Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Power Plants, 7069-7071 [2022-02462]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
days. Thus, written comments are now
due on or before February 21, 2022.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2022–02593 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0107; FRL–9426–01–
R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa
County; Power Plants
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department’s (MCAQD or
County) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter
(PM) from power plants. We are
proposing to approve a local rule 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.
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we
are making an interim final
determination to defer CAA sanctions
associated with our previous
disapproval action concerning the
County’s revision of this local rule.
DATES: must be received on or before
March 10, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2022–0107 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Feb 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
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. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3073 or by
email at gong.kevin@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 rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of Rule 322?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does Rule 322 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 rule did the State submit?
The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
submitted MCAQD Rule 322 ‘‘Power
Plant Operations’’ as amended on June
23, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on
June 24, 2021. On September 25, 2021,
the EPA determined that the submittal
for MCAQD Rule 322 met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved a previous version of
Rule 322 (locally revised on October 17,
2007) into the Arizona SIP on October
14, 2009 (74 FR 52693). The County
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
version on November 2, 2016, and
ADEQ submitted them to us on June 22,
2017. The EPA disapproved that
revision in a final rule published on July
20, 2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take final
action to approve the June 23, 2021
version of Rule 322, this version will
replace the previously approved version
of this rule in the SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7069
C. What is the purpose of Rule 322?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the
production of ground-level ozone, smog
and PM, which harm human health and
the environment. 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
NOX and PM emissions. Rule 322
regulates equipment at power plants
that emit these and other pollutants.
The EPA’s technical support document
(TSD) has more information about this
rule.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
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 require
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for each major source of NOX in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The MCAQD
regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa
ozone nonattainment area which is
classified as Moderate for the 2008 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (40 CFR 81.303). Maricopa
County’s ‘‘Analysis of Reasonably
Available Control Technology For The
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State
Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),’’
adopted December 5, 2016, submitted
June 22, 2017 (the ‘‘2016 RACT SIP’’),
found that there were major sources of
NOX within the Maricopa County
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone
nonattainment area subject to Rule 322.
Accordingly, this rule must establish
RACT levels of control for applicable
major sources of NOX.
The EPA’s previous rulemaking on
the 2017 version of Rule 322 found
several deficiencies that did not allow
for approval of that revision into the
Arizona SIP. These deficiencies
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
7070
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(described further in our 2019 TSD for
that rule) include the following:
a. Air Pollution Control Officer
discretion to approve alternative control
strategies as RACT without further
approval from the EPA.
b. NOX emission limits for steam
generating units used for electricity
generation that were less stringent than
RACT.
c. Overly broad exemptions from
certain requirements during emergency
fuel use operations.
d. Air Pollution Control Officer
discretion to extend compliance
deadlines for applicable units.
e. Absence of a compliance
determination requirement, such as a
regular stack testing requirement.
As a result of these deficiencies, the
EPA finalized disapproval of the 2017
revision to Rule 322, which initiated
offset sanctions to commence 18 months
after the effective date of that
rulemaking (August 19, 2020), highway
sanctions to commence 24 months after
the effective date, and a requirement to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to commence 24 months after
the effective date, under CAA sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a). If MCAQD revises
Rule 322 to resolve the identified
deficiencies and EPA approves the
revision into the Arizona SIP, these
sanctions and FIP clocks will be
stopped.
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. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised
January 11, 1990).
2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’
EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little
Bluebook).
3. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—NOX Emissions from Stationary
Gas Turbines,’’ EPA 453/R–93–007, January
1993.
4. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—NOX Emissions from Industrial,
Commercial & Institutional Boilers,’’ EPA
453/R–94–022, March 1994.
5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—NOX Emissions from Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,’’
EPA 453/R–93–032, July 1993.
6. ‘‘De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,’’
Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Group
Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group,
U.S. EPA, January 1, 1995.
7. ‘‘Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT),’’ Memorandum from D. Ken Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, US. EPA, March 16, 1994.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Feb 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
B. Does Rule 322 meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe that this revision to Rule
322 meets CAA requirements, and
addresses the deficiencies we identified
in our 2020 rulemaking. The MCAQD
corrected the first deficiency (discretion
for alternative control strategies without
EPA approval) by amending the
provisions allowing for this deviation
from the RACT requirements to include
the EPA’s approval of any such
alternatives into the SIP. The County
also clarified that the only equipment
currently seeking to use an alternative
control strategy were doing so under a
low use requirement restricting annual
operations to 10 percent of their annual
capacity, expressed as fuel input limits.
We have evaluated the analysis
supporting this approach and agree that
units operating under the low use
threshold would not find RACT to be
cost effective (see our TSD for further
discussion). Therefore, we find that this
revision resolves this deficiency.
The MCAQD corrected the second
deficiency by including in the rule new
NOX emission limits of 30 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) NOX for
gaseous fuel fired operations and 40
ppmv NOX for liquid fuel fired
operations at new units. Existing steam
generating boilers must limit NOX
emissions to 0.1 pounds per million
British thermal units per hour. We
believe these emission limits to
constitute RACT for this source
category, and we find that these
revisions resolve the deficiency.
The deficiency for emergency fuel
operations (unbounded length, and
ambiguity for testing operations) was
corrected by the MCAQD through two
revisions. The first is an annual limit of
168 hours for emergency fuel fired
operations. The second is a clarification
of the exemption for emergency fuel
testing operations to be limited only to
the period needed for testing. We find
that these revisions resolve the
deficiency for emergency fuel
operations in Rule 322.
The fourth deficiency (unbounded
discretion for extending compliance
deadlines) was resolved by removing
the discretion of the Control Officer to
extend the increments of progress, and
therefore the compliance schedule.
Operators of applicable non-compliant
equipment must now submit a permit
revision to the MCAQD within 18
months of becoming subject to the rule,
and be fully compliant within 36
months of issuance of the final permit.
We find that this revision resolves the
deficiency for compliance deadlines in
Rule 322.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The fifth deficiency, lack of
compliance determination requirements
for NOX emissions, was resolved by
specifying that performance tests must
be conducted annually. Units that are
equipped with continuous emission
monitoring systems are not required to
conduct performance tests, but must
maintain and and test the CEMS in
accordance with the applicable EPA
regulations in 40 CFR part 60 and 40
CFR part 75. We find that this revision
resolves the deficiency for compliance
determination requirements in Rule 322.
The revision is otherwise consistent
with relevant guidance regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted Rule 322 because
it fulfills all relevant requirements. We
will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until March 10, 2022.
If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will
incorporate this local rule into the
federally enforceable SIP and stop the
sanctions and FIP clocks that are
associated with our previous
disapproval of Rule 322.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed 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 MCAQD Rule
322, ‘‘Power Plant Operations’’ as
amended on June 23, 2021. 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 CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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);
• 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 CAA; 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Feb 07, 2022
Jkt 256001
Dated: February 1, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–02462 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075; FRL–9428–01–
R7]
Air Plan Approval; Kansas; 2015
Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of air quality in other
states. The State of Kansas made a
submission to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to
address these requirements for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing
to approve the submission for Kansas as
meeting the requirement that the SIP
contains adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 10, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2022–0075, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7071
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
electronically in www.regulations.gov.
To reduce the risk of COVID–19
transmission, for this action we do not
plan to offer hard copy review of the
docket. Please email or call the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to
the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air
Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219;
telephone number: (913) 551–7714;
email address: stone.william@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Kansas’s Submission
III. EPA Evaluation of Kansas’s Submission
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated
a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015
ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of
both the primary and secondary
standards to 0.070 parts per million
(ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable
1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in parts per billion (ppb). For example,
0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb.
2 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the applicable elements under section
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7069-7071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0107; FRL-9426-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Power Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's
(MCAQD or County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and particulate matter (PM) from power plants. We are
proposing to approve a local rule 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. Elsewhere in this
Federal Register, we are making an interim final determination to defer
CAA sanctions associated with our previous disapproval action
concerning the County's revision of this local rule.
DATES: must be received on or before March 10, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0107 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. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3073 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 rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of Rule 322?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does Rule 322 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 rule did the State submit?
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted
MCAQD Rule 322 ``Power Plant Operations'' as amended on June 23, 2021,
and submitted to the EPA on June 24, 2021. On September 25, 2021, the
EPA determined that the submittal for MCAQD Rule 322 met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved a previous version of Rule 322 (locally revised on
October 17, 2007) into the Arizona SIP on October 14, 2009 (74 FR
52693). The County adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on
November 2, 2016, and ADEQ submitted them to us on June 22, 2017. The
EPA disapproved that revision in a final rule published on July 20,
2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take final action to approve the June 23,
2021 version of Rule 322, this version will replace the previously
approved version of this rule in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of Rule 322?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment.
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 NOX and PM emissions. Rule 322
regulates equipment at power plants that emit these and other
pollutants. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more
information about this rule.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
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 require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each major source of NOX in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The MCAQD regulates a portion of the Phoenix-
Mesa ozone nonattainment area which is classified as Moderate for the
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (40 CFR
81.303). Maricopa County's ``Analysis of Reasonably Available Control
Technology For The 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),'' adopted
December 5, 2016, submitted June 22, 2017 (the ``2016 RACT SIP''),
found that there were major sources of NOX within the
Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area
subject to Rule 322. Accordingly, this rule must establish RACT levels
of control for applicable major sources of NOX.
The EPA's previous rulemaking on the 2017 version of Rule 322 found
several deficiencies that did not allow for approval of that revision
into the Arizona SIP. These deficiencies
[[Page 7070]]
(described further in our 2019 TSD for that rule) include the
following:
a. Air Pollution Control Officer discretion to approve alternative
control strategies as RACT without further approval from the EPA.
b. NOX emission limits for steam generating units used
for electricity generation that were less stringent than RACT.
c. Overly broad exemptions from certain requirements during
emergency fuel use operations.
d. Air Pollution Control Officer discretion to extend compliance
deadlines for applicable units.
e. Absence of a compliance determination requirement, such as a
regular stack testing requirement.
As a result of these deficiencies, the EPA finalized disapproval of
the 2017 revision to Rule 322, which initiated offset sanctions to
commence 18 months after the effective date of that rulemaking (August
19, 2020), highway sanctions to commence 24 months after the effective
date, and a requirement to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) to commence 24 months after the effective date, under CAA
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). If MCAQD revises Rule 322 to resolve the
identified deficiencies and EPA approves the revision into the Arizona
SIP, these sanctions and FIP clocks will be stopped.
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. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' EPA 453/R-93-007, January
1993.
4. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers,'' EPA
453/R-94-022, March 1994.
5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines,'' EPA 453/R-93-032, July 1993.
6. ``De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,'' Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group,
U.S. EPA, January 1, 1995.
7. ``Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT),'' Memorandum from D. Ken Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, US. EPA, March 16,
1994.
B. Does Rule 322 meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe that this revision to Rule 322 meets CAA requirements,
and addresses the deficiencies we identified in our 2020 rulemaking.
The MCAQD corrected the first deficiency (discretion for alternative
control strategies without EPA approval) by amending the provisions
allowing for this deviation from the RACT requirements to include the
EPA's approval of any such alternatives into the SIP. The County also
clarified that the only equipment currently seeking to use an
alternative control strategy were doing so under a low use requirement
restricting annual operations to 10 percent of their annual capacity,
expressed as fuel input limits. We have evaluated the analysis
supporting this approach and agree that units operating under the low
use threshold would not find RACT to be cost effective (see our TSD for
further discussion). Therefore, we find that this revision resolves
this deficiency.
The MCAQD corrected the second deficiency by including in the rule
new NOX emission limits of 30 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) NOX for gaseous fuel fired operations and 40 ppmv
NOX for liquid fuel fired operations at new units. Existing
steam generating boilers must limit NOX emissions to 0.1
pounds per million British thermal units per hour. We believe these
emission limits to constitute RACT for this source category, and we
find that these revisions resolve the deficiency.
The deficiency for emergency fuel operations (unbounded length, and
ambiguity for testing operations) was corrected by the MCAQD through
two revisions. The first is an annual limit of 168 hours for emergency
fuel fired operations. The second is a clarification of the exemption
for emergency fuel testing operations to be limited only to the period
needed for testing. We find that these revisions resolve the deficiency
for emergency fuel operations in Rule 322.
The fourth deficiency (unbounded discretion for extending
compliance deadlines) was resolved by removing the discretion of the
Control Officer to extend the increments of progress, and therefore the
compliance schedule. Operators of applicable non-compliant equipment
must now submit a permit revision to the MCAQD within 18 months of
becoming subject to the rule, and be fully compliant within 36 months
of issuance of the final permit. We find that this revision resolves
the deficiency for compliance deadlines in Rule 322.
The fifth deficiency, lack of compliance determination requirements
for NOX emissions, was resolved by specifying that
performance tests must be conducted annually. Units that are equipped
with continuous emission monitoring systems are not required to conduct
performance tests, but must maintain and and test the CEMS in
accordance with the applicable EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 60 and 40
CFR part 75. We find that this revision resolves the deficiency for
compliance determination requirements in Rule 322.
The revision is otherwise consistent with relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted Rule 322 because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until March 10, 2022. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rule, our final action will incorporate this local rule into the
federally enforceable SIP and stop the sanctions and FIP clocks that
are associated with our previous disapproval of Rule 322.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed 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 MCAQD Rule 322, ``Power Plant Operations'' as
amended on June 23, 2021. 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 CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by
[[Page 7071]]
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);
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 CAA; 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
Dated: February 1, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-02462 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P