Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 47211-47213 [2019-19308]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0497; FRL–9999–35–
Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa
County Air Quality Department
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and particulate
matter (PM) from brick and structural
clay products manufacturing, rubber
sports ball manufacturing, and vegetable
oil extraction processes. We are
proposing approval of the rescission of
local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
October 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
SUMMARY:
OAR–2019–0497 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
47211
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3286 or by
email at schwartz.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the County rescind?
B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved
rules?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request
for rescission?
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the
evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the County rescind?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they
were most recently adopted by MCAQD
and approved by the EPA. MCAQD
rescinded these rules on December 13,
2017, from the local rulebook, and
forwarded the rescissions to the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for adoption and submittal to
the EPA for approval. On December 18,
2017, ADEQ adopted the rule
rescissions and submitted them to the
EPA for approval.
TABLE 1—MCAQD RULES FOR WHICH RESCISSION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Local
agency
Rule No.
MCAQD ..................................
MCAQD ..................................
MCAQD ..................................
325
334
339
On June 18, 2018, the submittal of the
rescission of MCAQD Rules 325, 334,
and 339 was deemed by operation of
law to meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What is the purpose of the SIPapproved rules?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to
ground-level ozone, smog and PM,
which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit regulations that
control VOC emissions. Rule 334 and
Rule 339 were adopted to meet
reasonably available control measures
(RACM)/reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements as a
result of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA), and they address
specific, single sources in each rule that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
Adopted/
revised
Rule title
Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing ...
Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing ..........................................
Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes .......................................
were emitting ≥100 tons of VOC/year.
The purpose of Rule 334 is to limit VOC
emissions from natural and synthetic
rubber adhesives used in the
manufacture of non-inflatable rubber
balls. The source, Penn Racquet Sports,
ceased rubber sports ball manufacturing
operations in Maricopa County in 2009,
and MCAQD closed Penn Racquet
Sports’ permit in 2009. The purpose of
Rule 339 is to limit VOC emissions
during the extraction of vegetable oil
using solvents. MCAQD closed Western
Cotton Services’ permit (operated by
Anderson Clayton Corp.) in 1999.
MCAQD does not anticipate any new
sources that would be subject to Rule
334 or Rule 339 to establish operations
in Maricopa County. The EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about these rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
08/10/2005
06/19/1996
11/16/1992
SIP approval
date
08/21/2007
02/09/1998
02/09/1998
Emissions of PM, including PM equal
to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter
(PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10), contribute
to effects that are harmful to human
health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation
and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the
CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control PM emissions.
Rule 325 was adopted to meet the best
available control measures (BACM)/
most stringent measures (MSM)
requirements for all significant sources
of PM10 for the Phoenix planning area
of Maricopa County, classified as
Serious nonattainment in 1996 for the
annual and 24-hour PM10 national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47212
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The purpose of Rule 325 is to limit
particulate matter emissions from the
use of tunnel kilns for curing in brick
and structural clay products (BSCP)
manufacturing processes. The source,
Phoenix Brick Yard, ceased
manufacturing operations in Maricopa
County in 2012 and its air quality
permit from MCAQD was closed in
2012. MCAQD does not anticipate any
new sources that would be subject to
Rule 325 to establish operations in
Maricopa County. The EPA’s TSD has
more information about this rule.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part
of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from
the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To
approve such a revision, the EPA must
determine whether the revision meets
relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if
any, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA
section 110(l), and the General Savings
Clause in CAA section 193 for SIPapproved control requirements in effect
before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must
require RACT for each category of
sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document
as well as each major source of VOCs in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The MCAQD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area classified as
Moderate for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS
(40 CFR 81.303).1
Additionally, SIP rules must
implement BACM, including Best
Available Control Technology (BACT),
in Serious PM10 nonattainment areas
(see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The
MCAQD regulates a PM10 nonattainment
area classified as Serious for the PM10
NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
Plan Revisions: States must
demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA
under the provisions of CAA section
110(l). Therefore, consistent with CAA
section 110(l) requirements, MCAQD
must demonstrate that the rescission of
Rules 325, 334, and 339 would not
interfere with attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP) of the NAAQS or
any other applicable CAA requirement.
1 The Phoenix-Mesa area, which includes the
northern two-thirds of Maricopa County and small
portions of Pinal County, is classified as Moderate
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.303.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
General Savings Clause: CAA section
193 prohibits the modification of any
control requirement in effect, or
required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement or plan in effect
before November 15, 1990, in areas
designated as nonattainment for an air
pollutant unless the modification
ensures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of the relevant pollutant.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
VOCs.5 MCAQD also documented6 7 8
that these three rescissions will not
result in any changes to allowable or
actual emissions from existing sources
of ozone precursors or particulate
matter, and will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa
area. We agree with MCAQD that no
such changes or interference would
result from the subject rule rescissions.
Lastly, we note that Rules 325, 334, and
339 were SIP-approved post-1990;
therefore, CAA section 193 does not
apply to this action.
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised
January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’
EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little
Bluebook).
4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious
PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and
Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum
to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA
452/R–93–008, April 1993.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the
evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that MCAQD
Rules 325, 334, and 339 are appropriate
for rescission, given that the sources for
which the rules were originally
developed have shut down and no
longer perform manufacturing
operations in the Phoenix-Mesa area, as
evidenced by the surrender of their
operating permits.2 3 4 In addition, we
find no other sources subject to these
rules in Maricopa County, as evidenced
by our review of the Maricopa County
emissions inventories for PM10 and
2 Letter
dated April 7, 2016, from Richard
Sumner, Manager, MCAQD Permitting Division, to
Clinton-Campbell Contractor, Inc., Owner, Phoenix
Brick Yard, ‘‘Your air quality permit #090298 was
permanently relinquished on August 13, 2012 and
has been closed.’’
3 MCAQD Permit Closeout Form, dated August 4,
2009, for Head Penn Racquet Sports permit
#V95001, signed by Douglas L. Erwin, Manager,
Permit Division, MCAQD.
4 Email dated June 20, 2019, from Richard
Sumner, Manager, MCAQD Permitting Division, to
Lisa Beckham, U.S. EPA Region IX, with
attachments detailing closeout of Western Cotton
Services permit (operated by Anderson Clayton
Corp.) on March 4, 1999.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to approve
the rescission of MCAQD Rules 325
(Brick and Structural Clay Products
(BSCP) Manufacturing), 334 (Rubber
Sports Ball Manufacturing) and 339
(Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes)
from the Maricopa County portion of the
Arizona SIP because they are no longer
necessary to meet any CAA requirement
and because rescission would not
interfere with reasonable further
progress or attainment of any of the
NAAQS. We will accept comments from
the public on this proposal until
October 9, 2019. If we take final action
to approve the rule rescissions, our final
action will remove these rules from the
federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
5 The EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI), facility-level emissions.
6 MCAQD, ‘‘Revision to Arizona’s State
Implementation Plan, Rescission of Rule 325 from
the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations,’’ December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5–6.
7 MCAQD, ‘‘Revision to Arizona’s State
Implementation Plan, Rescission of Rule 334 from
the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations,’’ December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5–6.
8 MCAQD, ‘‘Revision to Arizona’s State
Implementation Plan, Rescission of Rule 339 from
the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations,’’ December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5–6.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to 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. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019–19308 Filed 9–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0710; FRL–9999–44Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; GA; Nonattainment
New Source Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision provided by the State of
Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD) of the Department of Natural
Resources, via a letter dated July 2,
2018. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve changes to Georgia’s
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) permitting rules. This action is
being proposed pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and its
implementing regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. at EPA–
R04–OAR–2018–0710 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47213
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
The telephone number is (404) 562–
9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached
via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The New Source Review (NSR)
program is a preconstruction permitting
program that requires certain stationary
sources of air pollution to obtain
permits prior to beginning construction.
The NSR permitting program applies to
new construction and to modifications
of existing sources. New construction
and modifications that emit ‘‘regulated
NSR pollutants’’ over certain thresholds
are subject to major NSR requirements,
while smaller emitting sources and
modifications may be subject to minor
NSR requirements.
Major NSR permits for sources that
are located in attainment or
unclassifiable areas are referred to as
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permits. Major NSR permits for
sources located in nonattainment areas
and that emit pollutants above the
specified thresholds for which the area
is in nonattainment are referred to as
NNSR permits.
A new stationary source is subject to
major NSR requirements if its potential
to emit (PTE) a regulated NSR pollutant
exceeds certain emission thresholds. If
it exceeds the applicable threshold, the
NSR regulations define it as a ‘‘major
stationary source.’’ An existing major
stationary source triggers major NSR
permitting requirements when it
undergoes a ‘‘major modification,’’
which occurs when a source undertakes
a physical change or change in method
of operation (i.e., a ‘‘project’’) that
would result in (1) a significant
emissions increase from the project, and
(2) a significant net emissions increase
from the source. See, e.g., 40 CFR
52.21(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(52).
Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.03(8)—Permit
Requirements contains the State’s NNSR
permitting requirements and identifies
the counties subject to those
requirements.
Effective January 6, 1992, EPA
designated 13 counties surrounding
Atlanta, Georgia, as nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and classified
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47211-47213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19308]
[[Page 47211]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0497; FRL-9999-35-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate
matter (PM) from brick and structural clay products manufacturing,
rubber sports ball manufacturing, and vegetable oil extraction
processes. We are proposing approval of the rescission of local rules
that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0497 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the County rescind?
B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the County rescind?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were most recently adopted by MCAQD and approved by the EPA.
MCAQD rescinded these rules on December 13, 2017, from the local
rulebook, and forwarded the rescissions to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for adoption and submittal to the EPA for
approval. On December 18, 2017, ADEQ adopted the rule rescissions and
submitted them to the EPA for approval.
Table 1--MCAQD Rules for Which Rescission Has Been Submitted for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted/ SIP approval
Local agency Rule No. Rule title revised date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD................................. 325 Brick and Structural 08/10/2005 08/21/2007
Clay Products (BSCP)
Manufacturing.
MCAQD................................. 334 Rubber Sports Ball 06/19/1996 02/09/1998
Manufacturing.
MCAQD................................. 339 Vegetable Oil Extraction 11/16/1992 02/09/1998
Processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2018, the submittal of the rescission of MCAQD Rules
325, 334, and 339 was deemed by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, smog and PM,
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule
334 and Rule 339 were adopted to meet reasonably available control
measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA),
and they address specific, single sources in each rule that were
emitting >=100 tons of VOC/year. The purpose of Rule 334 is to limit
VOC emissions from natural and synthetic rubber adhesives used in the
manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls. The source, Penn Racquet
Sports, ceased rubber sports ball manufacturing operations in Maricopa
County in 2009, and MCAQD closed Penn Racquet Sports' permit in 2009.
The purpose of Rule 339 is to limit VOC emissions during the extraction
of vegetable oil using solvents. MCAQD closed Western Cotton Services'
permit (operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) in 1999. MCAQD does not
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 334 or Rule
339 to establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's technical
support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.
Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control PM emissions. Rule 325 was adopted to meet the
best available control measures (BACM)/most stringent measures (MSM)
requirements for all significant sources of PM10 for the
Phoenix planning area of Maricopa County, classified as Serious
nonattainment in 1996 for the annual and 24-hour PM10
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
[[Page 47212]]
The purpose of Rule 325 is to limit particulate matter emissions from
the use of tunnel kilns for curing in brick and structural clay
products (BSCP) manufacturing processes. The source, Phoenix Brick
Yard, ceased manufacturing operations in Maricopa County in 2012 and
its air quality permit from MCAQD was closed in 2012. MCAQD does not
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 325 to
establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's TSD has more
information about this rule.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant
CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements
in effect before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
MCAQD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Moderate for
the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Phoenix-Mesa area, which includes the northern two-
thirds of Maricopa County and small portions of Pinal County, is
classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, SIP rules must implement BACM, including Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), in Serious PM10
nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The MCAQD regulates
a PM10 nonattainment area classified as Serious for the
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section
110(l). Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) requirements,
MCAQD must demonstrate that the rescission of Rules 325, 334, and 339
would not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP) of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification
of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an
order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990,
in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the
modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the
relevant pollutant.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that MCAQD Rules 325, 334, and 339 are
appropriate for rescission, given that the sources for which the rules
were originally developed have shut down and no longer perform
manufacturing operations in the Phoenix-Mesa area, as evidenced by the
surrender of their operating permits.2 3 4 In addition, we
find no other sources subject to these rules in Maricopa County, as
evidenced by our review of the Maricopa County emissions inventories
for PM10 and VOCs.\5\ MCAQD also documented6 7 8
that these three rescissions will not result in any changes to
allowable or actual emissions from existing sources of ozone precursors
or particulate matter, and will not interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of the applicable NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area. We agree
with MCAQD that no such changes or interference would result from the
subject rule rescissions. Lastly, we note that Rules 325, 334, and 339
were SIP-approved post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193 does not apply
to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter dated April 7, 2016, from Richard Sumner, Manager,
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Clinton-Campbell Contractor, Inc.,
Owner, Phoenix Brick Yard, ``Your air quality permit #090298 was
permanently relinquished on August 13, 2012 and has been closed.''
\3\ MCAQD Permit Closeout Form, dated August 4, 2009, for Head
Penn Racquet Sports permit #V95001, signed by Douglas L. Erwin,
Manager, Permit Division, MCAQD.
\4\ Email dated June 20, 2019, from Richard Sumner, Manager,
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Lisa Beckham, U.S. EPA Region IX, with
attachments detailing closeout of Western Cotton Services permit
(operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) on March 4, 1999.
\5\ The EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), facility-
level emissions.
\6\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 325 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
\7\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 334 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
\8\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan,
Rescission of Rule 339 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c),
2.2(d), p.5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve the rescission of MCAQD Rules 325 (Brick and Structural Clay
Products (BSCP) Manufacturing), 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing)
and 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes) from the Maricopa County
portion of the Arizona SIP because they are no longer necessary to meet
any CAA requirement and because rescission would not interfere with
reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 9, 2019.
If we take final action to approve the rule rescissions, our final
action will remove these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements
[[Page 47213]]
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to 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. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-19308 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P