Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 971 

3Exemption from Derivatives Clearing 

Organization Registration, 83 FR 39923, 39926 

(proposed Aug. 13, 2018). 

4See Committee on Payment and Settlement 

Systems and the Technical Committee of the 

International Organization of Securities 

Commissions, Principles for financial market 

infrastructures (Apr. 2012), available at http://

www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD377-

PFMI.pdf. 

5See 17 CFR 39.30, 39.40. 

Furthermore, the Commission has, on an 

ad hoc basis, previously granted registration 

exemptions to four foreign clearinghouses 

limited to proprietary swap positions with 

effectively the same conditions and 

limitations as provided in the Final Rule. The 

Final Rule will therefore maintain 

consistency with the existing exemptions. 

The Final Rule also contains fairly detailed 

daily, quarterly, and annual reporting 

requirements, as well as special event notice 

requirements. These requirements allow the 

Commission to monitor U.S. person clearing 

activity at the Exempt DCO on a daily basis 

and keep the Commission informed of any 

material changes to the regulatory and 

financial status of the Exempt DCO in its 

home jurisdiction. While the Exempt DCOs 

will be able to operate under the compliance 

regime and oversight of its home country 

regulator, the CFTC can maintain limited, but 

up-to-date oversight of the activities that are 

relevant for U.S. market participants and that 

could have an impact on our financial 

system. 

As noted above, the Final Rule does not 

permit registered FCMs to clear U.S. 

customer swaps at Exempt DCOs. In the 

Commission’s initial 2018 proposal to 

establish a framework for Exempt DCOs, the 

Commission proposed this prohibition. The 

Commission explained: 

Section 4d(f)(1) of the CEA makes it 

unlawful for any person to accept money, 

securities, or property (i.e., funds) from a 

swaps customer to margin a swap cleared 

through a DCO unless the person is registered 

as an FCM. Any swaps customer funds held 

by a DCO are also subject to the segregation 

requirements of section 4d(f)(2) of the CEA, 

and in order for a customer to receive 

protection under this regime, particularly in 

an insolvency context, its funds must be 

carried by an FCM, and deposited with a 

registered DCO. Absent that chain of 

registration, the swaps customer’s funds may 

not be treated as customer property under the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Commission’s 

regulations. Because of this, it has been the 

Commission’s policy to allow exempt DCOs 

to clear only proprietary positions of U.S. 

persons and FCMs.3

The Final Rule notes that the Commission 

may revisit the prohibition on U.S. customer 

clearing in the future. While I agree with the 

outcome in the Final Rule as to customer 

clearing given the Commission’s 

interpretation of CEA Section 4d(f), if the 

above interpretation changes, whether by a 

change to the statute or by other appropriate 

means, I could support a further amendment 

of the Final Rule. Any such change should 

place U.S. FCMs on an equal footing with 

their foreign counterparts when competing 

for U.S. customer clearing at Exempt DCOs. 

In addition, such a change should not create 

an advantage for unregistered Exempt DCOs 

over registered DCOs who comply with all of 

our regulations. 

Finally, I note that CEA Section 5b(h) 

provides for the registration exemption if the 

foreign DCO is subject to ‘‘comparable, 

comprehensive supervision and home 

country regulation.’’ Under the Final Rule, to 

demonstrate comparability, the DCO must be 

subject to home country regulations that are 

consistent with, and the DCO must ‘‘observe 

in all material respects,’’ the ‘‘Principles for 

Financial Market Infrastructures’’ 4 (‘‘PFMIs’’) 

applicable to central counterparties. 

Several commenters objected to this 

approach to comparability determinations on 

a number of grounds. These commenters 

stated that the Commission should not 

substitute a commitment to adhere to the 

PFMIs for its own examination and 

assessment as to the comparability and 

comprehensiveness of the actual foreign 

regulations. As the PFMIs are only general 

principles, even when the PFMIs are 

implemented, material differences may exist 

between the PFMI-compliant regime and the 

Commission’s DCO core principles and 

regulations. Commenters further argued that 

Congress intended for the Commission to 

analyze comparability only by direct 

comparison to the CTFC’s laws and 

regulations. 

Over the past two years, I have expressed 

concerns over the erosion of the 

Commission’s standards and role in finding 

comparability for various CFTC regulations. 

The Commission’s approach has been 

increasingly deferential to other regulators, 

which has the potential to permit the 

importation of increased risks into the U.S. 

financial system. 

In this regard, I too have some concerns 

about the use of the PFMIs as a standard for 

comparability. However, for the purpose of 

granting DCO registration exemptions, I 

believe the approach taken in the Final Rule 

is reasonable. I have consistently said that 

comparability determinations should involve 

a detailed examination of the other 

jurisdiction’s standards, but also should be 

outcomes based. Regulators around the world 

take substantively different approaches to 

regulating DCOs, but that does not mean any 

one approach is necessarily better or worse 

than another as to its expected outcome. The 

PFMIs tend to be more general in nature than 

the DCO core principles and regulations in 

the CEA and CFTC regulations. However, 

regarding the general outcome of DCO 

regulation, the PFMIs—which the CFTC has 

contributed to and incorporated in 

regulation 5—are consistent with our DCO 

core principles. Furthermore, given the 

limited scope of the Final Rule in that it 

applies only to clearing of proprietary 

positions, using the PFMIs to find 

comparability is not unwarranted. Finally, 

the Final Rule allows for the Commission to 

assess the extent to which the home country 

regulations are consistent with the PFMIs 

and the extent to which the applying DCO is 

observing the PFMIs. As such, I believe the 

approach taken in the Final Rule is 

reasonable. 

In conclusion, the Final Rule creates a 

limited, practical set of policies and 

procedures for granting exemptions from 

registration for foreign DCOs. The Exempt 

DCOs can only clear swaps for U.S. persons 

who are proprietary traders and who are able 

to assess the specific risks of clearing at the 

Exempt DCO. The U.S. customer accounts at 

registered FCMs will not be commingled 

with accounts used for Exempt DCO clearing. 

Finally, U.S. FCMs are not put at a 

competitive disadvantage to their foreign 

counterparts. For these reasons, I support the 

changes made to the proposed rule that result 

in an appropriate, codified approach to 

exempting foreign DCOs who meet 

appropriate standards. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26527 Filed 1–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0358 and EPA–R09– 

OAR–2019–0423; FRL–10017–89–Region 9] 

Air Plan Partial Approval, Partial 

Disapproval, and Partial Conditional 

Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department; Reasonably 

Available Control Technology State 

Implementation Plan and Surface 

Coating Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a partial 

approval, partial disapproval, and 

partial conditional approval of revisions 

to the Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD or County) 

portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 

concerns the County’s demonstration 

regarding reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) requirements and 

negative declarations for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

‘‘standards’’) in the portion of the 

Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area 

under the jurisdiction of the MCAQD. 

The EPA is also finalizing a conditional 

approval of a MCAQD rule that 

regulates emissions from surface coating 

operations and was submitted with the 

RACT SIP demonstration. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

dockets for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0358 and EPA– 

R09–OAR–2019–0423. All documents in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
972 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the dockets are listed on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available through https:// 

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4126 or by 

email at Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. EPA Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58310), 

the EPA proposed a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(ADEQ) June 22, 2017 submittal of 

MCAQD’s Analysis of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology for The 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) and 

the associated negative declarations. On 

January 28, 2020 (85 FR 4928), the EPA 

proposed to conditionally approve 

MCAQD Rule 336 Surface Coating 

Operations and associated portions of 

the RACT Demonstration. 

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

MCAQD ............ Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP).

05/24/2017 06/22/2017 

MCAQD ............ Appendix 1A: Negative Declarations ........................................................................................ 05/24/2017 06/22/2017 

MCAQD ............ Rule 336: Surface Coating Operations .................................................................................... 11/02/2016 06/22/2017 

MCAQD’s RACT SIP provides the 

County’s demonstration that the 

applicable SIP for the MCAQD satisfies 

CAA section 182 RACT requirements for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This 

conclusion is based on the County’s 

analysis of SIP-approved requirements 

that apply to the following: (1) Source 

categories for which the EPA has issued 

a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

document, and (2) major non-CTG 

stationary sources of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) or oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX). 

With respect to CTG source 

categories, MCAQD determined that it 

had sources subject to the CTGs 

covering solvent metal cleaning, 

industrial cleaning solvents, 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coating, can coating, fabric coating, film 

and foil coating, rotogravure and 

flexography, lithographic printing and 

letter press printing, wood furniture 

manufacturing operations, storage of 

petroleum liquids, tank truck gasoline 

loading terminals, bulk gasoline plants, 

gasoline tank trucks and vapor 

collection systems, and gasoline service 

stations. MCAQD submitted for SIP 

approval six rules to implement RACT 

for these CTG categories: Rules 336, 342, 

350, 351, 352, and 353. 

On February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10986), 

the EPA conditionally approved Rules 

350, 351, 352, and 353 into the SIP, and 

also conditionally approved the 

associated CTG source categories for the 

MCAQD 2016 RACT SIP: ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage 

of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof 

Tanks’’ (EPA–450/2–77–036), ‘‘Control 

of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 

Floating Roof Tanks’’ (EPA–450/2–78– 

047), ‘‘Control of Hydrocarbons from 

Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 

Terminals’’ (EPA–450/2–77–026), 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Bulk Gasoline Plants’’ (EPA–450/ 

2–77–035), ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank 

Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems’’ 

(EPA–450/2–78–051), and ‘‘Design 

Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control 

Systems—Gasoline Service Stations’’ 

(EPA–450/R–75–102). MCAQD has 

committed to correct the EPA’s 

identified deficiencies, and ADEQ has 

committed to submit the updated rules 

within one year of the EPA’s final 

conditional approval. If MCAQD 

corrects the identified deficiencies and 

the EPA approves the updated rules, 

MCAQD will have met its RACT 

obligation for these rules, and the 

associated CTGs. We are not acting on 

rules 350, 351, 352, and 353, or the 

associated CTG categories in the 

MCAQD’s 2016 RACT SIP in this action. 

On August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44701), 

the EPA approved Rule 342 into the SIP, 

finding that the rule met current RACT. 

This rulemaking also approved Rule 

337, which had been submitted earlier 

and was not part of the 2016 RACT SIP 

submittal. Although we approved Rules 

337 and 342, and found that they 

established RACT level controls, we did 

not in that action approve the 2016 

RACT SIP for the associated CTG source 

categories. On September 18, 2020 (85 

FR 58310), the EPA proposed to find 

that Rules 331, 337, and 342 establish 

RACT-level controls for the sources 

within the following CTG source 

categories: ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning’’ 

(EPA–450/2–77–022), ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines: Industrial 

Cleaning Solvents’’ (EPA–453/R–06– 

001), ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts— 

Rotogravure and Flexography’’ (EPA– 

430/2–78–033) and ‘‘Offset Lithographic 

Printing and Letterpress Printing’’ 

(EPA–453/R06–002), and ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

Operations’’ (EPA–453/R–96–007). 

On January 28, 2020 (85 FR 4928), the 

EPA proposed conditional approval of 

Rule 336 into the SIP, as well as 

conditional approval of the associated 

eight CTG source categories for the 

County’s 2016 RACT SIP: ‘‘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), ‘‘Control 

of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources—Volume 

III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture’’ 

(EPA–450/2–77–032), ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: 

Surface Coating of Large Appliances’’ 

(EPA–450/2–77–034), ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Existing Stationary Sources—Volume 

VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous 

Metal Parts and Products’’ (EPA–450/2– 

78–15), ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Metal Furniture Coatings’’ (EPA– 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 973 

1Note that in this action the EPA is finalizing 

approval of negative declarations for the other 

categories covered by this CTG: Surface coating of 

coils, paper, automobiles, and light-duty trucks. 

2Our January 28, 2020 proposal also noted that 

the deficiencies in Rule 336 were not consistent 

with the 2007 CTGs for Metal Furniture and Large 

Appliance Coatings (85 FR at 4930). However, our 

September 18, 2020 proposal proposed to approve 

negative declarations for these two source 

categories. This final action approves these negative 

declarations. Therefore, the RACT SIP is fully 

approved with respect to these CTG source 

categories, and they are not included within the 

scope of the conditional approval of the RACT 

demonstration for CTG source categories associated 

with Rule 336. 

453/R–07–005), ‘‘Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Large Appliance 

Coatings’’ (EPA–453/R07–004), ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings’’ (EPA–453/R–08–003), and 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines For 

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings’’ (EPA– 

453/R–07–003). MCAQD has committed 

to correct the EPA’s identified 

deficiencies, and ADEQ has committed 

to submit the updated rule within one 

year of the EPA’s final conditional 

approval. If MCAQD corrects the 

identified deficiencies and the EPA 

approves the updated rule, the County 

will have met its RACT obligation for 

this rule, and the associated CTGs. 

On September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58310), 

we proposed to approve negative 

declarations, including negative 

declarations for some of the source 

categories covered by Rule 336. 

Specifically, of eight CTG source 

categories addressed by Rule 336 (as 

listed in the prior paragraph), our 

September proposal proposed to 

approve negative declarations for five of 

them: ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Existing Stationary 

Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of 

Metal Furniture’’ (EPA–450/2–77–032), 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Existing Stationary Sources— 

Volume V: Surface Coating of Large 

Appliances’’ (EPA–450/2–77–034), 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Metal Furniture Coatings’’ (EPA–453/R– 

07–005), ‘‘Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Large Appliance 

Coatings’’ (EPA–453/R07–004), and 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines For 

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings’’ (EPA– 

453/R–07–003). In addition, it proposed 

approval of negative declarations for the 

coils, paper, automobile and light-duty 

truck portions of the CTG ‘‘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). In the 

same notice, the EPA also proposed to 

disapprove negative declarations for the 

Aerospace Coating and Industrial 

Adhesives source categories, because 

there are applicable sources in the 

Maricopa County portion of the 

Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment 

area. 

With respect to major non-CTG 

stationary sources of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) or oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), MCAQD determined it 

had RACT rules covering these sources. 

On September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58310), 

the EPA proposed to approve the 

County’s RACT determination that it 

has RACT rules covering major nonCTG sources of VOC and proposed to 

disapprove the RACT determination 

that it has RACT rules covering major 

sources of NOX. 

The proposed actions and associated 

technical support documents contain 

more information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. EPA Action 

The EPA’s proposed actions provided 

30-day public comment periods. During 

the comment periods for the two 

proposed actions, we received no 

comments. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA is 

conditionally approving into the 

Arizona SIP, Rule 336 and MCAQD’s 

RACT Demonstration for the 2008 8-hr 

ozone NAAQS with respect to the 

following Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTGs), as described in our 

proposal: 

1. ‘‘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, cans 

and fabrics portions only.1

2. ‘‘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. 

3. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, 

September 2008.2

If the MCAQD and the ADEQ submit 

the required rule revisions to Rule 336 

by the specified deadline, and the EPA 

approves the submission, then the 

identified deficiencies will be cured. 

However, if MCAQD, through the 

ADEQ, fails to submit these revisions to 

Rule 336 within the required timeframe, 

the conditional approval will be treated 

as a disapproval for Rule 336 and the 

RACT demonstration for the three CTG 

categories listed above. 

Also, as authorized in sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA 

is finalizing a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of the remainder of 

the RACT SIP and associated negative 

declarations, as proposed. 

We are finalizing a partial disapproval 

with respect to the portions of the RACT 

SIP addressing RACT for major sources 

of NOX, and CTG source categories for 

Aerospace Coating and Industrial 

Adhesives (‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories: Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework’’ (59 FR 

29216), ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Coating 

Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing 

and Rework Operations’’ (EPA–453/R– 

97–004), and ‘‘Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives’’ (EPA–453/R–08–005)). As a 

result of the final partial disapproval, 

offset sanctions will be imposed unless 

the EPA approves a subsequent SIP 

revision that corrects the identified 

deficiencies within 18 months of the 

effective date of this action. Highway 

sanctions will be imposed unless the 

EPA approves a subsequent SIP revision 

that corrects the rule deficiencies within 

24 months of the effective date of this 

action. These sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the CAA and 40 

CFR 52.31. Additionally, section 110(c) 

requires the EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan within 24 months 

unless we approve subsequent SIP 

revisions that correct the deficiencies. 

The EPA is finalizing a partial 

approval of the RACT SIP with respect 

to all remaining source categories, as 

proposed. This includes approval of the 

County’s negative declarations, with the 

exception of the three disapproved 

negative declarations, and the County’s 

RACT certifications for the following 

CTG source categories: ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent 

Metal Cleaning’’ (EPA–450/2–77–022), 

‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines: 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents’’ (EPA– 

453/R–06–001), ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources—Volume VIII: 

Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and 

Flexography’’ (EPA–430/2–78–033) and 

‘‘Offset Lithographic Printing and 

Letterpress Printing’’ (EPA–453/R06– 

002), and ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Wood 

Furniture Manufacturing Operations’’ 

(EPA–453/R–96–007). 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
974 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

MCAQD rule described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. Therefore, these materials have 

been approved by the EPA for inclusion 

in the SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of the EPA’s conditional approval, and 

will be incorporated by reference in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.3

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents available 

through 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 http://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 this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA, because this SIP partial approval, 

partial disapproval, and partial 

conditional approval does not in-and-of 

itself create any new information 

collection burdens, but simply partially 

approves, partially disapproves, and 

partially conditionally approves 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 SIP partial approval 

partial disapproval, and partial 

conditional approval does not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements but 

simply partially approves, partially 

disapproves, and partially conditionally 

approves certain pre-existing 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 partially 

approves, partially disapproves, and 

partially conditionally approves preexisting 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 revision 

that the EPA is partially approving, 

partially disapproving, and partially 

conditionally approving 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. 

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 SIP partial approval, partial 

disapproval, and partial conditional 

approval does not in-and-of itself create 

any new regulations, but simply 

partially approves, partially 

disapproves, and partially conditionally 

approves certain pre-existing 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 Populations 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

M. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 March 8, 2021. 

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 dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 975 

Dated: December 11, 2020. 

John Busterud, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Amend § 52.119 by adding 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 52.119 Identification of plan—conditional 

approvals. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) The EPA is conditionally 

approving portions of the Arizona SIP 

revisions submitted on June 22, 2017. 

The conditional approval is based upon 

the February 25, 2019 commitment from 

the State to submit a SIP revision 

consisting of rule revisions that will 

cure the identified deficiencies within 

twelve (12) months after the EPA’s 

conditional approval. If the State fails to 

meet its commitment, the conditional 

approval will be treated as a disapproval 

with respect to the rules and CTG 

categories for which the corrections are 

not met. The following MCAQD rules 

and additional materials are 

conditionally approved: 

(i) Rule 336, Surface Coating 

Operations; 

(ii) The RACT demonstration titled 

‘‘Analysis of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),’’ only 

those portions of the document claiming 

RACT was met for the following CTG 

source categories, ‘‘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, ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines 

for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic 

Parts Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003, 

September 2008, and ‘‘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 

(cans and fabrics categories, only). 

■ 3. Amend § 52.120 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), Table 4 under the 

table headings ‘‘Post-July 1988 Rule 

Codification’’ and ‘‘Regulation III— 

Control of Air Contaminants,’’ by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Rule 336.’’ 

■ b. In paragraph (e), Table 1, under the 

subheading ‘‘Part D Elements and Plans 

for the Metropolitan Phoenix and 

Tucson Areas,’’ by adding an entry for 

‘‘Analysis of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP)’’ after 

the entry for ‘‘Maricopa Association of 

Governments (MAG) 1987 Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Plan for the Maricopa 

County Area, MAG CO Plan 

Commitments for Implementation, and 

Appendix A through E, Exhibit 4, 

Exhibit D.’’ 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 4—EPA-APPROVED MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

County citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Post-July 1988 Rule Codification 

*******

Regulation III—Control of Air Contaminants 

*******

Rule 336 ......... Surface Coating Operations .......... 11/02/2016 01/07/2021, [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

Submitted on June 22, 2017. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area or title/ 

subject 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
976 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES—Continued 

[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area or title/ 

subject 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas 

*******

Analysis of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

for the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

State Implementation 

Plan (RACT 

SIP).

Maricopa County 

portion of Phoenix-Mesa nonattainment area 

for 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS.

June 22, 2017 January 7, 2021, 

[INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

Except for those portions approved on 2/26/2020 in 85 FR 10986, and those portions of the document claiming RACT was met for the following source categories: ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories: Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework’’ (59 FR 29216), ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework Operations’’ (EPA–453/R–97–004), ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives’’ (EPA–453/R–08–005), 

and major sources of NOX. 

* * * * * * * 

1Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements 

and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 52.122 by adding 

paragraph (a)(3) as follows: 

§ 52.122 Negative declarations. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department. 

(i) The following negative 

declarations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

were adopted on May 24, 2017 and 

submitted on June 22, 2017. 

EPA document No. Title 

EPA–450/2–77–008 ....... Surface Coating of Coils. 

EPA–450/2–77–008 ....... Surface Coating of Paper. 

EPA–450/2–77–008 ....... Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks. 

EPA–450/2–77–025 ....... Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. 

EPA–450/2–77–032 ....... Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

EPA–450/2–77–033 ....... Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. 

EPA–450/2–77–034 ....... Surface Coating of Large Appliances. 

EPA–450/2–77–037 ....... Cutback Asphalt. 

EPA–450/2–78–029 ....... Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. 

EPA–450/2–78–030 ....... Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. 

EPA–450/2–78–032 ....... Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. 

EPA–450/2–78–036 ....... Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. 

EPA–450/3–82–009 ....... Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. 

EPA–450/3–83–006 ....... Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. 

EPA–450/3–83–007 ....... Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. 

EPA–450/3–83–008 ....... Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. 

EPA–450/3–84–015 ....... Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. 

EPA–450/4–91–031 ....... Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. 

EPA–453/R–94–032 ......

61 FR 44050; 8/27/96 ....

ACT Surface Coating at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities. 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating). 

EPA–453/R–06–003 ...... Flexible Package Printing. 

EPA–453/R–06–004 ...... Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. 

EPA 453/R–07–003 ....... Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. 

EPA 453/R–07–004 ....... Large Appliance Coatings. 

EPA 453/R–07–005 ....... Metal Furniture Coatings. 

EPA 453/R–08–004 ....... Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. 

EPA 453/R–08–006 ....... Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. 

EPA 453/B16–001 ......... Oil and Natural Gas Industry. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

■ 5. Amend § 52.124 by adding 

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.124 Part D disapproval. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department. 

(i) RACT determinations for major 

sources of NOX, and CTG source 

categories for Aerospace Coating and 

Industrial Adhesives (‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 977 

Pollutants for Source Categories: 

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework’’ 

(59 FR 29216), ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from 

Coating Operations at Aerospace 

Manufacturing and Rework Operations’’ 

(EPA–453/R–97–004), and ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives’’ 

(EPA–453/R–08–005)), in the submittal 

titled ‘‘Analysis of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),’’ 

dated December 5, 2016, as adopted on 

May 24, 2017 and submitted on June 22, 

2017. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–27806 Filed 1–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 282 

[EPA–R06–UST–2018–0701; FRL–10014– 

65–Region 6] 

Arkansas: Final Approval of State 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

Revisions and Incorporation by 

Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 

or Act), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the State 

of Arkansas’s Underground Storage 

Tank (UST) program submitted by the 

State. EPA has determined that these 

revisions satisfy all requirements 

needed for program approval. This 

action also codifies EPA’s approval of 

Arkansas’s State program and 

incorporates by reference those 

provisions of the State regulations that 

we have determined meet the 

requirements for approval. The 

provisions will be subject to EPA’s 

inspection and enforcement authorities 

under Subtitle I of RCRA sections 9005 

and 9006 and other applicable statutory 

and regulatory provisions. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 8, 

2021, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by February 8, 2021. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. The 

incorporation by reference of a certain 

publication listed in the regulations is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register, as of March 8, 2021, in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: lincoln.audray@epa.gov. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–UST–2018– 

0701. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal https://www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties, and cannot 

contact you for clarification, the EPA 

may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

The index to the docket for this action 

is available electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov. You can view and 

copy the documents that form the basis 

for this codification and associated 

publicly available docket materials are 

available either through https://

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500, 

Dallas, Texas 75270. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday excluding 

Federal holidays and facility closures. 

We recommend that you telephone 

Audray Lincoln, Environmental 

Protection Specialist at (214) 665–2239 

before visiting the Region 6 Office. 

Interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least two 

weeks in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Audray Lincoln, (214) 665–2239, 

lincoln.audray@epa.gov. Out of an 

abundance of caution for members of 

the public and our staff, the EPA Region 

6 office will be closed to the public to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Approval of Revisions to Arkansas’s 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

approval from the EPA under RCRA 

section 9004(b), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), 

must maintain an underground storage 

tank program that is equivalent to, 

consistent with, and no less stringent 

than the Federal underground storage 

tank program. When EPA makes 

revisions to the regulations that govern 

the UST program, States must revise 

their programs to comply with the 

updated regulations and submit these 

revisions to the EPA for approval. 

Changes to State UST programs may be 

necessary when Federal or State 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to the EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

280. States can also initiate changes on 

their own to their underground storage 

tank program and these changes must 

then be approved by EPA. 

B. What decisions has the EPA made in 

this rule? 

On October 17, 2018, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Arkansas 

submitted a complete program revision 

application seeking approval for its UST 

program revisions corresponding to the 

EPA final rule published on July 15, 

2015 (80 FR 41566), which finalized 

revisions to the 1988 UST regulations 

and to the 1988 State program approval 

(SPA) regulations. As required by 40 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES