Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


Proposed rule.


EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.


Any comments must arrive by November 1, 2004.


Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to, or submit comments at

You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's technical support documents (TSD), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 N. Central Avenue, Suite 695, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at​envsvc/​AIR/​ruledesc.asp. Please be advised that this is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.

Start Further Info


Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX, (415)972-3956,

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

D. Public Comment and Final Action

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 shows the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).Start Printed Page 58376

Table 1.—Submitted Rule

Local agencyRule No.Rule titleAdoptedSubmitted
MCESD331Solvent Cleaning04/21/0407/28/04

On August 26, 2004, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

We approved a version of Rule 331 into the SIP on April 16, 2003. The MCESD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on April 21, 2004 and ADEQ submitted them to us on July 28, 2004.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. This rule applies to all cleaning operations using solvents that contain VOCs. Submitted Rule 331 makes the following changes to the SIP-approved rule.

  • Sections 102.2(a), 308.1(a) and 308.1(c)(1) have been changed to specify that solvent cleaning operations must be subject to or specifically exempted by an EPA-approved version of another rule within Regulation III of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, in order to qualify for an exemption to Rule 331.
  • A reference to EPA's January 9, 1995, guidance document, Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency, has been added to sections 502.1(c)(2), 502.2(d), and 502.2(h).
  • Sections II(2) and III(2) of the appendix to Rule 331 have been added. These sections specify that batch vapor cleaning machines and in-line vapor cleaning machines shall not be operated, unless such machines have a vapor/air interface Fahrenheit temperature no greater than 30% of the solvent's boiling point temperature or no greater than 40.0 degrees F (4.4 degrees C), whichever is lower.
  • To correct a previous relaxation, the evaporative surface threshold for additional controls for certain batch vapor cleaning machines has been lowered to 10.75 square feet (1.0 square meter) in section II(3)(F) of the appendix to Rule 331.
  • Other revisions to the rule language have been made, to improve clarity and increase rule enforceability.

The TSD has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The MCESD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 331 must fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Control Technology for Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations,” California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The rule revisions correct the deficiencies highlighted by EPA in its limited disapproval of the SIP-approved rule. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

EPA has no recommended changes for future revisions of Rule 331.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP. This action would permanently terminate all sanction and FIP implications of our limited disapproval of a previous version of this rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely Start Printed Page 58377proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

  • Environmental protection
  • Air pollution control
  • Intergovernmental relations
  • Ozone
  • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
  • Volatile organic compound
End List of Subjects Start Authority

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

End Authority Start Signature

Dated: September 10, 2004.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 04-21825 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]