plastic Parts and Products’’ as well as
‘‘Plastic Parts and Products That Are
Not Defined as Flexible.’’ These
categories are not in the 2008 MMPP
CTG and contain higher VOC limits
than some of the existing categories in
the CTG.
D. What are the commitments to remedy
the deficiencies?
The County’s commitment letter
included the following specific and
enforceable commitments, outlined
below, to address the above deficiencies
for Rule 336.
1. The MCAQD commits to lower the
VOC limits for the following can coating
materials: End sealing compound, sheet
basecoat (interior and exterior) and
overvarnish, two-piece can interior body
spray, three-piece can interior body
spray, two-piece can exterior base coat
and overvarnish, and two-piece can
exterior end spray or roll coat. The
lower emission limits will be consistent
with current RACT, based on a
comparison of RACT rules in other
nonattainment areas.
Proposed VOC Limits for Coating
Cans and Coils in grams VOC per liter
and pounds VOC per gallon:
Coating category
g VOC/l
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Can Coating:
Can Printing Ink ................................................................................................................................................
End Sealing Compound ...................................................................................................................................
Sheet Basecoat (Exterior and Interior) and Overvarnish .................................................................................
Three-Piece Can Side-Seam Spray .................................................................................................................
Two and Three-Piece Can Interior Body Spray ...............................................................................................
Two-Piece Can Exterior (Basecoat and Overvarnish) .....................................................................................
Two-Piece Can Exterior End (Spray or Roll Coat) ..........................................................................................
Coil Coating ......................................................................................................................................................
Strippable Booth Coating (applies to both can and coil coating categories) ...................................................
4 Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A.
McNeely, Director, Maricopa County Air Control
Department, to Misael Cabrera, Director, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, and letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 27, 2020
Jkt 250001
dated December 5, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely
to Doris Lo, Manager, Rules Office, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. EPA Region IX.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
300
20
250
660
440
250
250
310
240
lb VOC/gal
2.5
0.2
2.1
5.5
3.7
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.0
5 Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Misael Cabrera,
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, to Michael Stoker, Region Administrator,
EPA, Region IX.
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2. The MCAQD commits to evaluate
the exemption for extreme performance
coatings. Following this evaluation, the
MCAQD will either remove or constrain
the exemption. If a narrower exemption
for extreme performance coatings is
included in the revised rule, the
MCAQD will provide documentation
justifying the exemption is RACT.
3. The MCAQD commits to evaluate
the exemption for tactical military
equipment coatings. Following this
evaluation, the MCAQD will either
remove the exemption or require EPA
approval of non-compliant military
specification coatings.
4. The MCAQD commits to evaluate
the CTG categories for ‘‘Motor Vehicle
Materials’’ and ‘‘Automotive/
Transportation Coatings.’’ Following the
evaluation of each category, the MCAQD
will either submit a negative declaration
for the category or incorporate RACT
emission limits for the category.
5. The MCAQD commits to remove
adhesives and adhesive primers from
the ‘‘Other Metal Parts and Products’’
coating category in Table 336–1 (VOC
Limits for Miscellaneous Metal Part and
Product Coatings). The MCAQD also
commits to lower the VOC limit for the
‘‘Other Metal Parts and Products’’
coating category to 340 grams VOC per
liter (g/L) for air dried coatings and 280
g/L for baked coatings.
6. The MCAQD commits to remove
the following coating categories from
Table 336–3 (VOC Limits for
Miscellaneous Plastic Part and Product
Coatings):
• Flexible Plastic Parts and Products
(Basecoat, Clearcoat, Color Topcoat, and
Primer); and
• Plastic Parts and Products that are
not Defined as Flexible.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD for Rule 336 describes
additional rule revisions that we
recommend for the next time the County
modifies the rule.
F. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
Rule 336 largely fulfills the relevant
CAA § 110 and part D requirements, but
the deficiencies, as discussed in section
C, preclude full SIP approval pursuant
to 110(k)(3) of the Act. Section 110(k)(4)
authorizes the EPA to conditionally
approve SIP revisions based on a
commitment by the State to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain but not later than one year after
the date of the plan approval. Because
the MCAQD and the ADEQ have
committed to provide the EPA with a
SIP submission within one year of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 27, 2020
Jkt 250001
final action that will include specific
rule revisions that would adequately
address the identified deficiencies, we
are proposing to conditionally approve
Rule 336 pursuant to section 110(k)(4)
of the Act. We are also proposing to
conditionally approve MCAQD’s RACT
demonstrations for the 2008 8-hr ozone
NAAQS with respect to the VOC source
categories covered by Rule 336. If the
MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the
required rule revisions by the specified
deadline, and the EPA approves the
submission, then the identified
deficiencies will be cured. However, if
these proposed conditional approvals
are finalized, and MCAQD, through the
ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions
within the required timeframe, the
conditional approval would be treated
as a disapproval for those rules for
which the revisions are not submitted
(and the associated RACT SIP CTG
source categories). We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until February 27, 2020. If we
take final action to approve the
submitted rules, our final action will
incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the MCAQD rules described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because actions
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4931
such as SIP approvals are exempted
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA, because this proposed SIP
conditional approval, if finalized, will
not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens, but will
simply conditionally approve certain
State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. This proposed SIP conditional
approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements but
will simply conditionally approve
certain State requirements for inclusion
in the SIP.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This action proposes to
conditionally approve 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.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP revisions
that the EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve would not apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
4932
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2020 / Proposed Rules
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because this proposed SIP conditional
approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of
itself create any new regulations, but
will simply conditionally approve
certain State requirements for inclusion
in the SIP.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 13, 2020.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[MB Docket No. 19–363; DA 19–1292]
50 CFR Part 648
Order Granting Extension of Time To
File Reply Comments
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Adoption of order.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Media
Bureau adopted an Order, granting a
Motion for Extension of Time filed by
the Campaign Legal Center, Sunlight
Foundation, Common Cause, the Benton
Institute for Broadband and Society and
Issue One in MB Docket No. 19–363 (DA
19–1292).
DATES: Reply comments are due January
28, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Schonman, gary.schonman@fcc.gov, of
the Media Bureau, (202) 418–1795.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, DA 19–1292, which was
released December 18, 2019. The full
text of this document is available for
viewing and copying at the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. It also may be
accessed online via the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System at:
https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The
Commission will not send a
Congressional Review Act (CRA)
submission to Congress or the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. because
no rules are being adopted by the
Commission. The Order adopted in this
document extends the deadline for reply
comments on the Petition for
Reconsideration and Clarification filed
by the National Association of
Broadcasters, Hearst Television, Inc.,
Graham Media Group, Nexstar
Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Corporation,
Tegna, Inc. and The E.W. Scripps
Company (Petition) by 15 days from
January 13, 2020 to January 28, 2020.
The deadline for comments on the
Petition, which is December 30, 2019, is
not changed by the Order.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2020–01466 Filed 1–27–20; 8:45 am]
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
[FR Doc. 2020–00466 Filed 1–27–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jan 27, 2020
Jkt 250001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[Docket No. 200115–0019]
RIN 0648–BJ13
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Herring Fishery;
Framework Adjustment 6 and the
2019–2021 Atlantic Herring Fishery
Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
We are proposing regulations
to implement Framework Adjustment 6
to the Atlantic Herring Fishery
Management Plan, including the 2019–
2021 fishery specifications and
management measures, as
recommended by the New England
Fishery Management Council. In
addition, Framework 6 would update
the overfished and overfishing
definitions for the herring fishery and
suspend the carryover of unharvested
catch for 2020–2021. The specifications
and management measures are intended
to meet conservation objectives while
providing sustainable levels of access to
the fishery. We are also proposing
updating and clarifying specific herring
regulations.
DATES: Public comments must be
received by February 12, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2019–0144, by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20190144, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Michael Pentony, Regional
Administrator, 55 Great Republic Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on Atlantic
Herring Framework 6.’’
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by us. All comments
received are a part of the public record
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28JAP1.SGM
28JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4928-4932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0423; FRL-10004-66-Region 9]
Air Plan Conditional Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD or the ``County'') portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from surface coating operations. We
are proposing to conditionally approve a local rule to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') and to
conditionally approve the County's demonstration regarding Reasonably
Available Control Technology requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area, with respect to surface coating operations.
We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0423 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3024 or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these SIP revisions?
C. What is the purpose of the SIP revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the SIP revisions?
B. Do the SIP revisions meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the deficiencies?
D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
E. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the SIP
Revisions
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or the
``State'').
Table 1--Submitted Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Document Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.................................. Analysis of Reasonably Available 06/16/2017 06/22/2017
Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation
Plan (RACT SIP).
MCAQD.................................. Rule 336: Surface Coating Operations... 11/02/2016 06/22/2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2017, the submittal containing the documents listed
in Table 1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review. In addition to these SIP submittals, the County and the
ADEQ transmitted a
[[Page 4929]]
commitment letter to EPA 1 2 to adopt and submit specific
enforceable measures within a year of our final action that would
remedy the deficiencies identified in this notice and further described
in the associated TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, Maricopa County Air Control Department, to Misael Cabrera,
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
\2\ Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Misael Cabrera, Director,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Michael Stoker,
Region Administrator, EPA, Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Are there other versions of these SIP revisions?
We approved an earlier version of Rule 336 listed in Table 1 into
the SIP on September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50759). There is no previously
approved version of the RACT SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in
the MCAQD portion of the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ previously submitted the
documents in Table 1 in a SIP revision on December 19, 2016, along with
the County's RACT SIP. However, this submittal did not include
documentation that showed the entirety of the County's SIP revision had
met the public notice requirements required for completeness under 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V. The County's June 22, 2017 submittal was
provided to address this issue, and the State withdrew the December 19,
2016 submittal on May 17, 2019.
C. What is the purpose of the SIP revisions?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control VOC emissions. Section 182(b)(2) requires that SIPs for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for
any source covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document and
for any major sources of VOCs. The MCAQD is subject to this requirement
as it regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area,
which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR
81.303). The rule and RACT SIP in Table 1 were submitted to control VOC
emissions from CTG VOC source categories of surface coating operations.
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT
requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted
RACT regulations; certifications where appropriate that existing
provisions are RACT; and/or negative declarations that no sources in
the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG.\3\ It also
provides that states must submit appropriate supporting information for
their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See Id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29,
2005). The submitted RACT SIP and negative declarations provide MCAQD's
analyses of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA's technical support document
(TSD) has more information about the submitted rules and RACT SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ (80 FR 12278), March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating these SIP revisions?
Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources
covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area, which is classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hr
ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.303. Therefore, these rules must implement RACT.
We are also evaluating the County's RACT SIP with respect to the
source categories covered by the CTGs listed in numbers four through
eleven below. Those CTG sources are regulated by Rule 336. Thus, our
evaluation of the approvability of the MCAQD RACT SIP with respect to
those CTG VOC source categories is dependent on the approvability of
Rule 336. Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4 ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,'' EPA-450/2-77-008, May 1977.
5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture,'' EPA-450/2-
77-032, December 1977.
6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume IV: Surface Coating of Large Appliances,'' EPA-450/2-
77-034, December 1977.
7. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products,'' EPA-450/2-78-15, June 1978.
8. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings,'' EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008.
9. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,''
EPA-453/R-07-005 September 2007.
10. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil
Coatings,'' EPA-453/R-07-003, September 2007.
11. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings,''
(EPA 453/R-07-004, September 2007)
B. Do the SIP revisions meet the evaluation criteria?
Rule 336 applies to sources of VOC emissions from surface coating
operations in the Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area. Rule 336 is as
stringent as the applicable CTGs, and has requirements for surface
coating operations that are generally consistent with other local air
district rules for these source categories and are largely consistent
with the applicable CAA requirements. However, as identified below, the
rule contains deficiencies that preclude full approval. In a letter
dated January 28, 2019 and modified on December 5, 2019 (the
``commitment letter''), the County committed to revise those provisions
in accordance with EPA guidance, and submit the revised rule within
eleven months of a
[[Page 4930]]
conditional approval.\4\ On February 25, 2019, the ADEQ provided their
own commitment to submit the County's revised rule to the EPA within
one month after the County's action and request for SIP revision.\5\
Because the commitments by the County would remedy the identified rule
deficiencies, we propose to conditionally approve Rule 336 and the RACT
SIP with respect to VOC sources covered by Rule 336. Summaries of the
specific rule deficiencies and the County's commitments to address
those deficiencies are included in the following sections. The EPA's
TSD for Rule 336 provides further details on our evaluation for this
conditional approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter dated January 28, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, Maricopa County Air Control Department, to Misael Cabrera,
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and letter
dated December 5, 2019, from Philip A. McNeely to Doris Lo, Manager,
Rules Office, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA Region IX.
\5\ Letter dated May 17, 2019, from Misael Cabrera, Director,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to Michael Stoker,
Region Administrator, EPA, Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
The following provisions of Rule 336 do not fully satisfy the
requirements of section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and
prevents full approval of Rule 336.
1. Section 300, Standards, Table 336-2 contains VOC content limits
for the categories of End Sealing Compound: Food or Beverage, End
Sealing Compound: Non Food, Sheet Basecoat (Interior and Exterior) and
Overvarnish, Two Piece Can Interior Body Spray, Three Piece Can
Interior Body Spray, Two Piece Can Exterior Base Coat Overvarnish, and
Two Piece Can Exterior End (Spray or Roll Coat), which comply with the
1977 CTG, ``EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans,
Coils, Paper, Fabrics Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks,'' May 1977,
but are generally significantly higher than the same limits in
currently SIP-approved rules such as SCAQMD Rule 1125, Sacramento AQMD
Rule 452, BAAQMD Rule 8-11, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4604. Because the lower
limits have been achieved in other areas for some time, the limits in
Rule 336 do not demonstrate current RACT.
2. Section 103.2 exempts Extreme Performance Coatings from the VOC
limits when used on:
(a) Internal combustion engines components that are normally above
250 degrees Fahrenheit during use or
(b) items that are used at temperatures above 250 degrees
Fahrenheit that are included under various NAICS codes for
telecommunications equipment and are electronic products in space
vehicles and/or are communications equipment.
The 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts (MMPP), 2007 Metal
Furniture, and 2007 Large Appliance CTGs do not exempt Extreme
Performance Coatings. In addition, Rule 336, Tables 336-1, 336-3, 336-5
contain the appropriate VOC content limits for this category and are
consistent with the CTGs.
3. Section 103.5.e exempts Tactical Military-Equipment coatings
that are in a District-approved permit based on a demonstration that no
compliant substitute exists. The rule does not define ``Tactical
Military-Equipment'' and the 2008 MMPP CTG does not include this
exemption.
4. Rule 336 is missing the VOC limits and categories for ``Motor
Vehicle Materials'' as is found in Table 6 Motor Vehicle Materials VOC
Content Limits of the MMPP CTG. Rule 336 Table 336-4 ``Coating Limits
for Business Machines'' is missing the VOC limits and categories for
Automotive/Transportation Coatings as is found in the MMPP CTG Table 4
for ``Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts VOC
Content Limits.'' The missing categories also do not appear in Maricopa
Rule 345 Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating.
5. Section 300, Standards, Table 336-1 contains VOC limits for the
category ``Other Metal Parts and Products: Includes Non-Adhesive
Coating, Adhesive, Adhesive Primer, Beaded Sealant, and Caulking''
which does not comply with the 2008 CTG, ``EPA-453/R-08-003, Control
Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings'' (MMPP) September 2008. Because the limits for General One
Component and General Multi Component Coatings are lower in the CTG,
the limits in Rule 336 do not meet the presumptive RACT standard
established in the CTG.
6. Section 300, Standards Table 336-3 contains VOC limits for
``Flexible Plastic Parts and Products'' as well as ``Plastic Parts and
Products That Are Not Defined as Flexible.'' These categories are not
in the 2008 MMPP CTG and contain higher VOC limits than some of the
existing categories in the CTG.
D. What are the commitments to remedy the deficiencies?
The County's commitment letter included the following specific and
enforceable commitments, outlined below, to address the above
deficiencies for Rule 336.
1. The MCAQD commits to lower the VOC limits for the following can
coating materials: End sealing compound, sheet basecoat (interior and
exterior) and overvarnish, two-piece can interior body spray, three-
piece can interior body spray, two-piece can exterior base coat and
overvarnish, and two-piece can exterior end spray or roll coat. The
lower emission limits will be consistent with current RACT, based on a
comparison of RACT rules in other nonattainment areas.
Proposed VOC Limits for Coating Cans and Coils in grams VOC per
liter and pounds VOC per gallon:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coating category g VOC/l lb VOC/gal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Coating:
Can Printing Ink.................... 300 2.5
End Sealing Compound................ 20 0.2
Sheet Basecoat (Exterior and 250 2.1
Interior) and Overvarnish..........
Three-Piece Can Side-Seam Spray..... 660 5.5
Two and Three-Piece Can Interior 440 3.7
Body Spray.........................
Two-Piece Can Exterior (Basecoat and 250 2.1
Overvarnish).......................
Two-Piece Can Exterior End (Spray or 250 2.1
Roll Coat).........................
Coil Coating........................ 310 2.6
Strippable Booth Coating (applies to 240 2.0
both can and coil coating
categories)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4931]]
2. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the exemption for extreme
performance coatings. Following this evaluation, the MCAQD will either
remove or constrain the exemption. If a narrower exemption for extreme
performance coatings is included in the revised rule, the MCAQD will
provide documentation justifying the exemption is RACT.
3. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the exemption for tactical
military equipment coatings. Following this evaluation, the MCAQD will
either remove the exemption or require EPA approval of non-compliant
military specification coatings.
4. The MCAQD commits to evaluate the CTG categories for ``Motor
Vehicle Materials'' and ``Automotive/Transportation Coatings.''
Following the evaluation of each category, the MCAQD will either submit
a negative declaration for the category or incorporate RACT emission
limits for the category.
5. The MCAQD commits to remove adhesives and adhesive primers from
the ``Other Metal Parts and Products'' coating category in Table 336-1
(VOC Limits for Miscellaneous Metal Part and Product Coatings). The
MCAQD also commits to lower the VOC limit for the ``Other Metal Parts
and Products'' coating category to 340 grams VOC per liter (g/L) for
air dried coatings and 280 g/L for baked coatings.
6. The MCAQD commits to remove the following coating categories
from Table 336-3 (VOC Limits for Miscellaneous Plastic Part and Product
Coatings):
Flexible Plastic Parts and Products (Basecoat, Clearcoat,
Color Topcoat, and Primer); and
Plastic Parts and Products that are not Defined as
Flexible.
E. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD for Rule 336 describes additional rule revisions that we
recommend for the next time the County modifies the rule.
F. Public Comment and Proposed Action
Rule 336 largely fulfills the relevant CAA Sec. 110 and part D
requirements, but the deficiencies, as discussed in section C, preclude
full SIP approval pursuant to 110(k)(3) of the Act. Section 110(k)(4)
authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve SIP revisions based on a
commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain but not later than one year after the date of the plan
approval. Because the MCAQD and the ADEQ have committed to provide the
EPA with a SIP submission within one year of this final action that
will include specific rule revisions that would adequately address the
identified deficiencies, we are proposing to conditionally approve Rule
336 pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act. We are also proposing to
conditionally approve MCAQD's RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hr
ozone NAAQS with respect to the VOC source categories covered by Rule
336. If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit the required rule revisions by
the specified deadline, and the EPA approves the submission, then the
identified deficiencies will be cured. However, if these proposed
conditional approvals are finalized, and MCAQD, through the ADEQ, fails
to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the
conditional approval would be treated as a disapproval for those rules
for which the revisions are not submitted (and the associated RACT SIP
CTG source categories). We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until February 27, 2020. If we take final action to approve
the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into
the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the MCAQD rules described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this proposed SIP conditional approval, if finalized,
will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection
burdens, but will simply conditionally approve certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed SIP conditional approval, if finalized, will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements but will simply conditionally
approve certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to conditionally approve 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.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revisions that the EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve would not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
[[Page 4932]]
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this proposed SIP conditional approval,
if finalized, will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations, but
will simply conditionally approve certain State requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 13, 2020.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-01466 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
