Notice of Resolution of Notice of Deficiency for Clean Air Operating Permits Program; Maricopa County, AZ, 67061-67065 [E6-19555]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 223 (Monday, November 20, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67061-67065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19555]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AZ-06-01; FRL-8243-8]


Notice of Resolution of Notice of Deficiency for Clean Air 
Operating Permits Program; Maricopa County, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of resolution.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice of deficiency on May 17, 2005, in which 
EPA identified problems with Maricopa County's Clean Air Act title V 
operating permits program and a timeframe for the County to correct 
these deficiencies. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
submitted corrections to its permit program in quarterly updates 
beginning in February 2006 and in a final submittal dated October 20, 
2006. This notice announces that, based on information provided by 
Maricopa County Air Quality Department, EPA concludes that Maricopa 
County has resolved all of the issues identified in the May 17, 2005 
Notice of Deficiency. As a result, EPA will not impose sanctions set 
forth under the mandatory sanctions provisions of the Clean Air Act. In 
addition, EPA will not promulgate, administer, and enforce a whole or 
partial operating permit program pursuant to the title V regulations of 
the Clean Air Act within two years after the date of the finding of 
deficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 2006. Because this Notice of 
Deficiency is an adjudication and not a final rule, the Administrative 
Procedure Act's 30-day deferral of the effective date of a rule does 
not apply.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Yen, EPA, Region 9, Air Division 
(AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3976, 
or r9airpermits@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ''we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Maricopa County's Submittal and EPA's Determination
III. EPA's Action

[[Page 67062]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

    On May 17, 2005, EPA issued a notice of deficiency (NOD) for the 
title V operating permits program in Maricopa County, Arizona. (70 FR 
32243, June 2, 2005). The NOD was based upon EPA's findings that the 
County's title V program did not comply with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) or with the implementing regulations at 40 
CFR part 70. The deficiencies EPA found were in two main categories: 
(1) Permit fees and (2) permit processing.
    Maricopa County was required to address these deficiencies within 
18 months of the effective date of the NOD, or the County would be 
subject to the sanctions under 40 CFR 70.10(b)(3) and section 179(b) of 
the Act. In addition, 40 CFR 70.10(b)(4) provides that, if the 
permitting authority has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months 
of the date of the finding of deficiency, EPA will promulgate, 
administer, and enforce a whole or partial program within 2 years of 
the date of the finding.
    Region 9 performed a title V program evaluation of Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (MCESD) beginning May 27, 2004. On 
May 18, 2005, Region 9 issued the final program evaluation report \1\ 
to MCESD. The deficiencies identified in the NOD are a subset of the 
findings described in the program evaluation report. While the program 
evaluation report was still being finalized, Maricopa County initiated 
a number of changes. In November of 2004, Maricopa County created a new 
Air Quality Department, separate from MCESD. In addition, Maricopa 
County filled two key management positions in the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department (MCAQD): Department Director and Permit Engineering 
Division Manager. In March 2005, Robert Kard was hired as the new 
Department Director. In April 2005, Kathlene Graf was promoted to the 
position of Permit Engineering Division Manager.\2\ With the 
reorganization and new management, Maricopa County has implemented or 
begun to implement many improvements to its title V program, in terms 
of both accepted practices and formalized procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The report titled ``Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department Title V Operating Permit Program Evaluation,'' is 
available at https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/titlevevals.html.
    \2\ MCAQD has nine divisions, one of which is the Permit 
Engineering Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Maricopa County's Submittal and EPA's Determination

    On August 15, 2005, Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) 
submitted a corrective action plan entitled ``Response to EPA Notice of 
Deficiency & Title V Audit'' to EPA. In the plan, MCAQD responded to 
each deficiency noted in the May 17, 2005 NOD and to each finding in 
EPA's title V program evaluation report by proposing a correction for 
each deficiency and an action to address each EPA finding. The 
submittal also included a timeline that showed milestones and dates for 
completion of each milestone.
    Beginning in February 2006, Maricopa County Air Quality Department 
(MCAQD) submitted quarterly updates to EPA to show its progress in 
correcting the deficiencies noted in the NOD and in addressing the 
findings of the title V program evaluation report. The submittals 
included numerous attachments, many of which were new policy documents, 
guidance documents, and standard operating procedures. On October 23, 
2006, EPA received MCAQD's submittal, the ``Response to the Notice of 
Deficiency,'' (NOD Response), dated October 20, 2006. The NOD Response 
is available to view in the docket, Docket ID No. AZ-Maricopa-06-1-OPS. 
In the NOD Response, and the preceding quarterly updates, MCAQD 
explained and documented how each of the deficiencies identified in the 
NOD had been, or were being, addressed. The NOD Response contains 
documented internal organizational and operational changes within 
MCAQD, an interim guidance document for title V permit revisions, a 
copy of the revised fee rule and new delinquent fee policy, a fee 
demonstration, a description of the improved accounting system, a 
workload assessment for title V, and other supporting attachments.
    This notice focuses only on MCAQD's responses to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the NOD. Based on the information in MCAQD's 
NOD Response, and the preceding quarterly updates, EPA has determined 
that MCAQD has demonstrated that it has resolved each of the issues 
listed in the May 17, 2005 NOD, as discussed below.

A. Permit Fees

1. Demonstration of Sufficient Fees To Cover Program Costs and That 
Fees Are Used Solely for Title V
a. Fee Demonstration
    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(a), a permitting 
authority's title V program must require that the owners or operators 
of part 70 sources pay annual fees, or the equivalent over some other 
period, that are sufficient to cover the permit program costs. 42 
U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(b) provide that a permitting 
authority may collect fees that cover the actual permit program costs, 
or may use a presumptive fee schedule, adjusted for inflation.
    Maricopa County's permit fee structure is a combination of an 
application fee, hourly-based processing fee, annual administrative 
fee, and annual emissions-based fee. The emissions-based fee is less 
than EPA's presumptive minimum, and, since other components of the 
permit fees are not assessed on a per-ton basis, it was difficult to 
determine if the aggregate of the fees met the presumptive minimum. In 
addition, though Maricopa County was able to account for title V 
revenues quite accurately, it did not have a clear accounting of its 
costs incurred under title V. Therefore, Maricopa County was not able 
to demonstrate that title V permit fees collected were sufficient to 
fund its title V program.
    To address this issue, MCAQD provided a fee demonstration to show 
that the aggregate of its title V fees is equivalent to a fee greater 
than the presumptive minimum, as allowed by 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). MCAQD 
charges a dollar-per-ton emissions-based fee for actual emissions of 
all regulated pollutants emitted during the previous calendar year. 
Therefore, the fee demonstration includes fiscal year 2006 (July 2005 
through June 2006) title V revenue, the total reported emissions of 
regulated pollutants for calendar year 2005, and the resulting dollar-
per-ton number, which was compared with EPA's presumptive minimum 
adjusted for inflation. MCAQD showed that the equivalent of the 
aggregate of its title V fees in fiscal year 2006 \3\ was greater than 
EPA's presumptive minimum which, adjusted for fiscal year 2006, is 
$39.48/ton.\4\ Therefore, by 40 CFR

[[Page 67063]]

70.9(b)(2)(i), EPA presumes that MCAQD's fee schedule results in the 
collection and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the title V 
permit program costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because changes and improvements were being made to MCAQD's 
accounting system throughout fiscal year 2006, title V program 
revenue and expenses may not be 100% accurate in reflecting the 
title V program. However, MCAQD feels it is of sufficient acuracy to 
show that the aggregate of its fees is substantially greater than 
EPA's presumptive minimum. MCAQD is in the process of completing 
reconciliation of fiscal year 2006 title V revenues and expenses to 
the extent possible, and any corrections made will be reflected in 
the title V reporting category being established to track the title 
V fund balance.
    \4\ September 19, 2005, Memorandum, Calculation of the Part 70 
Presumptive Minimum Fee Effective from September 2005 through August 
2006, from Jeff Herring, Operating Permits Group, ITPID, OAQPS, to 
Operating Permits Contacts EPA Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Demonstration of Title V Fees Being Used Solely for the Title V 
Program
    As stated above, Maricopa County was able to account for title V 
revenues; however, it did not have a clear accounting of costs incurred 
under title V. Furthermore, Maricopa County maintained a single account 
for title V fees, non-title V fees, and enforcement penalties. Both 
title V and non-title V costs were paid from this account. Section 
502(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.9(a) provide that 
a permitting authority's title V program must ensure that all title V 
fees are used solely for title V permit program costs.
    To correct this deficiency, MCAQD started out by hiring a third 
party to conduct an audit of its accounting system, department-wide. 
MCAQD's existing accounting system was an activity-based system to an 
extent; i.e., it did tag certain revenues with identifiers to 
distinguish one program's revenue from another program's revenue. 
However, the system did not provide enough detail such that title V 
costs could be accurately identified. The audit findings led to 
correction of existing accounting identifiers for costs and revenues 
and creation of new accounting identifiers. Each title V direct revenue 
and cost is now tagged with one of the following two activity codes: 
LSPC (Large Source Permit Compliance) and LSPR (Large Source Permit 
Engineering Review). These codes are now reflected in MCAQD's 
financial, personnel, and budgeting systems for all revenues and costs. 
MCAQD has also defined formulas to allocate title V indirect costs 
(e.g., administrative, ambient monitoring, planning, modeling) to the 
appropriate activity codes, thus allowing for a full accounting of its 
title V program costs.
    With this new accounting system, MCAQD has been able to submit to 
EPA a table of title V revenues and costs, listed by activity code and 
by general category of revenue/cost, for fiscal year 2006. MCAQD showed 
that, for fiscal year 2006, its total title V revenues were more than 
sufficient to fund total title V costs, thus confirming the results of 
MCAQD's fee demonstration that used EPA's presumptive minimum as a 
basis for comparison.
    With the improvements to its accounting system, MCAQD only 
partially addressed the issue of demonstrating that title V permit fees 
are used solely for title V program costs. MCAQD realized that it still 
needed to address the scenario of title V revenues exceeding title V 
costs. Currently, all title V revenues and costs \5\ are coded before 
being deposited into or withdrawn from the Air Quality Fee Fund. MCAQD 
has the ability to identify and total the revenues originating from the 
title V program and manually track costs against the title V revenue 
total. However, to facilitate tracking of title V revenues and costs, 
MCAQD plans to implement an automated method of tracking the title V 
portion of the Air Quality Fee Fund by setting up a reporting category 
code in the financial system, similar to the way its grant revenue and 
costs are tracked. This reporting code will, in effect, generate a 
``fund balance report'' on a regular basis to provide a year-to-date 
total of title V revenues, a year-to-date total of title V costs, and 
the net balance. It will also provide inception-to-date totals and net 
balance. This will allow MCAQD to know immediately, upon receipt of the 
report, the title V balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Costs such as salaries and benefits are charged to the 
organizational unit to which the employee belongs or supports. These 
determinations are made jointly by MCAQD's Financial Administrator, 
the applicable program manager, and the Planning and Analysis 
Division Manager. Costs such as supplies, services, and capital 
outlays are charged in the organizational unit that will use the 
purchased items/services to the extent possible. The program manager 
determines, with assistance from MCAQD's Finance Division, the 
appropriate organizational unit and activity code to which the costs 
should be charged. All expenditures require approval by a program 
manager and the Financial Administrator. On a monthly basis, program 
managers review revenue and costs charged to their organizational 
unit and corresponding activity codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Maricopa County's Department of Finance generates a fund 
balance report monthly for the existing funds with reporting codes 
(e.g., grant funds). The fund balance report is reviewed, reconciled, 
and certified for accuracy by MCAQD's Financial Administrator. A 
written response to Maricopa County's Department of Finance is required 
to certify/validate the information on the report. The procedure will 
not differ once the title V reporting code is set up in the financial 
system.
    With its accounting system improvements, MCAQD has demonstrated 
that it has the systematic ability to provide a detailed accounting of 
title V program costs separately from other program costs. In addition, 
the above new reporting code coupled with the existing review 
procedures will reinforce MCAQD's ability to show that title V funds 
are being used solely for title V program costs.
2. Revision of Maricopa County's Fee Rule
    Maricopa County's fee rule, Rule 280, prevented the permitting 
authority from issuing a final initial title V permit, permit revision, 
or renewal permit if the source did not pay the balance of fees due. 
Maricopa County's Rule 280 Sec.  301.1, at the time of NOD issuance, 
stated, ``The Control Officer shall not issue a permit or permit 
revision until the balance due on the itemized invoice is paid in 
full.'' Maricopa County encountered problems with implementation of 
this rule when several sources refused to pay the balance of permit 
fees due when they were dissatisfied with certain conditions in their 
permits. Existing sources retain the initial application shield granted 
upon their submittal of a complete application; thus, these sources 
claimed that they could continue to operate without an operating 
permit. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that Maricopa County 
did not enforce against those sources that refused to pay fees.
    The first step MCAQD took in correcting this deficiency was to 
implement a policy directive that required permit fee payment within 30 
days of the conclusion of the month in which a source was billed. While 
MCAQD worked on revising its Rule 280, it also created a policy 
document to provide a consistent process for collecting unpaid fees 
charged to owners, operators, applicants, and/or permittees of sources 
of air pollution subject to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control 
Regulations. The document serves as guidance for MCAQD personnel.
    MCAQD completed revisions to its Rule 280 in February 2006. It 
added the following language to the rule: ``The Control Officer may 
deny a permit, a permit revision, or a permit renewal in accordance 
with Rule 200 of these rules if the applicant does not pay fees 
required for billable permit actions within 90 days of the invoice 
date.'' MCAQD also removed the $40,000 maximum fee for processing Title 
V permit applications, thus enabling MCAQD to recover the full cost 
associated with issuing a Title V permit. The Maricopa County Board of 
Supervisors approved revisions to the rule on July 12, 2006, and the 
Notice of Final Rulemaking was published in the Arizona Administrative 
Register on

[[Page 67064]]

August 18, 2006. Though EPA did not include this step in the NOD as a 
correction to the deficiency, MCAQD also plans to formally submit the 
revised Rule 280 to EPA (through the State) as a revision to the title 
V program once all formal rulemaking documents are available (e.g., 
Board of Supervisor's certification, publication affidavits, Notice of 
Final Rulemaking).

B. Permit Processing

1. Implementation Guidance Document To Ensure That Title V Permits 
Assure Compliance With All Applicable Requirements
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a)(1)(iv), title V permits must assure 
compliance with all applicable requirements, including new source 
review (NSR) requirements. Maricopa County issues combined 
preconstruction/operating permits, with the intention of meeting both 
the NSR requirements in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 
part 70 requirements in its title V program. Maricopa County, at times, 
implemented its title V rule, Rule 210, without proper consideration of 
the requirements of its NSR SIP Rule 20, resulting in the submittal to 
EPA of title V permits that did not contain all applicable 
requirements.
    MCAQD has been working continuously over the past year, and 
communicating regularly with EPA, on an implementation guidance 
document. It has also given industry an opportunity to comment. MCAQD 
submitted a final implementation guidance document entitled ``Interim 
Guidance Document for Title V Permit Revisions'' in the NOD Response. 
The guidance document explains how title V sources and MCAQD will 
ensure that changes or modifications to an emissions unit or operation 
at a title V source will comply with both the preconstruction 
provisions in the NSR SIP and the permitting procedures in the current 
Rule 210. Before making changes subject to the NSR SIP, title V sources 
must obtain preconstruction approval from the County. By laying out 
procedures for determining the appropriate processing track for title V 
permit revisions and using flowcharts to step through the gatekeepers, 
the guidance document provides guidance not only for distinguishing 
between a significant revision and a minor revision under the title V 
program, but also for determining whether preconstruction approval is 
required pursuant to its SIP Rule 20. The guidance document also 
suggests that a title V source use an attached checklist to document 
how it proceeded through the flowcharts to reach a determination of the 
type of permit it would need.
    MCAQD plans to accomplish the following implementation steps by 
November 17, 2006: (1) Distribute a copy of the guidance document to 
all current title V permit holders; (2) Include the guidance document 
with all title V permit application forms provided to applicants; (3) 
Publish the guidance document with printed and on-line versions of Rule 
210, to be distributed by the County; and (4) Provide training to title 
V permit staff on the administration of this guidance.
    MCAQD plans to revise its rules when it makes the changes necessary 
for NSR Reform. MCAQD states that it must wait for the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality to make the changes to the State 
rules before it can proceed. The Interim Guidance Document will be 
effective only until the time MCAQD completes its NSR rulemaking to 
codify the principles spelled out in the guidance document.
2. Written Procedures on Processing of Permit Revisions
    EPA noted two deficiencies related to Maricopa County's processing 
of permit revisions: (a) Maricopa County did not take adequate steps to 
ensure that significant permit revisions were not incorrectly processed 
as minor permit revisions; and (b) Maricopa County typically did not 
issue a separate revised permit document or technical support document 
when processing its minor permit revisions. Instead, it signed the 
application for the minor permit revision and allowed it to serve as 
the final minor permit revision.
    MCAQD's implementation guidance document entitled ``Interim 
Guidance Document for Title V Permit Revisions,'' which was part of the 
NOD Response, provides a procedure for determining the appropriate 
processing track for title V permit revisions. One of MCAQD's 
objectives with this guidance document is to facilitate its own efforts 
to ensure that significant permit revisions are not incorrectly 
processed as minor revisions under the title V program. Regarding the 
deficiency involving minor permit revisions, MCAQD has changed its 
practices to ensure that a minor permit revision, and not just a signed 
application, is issued. Furthermore, MCAQD has implemented a new 
procedure which requires that all title V permit revisions be signed by 
the Permitting Division Manager and Department Director, unless MCAQD 
formalizes delegation of the authority to a management level official.
3. Adequate Administering of Fees To Provide Sufficient Staffing
    Section 502(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.4 
provide that a permitting authority must have adequate personnel to 
ensure that the permitting authority can carry out implementation of 
its title V program. In the NOD, EPA identified the deficiency that 
Maricopa County was not adequately staffing its title V program.
    MCAQD's strategy for hiring and retaining adequate staffing for 
successful implementation of its title V program included the following 
elements, not necessarily in this order: (1) Conduct a countywide 
market study to evaluate current job descriptions, career ladders, and 
salaries, for an ``environmental engineering specialist'' position; (2) 
implement salary increases based on the market study results; (3) 
perform a workload assessment to estimate the number of permitting 
staff needed; (4) recruit for the additional permitting staff 
positions; and (5) address career development (e.g., review job 
classifications, implement a formal training program for staff, provide 
mentorship to staff).
    Maricopa County has a history of high staff turnover within the 
Permit Engineering Division. As will be described in further detail 
below, EPA, in its title V program evaluation report, listed poor 
compensation as one of the contributing factors to low morale at 
Maricopa County. To address this issue, Maricopa County's general human 
resources department conducted a market study countywide to evaluate 
current job descriptions, career ladders, and salaries, for an 
``environmental engineering specialist.'' Based on the results of the 
study, salary increases were approved and became effective December 5, 
2005.
    MCAQD also analyzed its workload to determine the number of 
additional staffpersons it would need in the Permit Engineering 
Division. As part of the NOD Response, MCAQD submitted a title V-
specific workload assessment for fiscal year 2006 in which MCAQD 
estimated that it would need a total of eight title V engineers. MCAQD 
projected a need for three contract engineers to complete its backlog 
of work. On March 1, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved MCAQD's 
request for an additional four full-time employees (FTEs) for the title 
V group of the MCAQD Permit Engineering Division. In addition, the 
Board of Supervisors approved three contract engineering positions, 
each with a one-year contract, for title V work. If MCAQD is able to 
fill the four FTE

[[Page 67065]]

positions, the resulting total number of title V engineers will be 
eight, which is consistent with MCAQD's latest workload assessment. 
MCAQD is actively recruiting to fill the four open title V engineer 
positions, as well as the three contract engineer positions.
    EPA noted in its title V program evaluation report that poor 
compensation and lack of opportunity for career development contributed 
to low morale at Maricopa County.\6\ So as part of its strategy to 
retain existing staff, Maricopa County focused on these two main 
issues. As noted earlier, Maricopa County addressed the first issue of 
poor compensation through a market study and resulting salary 
increases. To address the second issue of career development, MCAQD has 
begun to develop or has already completed the following actions EPA 
recommended in the title V program evaluation report: a review of the 
job classifications that would apply to title V engineers, 
implementation of a training program for staff, creation of standard 
operating procedures (SOPs), and providing mentorship to staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Finding 7.6 of EPA's program evaluation report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding job classifications, MCAQD has streamlined the number of 
``environmental engineering specialist'' (EES) job classifications from 
three to two and changed the definition of each classification in an 
effort to clarify the criteria for salary increases and promotions. 
MCAQD has placed more of an emphasis on number of years of experience 
as well as having a professional engineering (P.E.) license. For 
example, MCAQD decided to eliminate the former EES Intern 
classification which required no experience; instead, the current 
first-level EES classification requires at least two years of 
experience, and the second-level EES classification requires a P.E. 
license. In addition, as evidenced by the implementation of salary 
increases on December 5, 2005, the range of salaries for each of the 
current EES classifications is higher than that for any of the former 
EES classifications. In fact, the range of salaries for the current 
second-level EES classification is even higher than that for the former 
EES Supervisor classification.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to MCAQD Human Resources, the average salary 
increase for the MCAQD Permit Engineering Division per employee 
ranged from 0.21% to 21%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MCAQD has a contingency plan in place until the open title V 
engineering positions can be filled. MCAQD's fee rule allows MCAQD to 
bill a source for the cost of obtaining consultants for expedited 
permit processing. Because MCAQD has an approved consultant list, the 
entire process from sending requests for proposals (RFP) to selecting a 
bidder takes only about 30 to 60 days, which is substantially faster 
than the standard RFP process. Since 2005, one permitting action has 
been completed by a consultant through this expedited process. 
Currently, there are three consulting firms under contract, each one 
working on a different permitting action. MCAQD estimates that the work 
performed by the consultants for these four projects (the one completed 
and the three still in progress) would be equivalent to the work 
performed by 3 FTEs. MCAQD plans to continue to use consultants as 
necessary.
    MCAQD submitted to EPA a strategy to hire and retain adequate staff 
to successfully implement its title V program. Included in the 
submittal was an updated workload assessment specific to title V tasks. 
MCAQD also described a contingency plan if it was unable to fill open 
title V engineering positions. MCAQD has followed through on 
implementation of its strategy and, though it has not completed all 
steps, we are confident that MCAQD will continue its efforts until it 
is able to fill all open title V positions.

III. EPA's Action

    EPA is notifying the public that, based on the information provided 
by MCAQD, internal operational changes within MCAQD, and a Maricopa 
County rule change, EPA has determined that Maricopa County has 
resolved each of the deficiencies identified by EPA in the NOD for 
Maricopa County's title V operating permits program, 70 FR 32243 (June 
2, 2005). Therefore, based on the rationale set forth above, EPA is not 
invoking sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) of the Act, nor 
administering any portion of the County's operating permits program, 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.10(b)(4).

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of today's action must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 19, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 9, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E6-19555 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P