Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 25379-25381 [2020-08667]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2020. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DATES: 40 CFR Part 52 ADDRESSES: [EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0633; FRL–10008– 01—Region 9] Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality 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) and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of particulate matter (PM) from nonmetallic mineral processing, inactive mineral tailings and slag storage. We are proposing to approve local rules to 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. SUMMARY: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2019–0633 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 25379 making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947–4125 or by email at vineyard.christine@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 State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision? II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES Local agency MCAQD PDEQ Rule title 316 .......................................... Pima County Code (PCC) Section 17.16.125. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing .............................................. Inactive Mineral Tailings Impoundment and Slag Storage Area within the Ajo PM10 Planning Area. On October 22, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for PCC Section 17.16.125 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On May 19, 2019, the submittal for MCAQD Rule 316 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 1 Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section 17.16.125 on January 22, 2019 with an effective date of February 21, 2019. 2 ADEQ submitted PCC Section 17.16.125 as part of a larger SIP revision submittal titled ‘‘SIP Revision: Ajo PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (May 3, 2019)’’ (herein referred to as the ‘‘Ajo PM10 SIP’’). More specifically, appendix C of the Ajo PM10 SIP includes PCC Section 17.16.125 and the related adoption materials. ADEQ submitted the Ajo PM10 SIP electronically on May 10, 2019 under cover of a transmittal letter dated May 8, 2019. Herein, EPA proposes action on the PCC Section 17.16.125 portion of the Ajo PM10 SIP. The EPA will be taking action on the rest of the Ajo PM10 Plan in a separate action. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Adopted/ revised Rule # 08:06 May 01, 2020 Jkt 250001 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these rules? There is no previous version of PCC Section 17.16.125 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of MCAQD Rule 316 into the SIP on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58553). The MCAQD adopted a revision to the SIPapproved version on November 7, 2018, and ADEQ submitted it to us on November 19, 2019. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision? 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Submitted 11/07/18 11/19/18 1 01/22/19 2 05/10/19 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. MCAQD Rule 316 controls emissions of PM from commercial and/or industrial nonmetallic mineral processing plants and related operations. MCAQD adopted amendments to Rule 316 in 2018 to clarify the requirements and applicability of the rule and to improve the overall effectiveness of the rule. The Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section 17.16.125 to provide permanence and enforceability for control measures that have already been implemented in the Ajo PM10 nonattainment area. Under PCC Section 17.16.125, the owner or operator of the mineral tailings impoundment and slag storage area in the Ajo PM10 planning area is required to implement and E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 25380 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules maintain PM10 control measures to meet visible emissions and stabilization requirements to ensure continued PM emissions reductions. The EPA’s technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules. II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). Generally, SIP rules must implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT), in Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) and Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in Serious PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The PDEQ regulates two PM10 nonattainment areas classified as Moderate for the PM10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.303), one of which is the Ajo PM10 planning area. A RACM and RACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader attainment plan. The MCAQD regulates the Maricopa County portion of a PM10 nonattainment area (i.e., the Phoenix planning area) classified as Serious for the PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303). A BACM and BACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader attainment plan. 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 08:06 May 01, 2020 Jkt 250001 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. 6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004, September 1992. B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACM or BACM, and SIP revisions. More specifically, with respect to MCAQD Rule 316, we previously determined that the rule implemented BACM for nonmetallic mineral processing within the Phoenix planning area, and we find that the 2018 amendments to the rule relax no control requirements and generally clarify and enhance the effectiveness of the rule. With respect to PCC Section 17.16.125, we find that the rule provides a means to ensure the permanence and enforceability of the fugitive dust controls that have already been implemented in the Ajo PM10 planning area and that have brought the area into attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Proposed Action Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve MCAQD Rule 316,3 as submitted on November 19, 2018, and PCC Section 17.16.125, as submitted on May 10, 2019, because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until June 1, 2020. If we take final action to approve the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference PCC Section 17.16.125 and MCAQD Rule 316 described in Table 1 of this 3 Final approval of MCAQD Rule 316, as submitted on November 19, 2018, would replace the version of MCAQD Rule 316 that was approved by the EPA at 74 FR 58553 (November 13, 2009) in the Maricopa County portion of the applicable SIP for the State of Arizona. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https:// www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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 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 E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 85 / Friday, May 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules • 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 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 17, 2020. John Busterud, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2020–08667 Filed 4–30–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0069; FRL–10008– 02–Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Air Quality Control, VOC Definition Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division on October 18, 2019. This revision modifies the State’s air quality regulations as incorporated into the SIP by changing the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ (VOC) to be consistent with federal regulations. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision because the State has demonstrated that these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2020. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2020–0069 at SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 08:06 May 01, 2020 Jkt 250001 25381 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 making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, 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– 8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at larocca.sarah@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: different levels of reactivity; they do not react at the same speed or form ozone to the same extent. The CAA requires the regulation of VOC for various purposes. Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to define the meaning of ‘‘VOC’’ under the Act and, hence, what compounds shall be treated as VOC for regulatory purposes. EPA determines whether a given carbon compound has ‘‘negligible’’ reactivity by comparing the compound’s reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. It is EPA’s policy that compounds of carbon with negligible reactivity be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC. See 42 FR 35314 (July 8, 1977), 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005). EPA lists these compounds in its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called ‘‘negligibly reactive.’’ EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add or delete compounds. Georgia submitted this SIP revision in response to EPA adding cis1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene to the exclusion list at 40 CFR 51.100(s). See 83 FR 61127 (January 28, 2019). EPA proposes to find that this change to the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standard, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, consistent with CAA section 110(l), because EPA has found this chemical to be negligibly reactive. I. Background EPA is proposing to approve the change to the Georgia SIP submitted by the State of Georgia through a letter dated October 18, 2019 1 that revises the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ at subparagraph (llll) of Rule 391–3–1–.01—‘‘Definitions’’ by adding cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2ene (HFO–1336mzz-Z) to the list of organic compounds having negligible photochemical reactivity.2 III. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Georgia Rule 391–3–1–.01— ‘‘Definitions,’’ Subparagraph (llll)— ‘‘Volatile organic compound,’’ stateeffective September 26, 2019, to revise this definition by adding cis-1,1,1,4,4,4hexafluorobut-2-ene (HFO–1336mzz-Z) to the list of organic compounds having negligible photochemical reactivity. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). II. Analysis of State Submission Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments implement rules to limit the amount of certain VOC and NOX that can be released into the atmosphere. VOC have 1 EPA received Georgia’s SIP revision on October 24, 2019. 2 On October 18, 2019, Georgia submitted other SIP revisions which will be addressed in separate actions. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 IV. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s October 18, 2019 SIP submission that revises the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ at Rule 391–3–1– E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25379-25381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08667]



[[Page 25379]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0633; FRL-10008-01--Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality 
Department and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality

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) 
and Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) portion of 
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
emissions of particulate matter (PM) from nonmetallic mineral 
processing, inactive mineral tailings and slag storage. We are 
proposing to approve local rules to 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: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0633 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: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4125 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 State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Adopted/
       Local agency                 Rule #                   Rule title               revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD                      316....................  Nonmetallic Mineral                 11/07/18        11/19/18
                                                     Processing.
PDEQ                       Pima County Code (PCC)   Inactive Mineral Tailings       \1\ 01/22/19    \2\ 05/10/19
                            Section 17.16.125.       Impoundment and Slag
                                                     Storage Area within the Ajo
                                                     PM10 Planning Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for PCC 
Section 17.16.125 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section 
17.16.125 on January 22, 2019 with an effective date of February 21, 
2019.
    \2\ ADEQ submitted PCC Section 17.16.125 as part of a larger SIP 
revision submittal titled ``SIP Revision: Ajo PM10 
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (May 3, 2019)'' (herein 
referred to as the ``Ajo PM10 SIP''). More specifically, 
appendix C of the Ajo PM10 SIP includes PCC Section 
17.16.125 and the related adoption materials. ADEQ submitted the Ajo 
PM10 SIP electronically on May 10, 2019 under cover of a 
transmittal letter dated May 8, 2019. Herein, EPA proposes action on 
the PCC Section 17.16.125 portion of the Ajo PM10 SIP. 
The EPA will be taking action on the rest of the Ajo PM10 
Plan in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2019, the submittal for MCAQD Rule 316 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. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is no previous version of PCC Section 17.16.125 in the SIP.
    We approved an earlier version of MCAQD Rule 316 into the SIP on 
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58553). The MCAQD adopted a revision to the 
SIP-approved version on November 7, 2018, and ADEQ submitted it to us 
on November 19, 2019.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    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. MCAQD Rule 316 controls 
emissions of PM from commercial and/or industrial nonmetallic mineral 
processing plants and related operations. MCAQD adopted amendments to 
Rule 316 in 2018 to clarify the requirements and applicability of the 
rule and to improve the overall effectiveness of the rule. The Pima 
County Board of Supervisors adopted PCC Section 17.16.125 to provide 
permanence and enforceability for control measures that have already 
been implemented in the Ajo PM10 nonattainment area. Under 
PCC Section 17.16.125, the owner or operator of the mineral tailings 
impoundment and slag storage area in the Ajo PM10 planning 
area is required to implement and

[[Page 25380]]

maintain PM10 control measures to meet visible emissions and 
stabilization requirements to ensure continued PM emissions reductions. 
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information 
about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA 
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements 
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions 
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must implement reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology 
(RACT), in Moderate PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA 
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)) and Best Available Control 
Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in 
Serious PM10 nonattainment areas (see CAA section 
189(b)(1)(B)). The PDEQ regulates two PM10 nonattainment 
areas classified as Moderate for the PM10 national ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.303), one of which is the Ajo 
PM10 planning area. A RACM and RACT evaluation is generally 
performed in context of a broader attainment plan. The MCAQD regulates 
the Maricopa County portion of a PM10 nonattainment area 
(i.e., the Phoenix planning area) classified as Serious for the 
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303). A BACM and BACT evaluation is 
generally performed in context of a broader attainment plan.
    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.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information 
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004, 
September 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM or BACM, and SIP revisions. 
More specifically, with respect to MCAQD Rule 316, we previously 
determined that the rule implemented BACM for nonmetallic mineral 
processing within the Phoenix planning area, and we find that the 2018 
amendments to the rule relax no control requirements and generally 
clarify and enhance the effectiveness of the rule. With respect to PCC 
Section 17.16.125, we find that the rule provides a means to ensure the 
permanence and enforceability of the fugitive dust controls that have 
already been implemented in the Ajo PM10 planning area and 
that have brought the area into attainment of the PM10 
NAAQS. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 
approve MCAQD Rule 316,\3\ as submitted on November 19, 2018, and PCC 
Section 17.16.125, as submitted on May 10, 2019, because they fulfill 
all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on 
this proposal until June 1, 2020. If we take final action to approve 
the submitted rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into 
the federally enforceable SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Final approval of MCAQD Rule 316, as submitted on November 
19, 2018, would replace the version of MCAQD Rule 316 that was 
approved by the EPA at 74 FR 58553 (November 13, 2009) in the 
Maricopa County portion of the applicable SIP for the State of 
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference PCC Section 17.16.125 and MCAQD Rule 316 described in Table 1 
of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 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

[[Page 25381]]

     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 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-08667 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.