Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 7784-7786 [2022-02570]
Download as PDF
7784
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / 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,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 3, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–02772 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0748; FRL–9217–01–
R9]
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 a
revision to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD or
County) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). We are
proposing action on rescissions of local
rules that regulate these pollutants
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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2021–0748 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
SUMMARY:
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.
La
Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3245 or by
email at evans.lakenya@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What is the County rescinding?
B. What is the purpose of the rules and
what is the impact of the EPA’s
rescission?
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. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What is the County rescinding?
On September 13, 2017, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA a request
from MCAQD to act on a series of rules
from the SIP, including the rescission of
various local rules. Table 1 lists the
portion of the SIP approved rules from
MCAQD’s 2017 rescission request that
the EPA is proposing to act on in this
notice. The table includes the dates that
the rules were adopted by the MCAQD
and the dates they were approved into
the SIP by the EPA.
TABLE 1—SIP APPROVED RULES
Rule No.
Title
Local adopted date
SIP approved date
27 .......................................
32 A ....................................
Performance Tests ...........................................
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (General prohibitions).
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Treatment or
processing of animal or vegetable matter).
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Storage requirements).
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Stack, vent,
or other outlet).
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Hydrogen
sulfide).
Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Relating to
sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid).
Organic Solvents-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).
Dry Cleaning ....................................................
June 23, 1980 ...........
August 12, 1971 ........
April 12, 1982 ............
July 27, 1972 .............
47 FR 15579.
37 FR 15080.
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080.
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080.
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080.
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080.
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080.
June 23, 1980 ...........
May 5, 1982 ..............
47 FR 19326.
June 23, 1980 ...........
May 5, 1982 ..............
47 FR 19326.
32 B ....................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
32 C ....................................
32 D ....................................
32 E ....................................
32 F ....................................
34 A ....................................
34 D.1 .................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Feb 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM
10FEP1
FR citation
7785
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SIP APPROVED RULES—Continued
Rule No.
Title
Local adopted date
SIP approved date
34 E.1 .................................
Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating Operations (General Requirements).
Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating Operations (Architectural Coating).
Cutback Asphalt ...............................................
Operation .........................................................
Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt ......................
June 23, 1980 ...........
May 5, 1982 ..............
47 FR 19326.
June 23, 1980 ...........
May 5, 1982 ..............
47 FR 19326.
June 23, 1980 ...........
August 12, 1971 ........
September 13, 1988 ..
May 5, 1982 ..............
July 27, 1972 .............
February 1, 1996 .......
47 FR 19326.
37 FR 15080.
61 FR 3578.
34 E.3 .................................
34 L ....................................
81 .......................................
340 .....................................
On March 13, 2018, the submittal for
MCAQD’s rescission request 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. The SIP-approved
sections from Rules 32 and 34 not
described in Table 1, along with other
rules in this submittal, will be
addressed in a separate rulemaking.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. What is the purpose of the rules and
what is the impact of the EPA’s
rescission?
MCAQD has revised many of its rules
to comply with the CAA national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
requirement to implement reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
various source categories in
nonattainment areas. These rules,
including Rules 27, 32, 34, 81, and 340,
were submitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the Arizona SIP at
various times. In 2016, the EPA
reformatted the Arizona SIP as codified
in the Code of Federal Regulations into
a tabulated ‘‘notebook’’ format. While
developing the updated SIP tables for
that conversion, the EPA worked closely
with the ADEQ and local air agencies to
clarify what was in their applicable SIP,
including older provisions that had not
been updated or replaced to reflect local
rulemakings. The result of that
coordination was the MCAQD’s
September 13, 2017 request to rescind
or replace many obsolete rules in their
federally enforceable SIP in favor of
rules that reflect their current locally
enforceable rulebook. What follows is a
summary of the rules that we are
proposing for rescission.
Rule 27 states the need for
performance testing within 60, but no
later than 180, days after the initial
start-up of sources or facilities.
Rule 32.A prohibits emitting gaseous
or odorous emissions in such quantities
as to cause air pollution. Rule 32.B
covers treatment or processing of animal
or vegetable matter and prohibits such
operations unless all effluents from such
operations have been incinerated under
certain specified conditions. Rule 32.B
also requires the use of control devices
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Feb 09, 2022
Jkt 256001
as necessary to prevent air pollution.
Rule 32.C requires reasonable measures
and installation of control devices to
reduce emissions from evaporation,
leakage or discharge from the
processing, storage, use and transport of
materials such as solvents, paints, acids,
fertilizers and manure. Rule 32.D relates
to nuisance effects from emissions on
adjoining properties and authorizes the
Control Officer to require abatement
equipment or alterations to the stack to
reduce nuisance impacts. Rule 32.E
establishes a property line concentration
standard for hydrogen sulfide. Rule 32.F
establishes ambient air standards for
any sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid
ground level concentrations beyond the
premises of a facility. Rule 32.F was
superseded by Rule 510 (86 FR 54628,
October 04, 2021). The remainder of
Rule 32 (sections G, H, J, and K) are not
addressed in this rulemaking.
Rule 34.A defines the term volatile
organic compound. Rule 34.D.1
describes the operating requirements for
dry cleaning equipment using
chlorinated synthetic solvents. Rule
34.E.1 describes the requirements for
containing overspray from surface
coating operations. Rule 34.E.3 defines
architectural coating. Rule 34.L limits
the application of cutback asphalt or an
emulsified asphalt containing petroleum
solvents. In addition, the rule limits the
VOC content of the emulsified asphalts
and dust palliatives to no more than
three percent (3%) by volume of VOC.
Rule 34.L was superseded by Rule 340.
The remainder of Rule 34 (sections B, C,
D.2, E, E.2, E.4, F, G, H, I, J, and K) are
not addressed in this rulemaking.
Rule 81 states that no other provision
of the County’s rulebook shall in any
manner be constructed as authorizing or
permitting the creation or maintenance
of a nuisance.
Rule 340 regulates cutback and
emulsified asphalt and replaced Rule
34.L in 1988 after the MCAQD revised
and renumbered all of their local rules.
The EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) has more information
about these rules.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FR citation
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 SIPapproved control requirements in effect
before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, rules must be
protective of the NAAQS, and must
require RACT in nonattainment areas
for ozone. Maricopa County is currently
designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as Moderate for the 2008
8-hour NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.303, 81
FR 26699).
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) and section 193.
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).
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the
evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that the rules in
Table 1 are appropriate for rescission.
The reasons for the rule rescissions are
described in the following categories:
Category 1—Rules that do not
establish emission limits or enforce the
NAAQS; rules that do not improve or
impact the stringency of other measures
in the SIP and are not appropriate for
the SIP: Rules 27, 32.A, B, C, D, and E,
34.D.1 and E.3, and 81.
E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM
10FEP1
7786
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Category 2—Rules that have a
negative declaration stating that the
facilities they covered are no longer
located in Maricopa County: Rules 34.L
and 340.
Category 3—Rules that have been
superseded by a newer SIP-approved
rule and are no longer needed in the
SIP: Rules 32.F and 34.A.
Category 4—Rules that are not
enforceable: Rule 34E.1.
These rules address local issues but
are not connected to the purposes for
which SIPs are developed and
approved—namely the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. Thus, they are not required to
be included in the SIP.1 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 requested rescission of the
rules because the request fulfills all
relevant requirements. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until March 14, 2022. If we
take final action to approve the
rescission of the submitted rules, our
final action will remove these rules from
the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
delete rules that were previously
incorporated by reference from the
applicable Arizona SIP. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the
EPA is proposing to delete certain
Maricopa County rules, as described in
Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make,
incorporation by reference documents
generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
1 See
16:44 Feb 09, 2022
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
CAA section 110(a)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
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);
• 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 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).
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: February 2, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–02570 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0702 FRL–9537–01–
R4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Air Quality
Control, Miscellaneous Rule Revisions
to Definitions and Permitting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
changes to the Georgia state
implementation plan (SIP) submitted on
behalf of the State of Georgia by the
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD) through a letter
dated September 1, 2020. This revision
includes changes to the State’s air
quality regulations incorporated into the
SIP by changing the definition of
‘‘pollution control project’’ and making
minor changes to the corresponding
minor new source review (NSR)
permitting regulations for consistency.
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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2020–0702 at
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,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10FEP1.SGM
10FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7784-7786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02570]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748; FRL-9217-01-R9]
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 a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD
or County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). We
are proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these
pollutants 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 March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0748 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: La Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3245 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 is the County rescinding?
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of
the EPA's rescission?
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. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What is the County rescinding?
On September 13, 2017, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA a request from MCAQD to act on a
series of rules from the SIP, including the rescission of various local
rules. Table 1 lists the portion of the SIP approved rules from MCAQD's
2017 rescission request that the EPA is proposing to act on in this
notice. The table includes the dates that the rules were adopted by the
MCAQD and the dates they were approved into the SIP by the EPA.
Table 1--SIP Approved Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Title Local adopted date SIP approved date FR citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27............................... Performance Tests........ June 23, 1980.................. April 12, 1982................. 47 FR 15579.
32 A............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (General
prohibitions).
32 B............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Treatment or
processing of animal or
vegetable matter).
32 C............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Storage
requirements).
32 D............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Stack, vent,
or other outlet).
32 E............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Hydrogen
sulfide).
32 F............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Relating to
sulfur oxide and
sulfuric acid).
34 A............................. Organic Solvents-Volatile June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Organic Compounds (VOC).
34 D.1........................... Dry Cleaning............. June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
[[Page 7785]]
34 E.1........................... Spray Paint and Other June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Surface Coating
Operations (General
Requirements).
34 E.3........................... Spray Paint and Other June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Surface Coating
Operations
(Architectural Coating).
34 L............................. Cutback Asphalt.......... June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
81............................... Operation................ August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
340.............................. Cutback and Emulsified September 13, 1988............. February 1, 1996............... 61 FR 3578.
Asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2018, the submittal for MCAQD's rescission request 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. The
SIP-approved sections from Rules 32 and 34 not described in Table 1,
along with other rules in this submittal, will be addressed in a
separate rulemaking.
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of the EPA's
rescission?
MCAQD has revised many of its rules to comply with the CAA national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) requirement to implement
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for various source
categories in nonattainment areas. These rules, including Rules 27, 32,
34, 81, and 340, were submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the
Arizona SIP at various times. In 2016, the EPA reformatted the Arizona
SIP as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations into a tabulated
``notebook'' format. While developing the updated SIP tables for that
conversion, the EPA worked closely with the ADEQ and local air agencies
to clarify what was in their applicable SIP, including older provisions
that had not been updated or replaced to reflect local rulemakings. The
result of that coordination was the MCAQD's September 13, 2017 request
to rescind or replace many obsolete rules in their federally
enforceable SIP in favor of rules that reflect their current locally
enforceable rulebook. What follows is a summary of the rules that we
are proposing for rescission.
Rule 27 states the need for performance testing within 60, but no
later than 180, days after the initial start-up of sources or
facilities.
Rule 32.A prohibits emitting gaseous or odorous emissions in such
quantities as to cause air pollution. Rule 32.B covers treatment or
processing of animal or vegetable matter and prohibits such operations
unless all effluents from such operations have been incinerated under
certain specified conditions. Rule 32.B also requires the use of
control devices as necessary to prevent air pollution. Rule 32.C
requires reasonable measures and installation of control devices to
reduce emissions from evaporation, leakage or discharge from the
processing, storage, use and transport of materials such as solvents,
paints, acids, fertilizers and manure. Rule 32.D relates to nuisance
effects from emissions on adjoining properties and authorizes the
Control Officer to require abatement equipment or alterations to the
stack to reduce nuisance impacts. Rule 32.E establishes a property line
concentration standard for hydrogen sulfide. Rule 32.F establishes
ambient air standards for any sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid ground
level concentrations beyond the premises of a facility. Rule 32.F was
superseded by Rule 510 (86 FR 54628, October 04, 2021). The remainder
of Rule 32 (sections G, H, J, and K) are not addressed in this
rulemaking.
Rule 34.A defines the term volatile organic compound. Rule 34.D.1
describes the operating requirements for dry cleaning equipment using
chlorinated synthetic solvents. Rule 34.E.1 describes the requirements
for containing overspray from surface coating operations. Rule 34.E.3
defines architectural coating. Rule 34.L limits the application of
cutback asphalt or an emulsified asphalt containing petroleum solvents.
In addition, the rule limits the VOC content of the emulsified asphalts
and dust palliatives to no more than three percent (3%) by volume of
VOC. Rule 34.L was superseded by Rule 340. The remainder of Rule 34
(sections B, C, D.2, E, E.2, E.4, F, G, H, I, J, and K) are not
addressed in this rulemaking.
Rule 81 states that no other provision of the County's rulebook
shall in any manner be constructed as authorizing or permitting the
creation or maintenance of a nuisance.
Rule 340 regulates cutback and emulsified asphalt and replaced Rule
34.L in 1988 after the MCAQD revised and renumbered all of their local
rules.
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about these rules.
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, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and
must require RACT in nonattainment areas for ozone. Maricopa County is
currently designated as nonattainment for ozone and classified as
Moderate for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.303, 81 FR 26699).
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) and section 193.
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).
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that the rules in Table 1 are appropriate for
rescission. The reasons for the rule rescissions are described in the
following categories:
Category 1--Rules that do not establish emission limits or enforce
the NAAQS; rules that do not improve or impact the stringency of other
measures in the SIP and are not appropriate for the SIP: Rules 27,
32.A, B, C, D, and E, 34.D.1 and E.3, and 81.
[[Page 7786]]
Category 2--Rules that have a negative declaration stating that the
facilities they covered are no longer located in Maricopa County: Rules
34.L and 340.
Category 3--Rules that have been superseded by a newer SIP-approved
rule and are no longer needed in the SIP: Rules 32.F and 34.A.
Category 4--Rules that are not enforceable: Rule 34E.1.
These rules address local issues but are not connected to the
purposes for which SIPs are developed and approved--namely the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Thus, they
are not required to be included in the SIP.\1\ The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CAA section 110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the requested rescission of the rules because the request
fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until March 14, 2022. If we take final action
to approve the rescission of the submitted rules, our final action will
remove these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, the EPA is proposing to delete rules that were
previously incorporated by reference from the applicable Arizona SIP.
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
delete certain Maricopa County rules, as described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, incorporation by
reference documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES 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);
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 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 2, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-02570 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P