66040 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal does not provide for a

collection of information requirement

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this proposed rule does not raise

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that under section

2.B.2.e(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59

FR 38654, 29 July 1994), this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement has been prepared and placed

in the rulemaking docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend part 117

of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 449; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); Section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.822 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.822 Beaufort Channel, NC.

The draw of the US 70 bridge, mile

0.1., at Beaufort, shall open as follows:

(a) From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., the draw

need only open every hour on the hour,

twenty minutes past the hour and forty

minutes past the hour; except that on

weekdays the bridge need not open at

7:40 a.m., 8:40 a.m., 4:40 p.m. and 5:40

p.m.

(b) From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the bridge

shall open on signal.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

Roger Rufe, Jr.,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast-Guard, Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 97–32886 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ017–0006; FRL–5935–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of a

revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning

the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

surface coating operations, Rule 336.

The intended effect of proposing limited

approval and limited disapproval of this

rule is to regulate VOC emissions

according to the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

this proposal will incorporate this rule

into the federally approved SIP. Using

CAA provisions regarding EPA actions

on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority, EPA has

evaluated this rule and is proposing a

simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval because, while

strengthening the SIP, this revision does

not fully meet the CAA provisions and

regulatory Control Technique

Guidelines regarding regulatory

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office,

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA, 94105–3901.

Copies of Rule 336 and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3003 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Department, 2406 S. 24th Street, Suite E–

214, Phoenix, AZ 85034

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for limited

approval (and limited disapproval) into

the Arizona SIP is Maricopa County

Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations.

This rule was submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) to EPA on February 26, 1997.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included

Maricopa County (see 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 to the Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG)

Urban Planning Area (see 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 MAG’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 SIPCall, see 49 FR 18827, May 3, 1984). On

May 26, 1988, again EPA notified the

Governor of Arizona that MAG’s portion

of the SIP was inadequate to attain and

maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies relating to

VOC controls and the application of

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) in the existing SIP be corrected

(EPA’s second SIP-Call, see 53 FR

34500, September 7, 1988). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted (see

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.) In

amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress adopted statutorily the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient RACT rules for ozone

and established a deadline of May 15,

1991 for states to submit corrections of

those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66041

1Among 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

document,’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing Control Technique Guidelines

(CTGs).

2The MAG Urban Planning Area retained its

designations 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). On November 6,

1997, EPA published a final rule reclassifying the

MAG Urban Planning Area from moderate to

serious (62 FR 60001). This reclassification became

effective on December 8, 1997.

3EPA 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).

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance. 1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. The MAG Urban Planning Area is

classified as serious 2; therefore, this

area was subject to the RACT fix-up

requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline.

The State of Arizona submitted RACT

rule, Maricopa County, Rule 336—

Surface Coating Operations, for

incorporation into its SIP on February

26, 1997. This document addresses

EPA’s proposed action for Maricopa

County’s Rule 336, Surface Coating

Operations. Maricopa County adopted

Rule 336 on June 19, 1996. EPA found

Rule 336 complete on June 5, 1997

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

set forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix

V 3. Now, EPA proposes a limited

approval and limited disapproval of

Rule 336.

Rule 336, Surface Coating Operations,

reduces volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions at industrial sites

engaged in preparing and coating a

variety of substrates such as metal,

paper, film, fabric, vinyl, and plastic.

The provisions of this rule apply to

surface preparation and coating

operations in the following industries:

Metal can and coil, metal furniture,

large appliances, miscellaneous metal

parts and products, aerospace assembly

items and other components, paper,

film, fabric, vinyl, plastic, and other

flexible parts and products. VOCs

contribute to the production of groundlevel ozone and smog. Rule 336 was

adopted as part of Maricopa County’s

efforts to achieve the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call

and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. Rule 336 is a new rule

adopted by Maricopa County to meet

EPA’s SIP-Call and the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for Rule

336 follows below.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In reviewing a VOC rule for approval,

EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations in section

110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). EPA’s

interpretation of these requirements,

forming the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

one. 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.

To assist 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 presumptive norms

defining RACT for specific source

categories. Under the CAA, Congress

ratified EPA’s use of these documents

and other Agency policy for requiring

States to ‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules (see

section 182(a)(2)(A)). The following

CTGs are applicable to Rule 336:

—‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of

Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles, and Light Duty Trucks,’’

USEPA, May 1977, EPA–450/2–77–

008;

—‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume III: Surface Coating

of Metal Furniture,’’ USEPA,

December 1977, EPA–450/2–77-032;

—‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume V: Surface Coating of

Large Appliances,’’ USEPA, December

1977, EPA–450/2–77–034; and,

—‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating

of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products,’’ USEPA, June 1978, EPA–

450/2–78–015.

The following Alternative Control

Techniques (ACT) document was

consulted for its recommended emission

limits and other applicable provisions:

—‘‘Surface Coating of Automotive/

Transportation and Business Machine

Plastic Parts,’’ USEPA, EPA 453/R–

94–017.

Accordingly, Rule 336 was evaluated

for consistency with the general RACT

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA

section 110 and part D). Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found

in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote

one. In general, these guidance

documents have been set forth to ensure

that VOC rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

There is no version of Rule 336—

Surface Coating Operations in the SIP.

The submitted rule includes the

following provisions:

—A purpose statement,

—Definition of terms,

—Surface coating emission limits

expressed in mass of VOC per unit

volume of coating less water and nonprecursor organic compounds,

—Emission control system, VOC cleanup, and VOC handling requirements,

—General and specific exemptions,

—Administrative requirements,

—Monitoring and record keeping

requirements, and

—Compliance test methods.

Although Rule 336 strengthens the

SIP, this rule contains deficiencies

which were required to be corrected

pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A)

requirement of part D of the CAA. Rule

336’s VOC emission limits conform to

the respective CTG or ACT requirement

and the rule contains adequate record

keeping and test method provisions for

monitoring the compliance of regulated

facilities. However, several portions of

the rule are unclear or contradict the

subject CTG.

The following sections should be

amended to be consistent with the

applicable CTG and EPA policy:

—Section 306.4, Exemptions, Special

Facilities/Operations,

—Section 306.5, Exemptions, Small

Sources, and

—Section 402, Administrative

Requirements, Minimal Use Days.

Sections 306.4 and 306.5 exempt

some source categories in a manner

inconsistent with their applicable CTG.

Maricopa County should limit these

exemptions to specific source categories

consistent with their applicable CTG.

Also, these sections are inconsistent

with the Blue Book established

applicability cut-off of three pounds per

hour or fifteen pounds per day of VOC

emissions. Two essential component

concepts of the Blue Book’s size cut-off

policy are absent from the rule. First, a

source’s VOC emissions for comparison

to the size cutoff should be determined
66042 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

assuming no add-on controls. Second,

once a source’s VOC emissions exceed

the size cutoff, that source is subject to

the emission control requirements of the

rule, even if those emissions later fall

below the cutoff limit. A more detailed

discussion of the rule’s deficiencies can

be found in the technical support

document for Rule 336 available at the

U.S. EPA, Region 9 office.

Given these deficiencies, the rule is

not approvable pursuant to the section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Also, EPA

cannot grant full approval of this rule

under section 110(k)(3) and part D.

Because the submitted rule is not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP.

The approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. To strengthen the

SIP, EPA is proposing a limited

approval of Maricopa County’s

submitted Rule 336 under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. At the

same time, EPA is proposing a limited

disapproval of this rule because it

contains deficiencies that have not been

corrected as required by section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,

the rule does not fully meet the

requirements of part D of the Act.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment, based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within eighteen months of such

disapproval. Section 179(b) provides

two sanctions available to the

Administrator: highway funding and

emission offsets. The eighteen month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA’s final

limited disapproval. Also, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted

that the rule covered by this proposed

rule making has been adopted by

Maricopa County and is in effect. EPA’s

final limited disapproval action will not

prevent Maricopa County, the State of

Arizona, or EPA from enforcing this

rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing, or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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 E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

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, the

Administrator certifies 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

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 5, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32786 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–27–1–5945, FRL–5935–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas; Disapproval of Texas

Clean Fuel Fleet Program Revision to

the State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the

public comment period from November

17, 1997, to January 16, 1998, on the

proposed disapproval notice of the

Texas Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) SIP

revision under the Clean Air Act. The

proposed disapproval document was

published in the Federal Register on