[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12544-12546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5972]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 059-0005a; FRL-5697-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona State 
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on a revision to the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan. The revision concerns a rule from the 
following local agency: Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department (MCESD). This approval action will incorporate this rule 
into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving this 
rule is to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 
1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised rule controls VOC emissions from 
Commercial Bread Bakeries. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of this 
rule into the Arizona SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA 
action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary 
ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment 
areas.

DATES: This action is effective on May 16, 1997 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by April 16, 1997. If the effective date 
is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report for the rule 
are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during 
normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are available for 
inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (Air-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

[[Page 12545]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue, 
Phoenix, AZ 85012.
Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services, 2406 South 24th 
Street, Suite E-204, Phoenix, AZ 85034-6822.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office 
(Air-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

    The rule being approved into the Arizona SIP is: MCESD Rule 343--
Commercial Bread Bakeries. This rule was submitted by the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality to EPA on August 31, 1995.

Background

    On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment 
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in l977 
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Maricopa County Area. 
43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On March 19, 1979, EPA changed the name and 
modified the geographic boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area of 
Maricopa County to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Urban 
Planning Area. 44 FR 16391, 40 CFR 81.303. On February 24, 1984, EPA 
notified the Governor of Arizona, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of 
the pre-amended Act, that MCESD's portion of the Arizona SIP was 
inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that 
deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call, 49 FR 
18827, May 3, 1984). On May 26, 1988, EPA again notified the Governor 
of Arizona, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the 
above district's portions of the Arizona SIP were inadequate to attain 
and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the 
existing SIP be corrected (EPA's second SIP-Call, 53 FR 34500, 
September 7, 1988). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 
U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA, Congress 
statutorily required nonattainment areas to submit RACT rules for all 
major stationary sources of VOCs by November 15, 1992 (the RACT catch-
up requirement).
    The MAG Urban Planning Area is classified as moderate; 1 
therefore, this area was subject to the RACT catch-up requirement and 
the November 15, 1992 deadline.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Urban Planning 
Area retained its designation of nonattainment and was classified by 
operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the 
date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    \2\ Arizona did not make the required SIP submittal by November 
15, 1992. On January 15, 1993, the EPA made a finding of 
nonsubmittal pursuant to section 179(a)(1), which started an 18-
month sanction clock. The rule being acted upon in this action was 
submitted in response to the EPA finding of failure to submit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Arizona submitted many revised RACT rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on August 31, 1995, including the rule being 
acted on in this notice. This notice addresses EPA's direct-final 
approval action for MCESD Rule 343--Commercial Bread Bakeries. MCESD 
adopted Rule 343 on February 15, 1995. This submitted rule was found to 
be complete on October 25, 1995 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria 
that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 3 and is being 
finalized for approval into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, 
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 343 controls VOC emissions from bread ovens at commercial 
bread bakeries. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone 
and smog. This rule was originally adopted as part of MCESD's effort to 
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and 
in response to EPA's 1988 SIP-Call and the section 182(b)(2)(C) CAA 
requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for 
this rule.

EPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate 
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR 
Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA 
policy guidance documents.4 Among those provisions is the 
requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the 
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This 
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
those portions of the proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues 
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register 
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control 
technique guidelines (CTG's).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing 
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 
documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act 
and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source 
categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these 
documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to 
``catch-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(b)(2)(C). For some 
source categories, such as bakeries, EPA did not publish a CTG. In such 
cases, the District may determine what controls are required by 
reviewing the operation of facilities subject to the regulation and 
evaluating regulations for similar sources in other areas. Bakery 
sources have been subject to a RACT regulation since 1989 in the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District. EPA did publish an Alternative 
Control Technology Document (ACT) entitled, ``Alternative Control 
Technology Document for Bakery Oven Emissions'', EPA 453/R-92-017, 
December 1992 as guidance for this source category. Further 
interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to 
in footnote 4. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth 
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or 
maintain the SIP. MCESD's Rule 343, Commercial Bread Bakeries, is a new 
rule which was adopted to control VOC emissions from large commercial 
bakeries by establishing emissions reduction standards, recordkeeping 
requirements, and test methods for demonstration of compliance with the 
rule. A detailed evaluation of Rule 343, Commercial Bread Bakeries, can 
be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) dated July 30, 1996. 
EPA has evaluated the submitted rule and has determined that it is 
consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, 
MCESD, Rule 343, Commercial Bread Bakeries, is being approved under 
section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 
110(a) and Part D.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. Each request for

[[Page 12546]]

revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered 
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective May 16, 1997, unless, by April 16, 1997, adverse or critical 
comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective May 16, 1997.

Regulatory Process

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and 
government entities with jurisdiction over a population of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) and subchapter I, Part 
D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship 
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state 
action.
    The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. 
Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

    Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector or to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan 
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have 
elected to adopt the program provided for under Part D of the Clean Air 
Act. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal governments to 
perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform 
certain duties. The rule being approved by this action will impose no 
new requirements because affected sources are already subject to these 
regulations under State law. Therefore, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments or to the private sector result from this 
action. EPA has also determined that this final action does not include 
a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private 
sector.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: February 19, 1997.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    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. 7401-7671q

Subpart D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(82) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (82) New and amended rules and regulations for the Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department--Air Pollution Control were submitted 
on August 31, 1995, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporated by reference.
    (A) Rule 343, adopted on February 15, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-5972 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P