Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available Control Technology-Combustion Sources, 47666-47669 [2022-16492]
Download as PDF
47666
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2022 / Proposed Rules
covered by the EPA CTG for Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Coating Operations at Aerospace
and Manufacturing Rework (EPA–453/
R–97–004). This conclusion is based on
MCAQD’s comparison of Rule 348
against the EPA CTG as well as other
EPA SIP-approved rules for this
category in California,6 Indiana,7 and
Texas.8 The VOC limits for various
categories in Rule 348 are either equally
or more stringent than the CTG, as well
as the Indiana and Texas rules.
However, the California district rules
are more stringent in 16 coating
categories and less stringent than Rule
348 in 13 coating categories. Of the 16
coating categories where the California
district rules had more stringent VOC
limits, MCAQD surveyed affected
sources and determined the VOC
emissions from those categories were
found to be less than 0.5% of each
facility’s total VOC emissions.
Additionally, the County summarized
where the rule was consistent with the
CTG: VOC control and capture
efficiency of at least 85% by weight is
an alternative to limiting the VOC
limits: solvent cleaning requirements;
VOC containment and disposal;
exemptions; and definitions. Based on
these findings, the EPA concludes that
the RACT demonstration satisfies CAA
section 182 RACT requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the CTG
category covered by the EPA CTG for
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Coating Operations at
Aerospace and Manufacturing Rework
(EPA–453/R–97–004).
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
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, negative
declarations, and RACT demonstration
because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. In addition, we propose
to convert the partial conditional
approval of RACT demonstrations for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with
respect to the VOC source categories
covered by Rule 336 and the negative
declarations, as found in 40 CFR 52.119
6 Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District Rule
410.8 Aerospace Assembly and Coating Operations,
adopted March 13, 2014 and EPA SIP approved
May 17, 2016 (81 FR 30484) and Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District Rule 1118 Aerospace
Assembly, Rework and Component Manufacturing
Operations, adopted October 26, 2015 and EPA SIP
approved June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28240).
7 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8–21, adopted
October 13, 2011 and approved as RACT February
13, 2019 (84 FR 3711).
8 30 Texas Administrative Code 115.420–429,
amended June 25, 2015 and approved as RACT
April 30, 2019 (84 FR 18145).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
(c)(3), to full approval. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until September 6, 2022. If we
take final action to approve the
submitted rule and RACT
demonstration, our final action would
correct the deficiencies identified in our
January 7, 2021 partial approval, partial
disapproval, and partial conditional
approval of parts of MCAQD’s RACT
SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (86 FR 971).
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
MCAQD Rule 336, ‘‘Surface Coating
Operations and Industrial Adhesive
Application Process,’’ as described in
Section I 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);
• 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);
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• 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,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–16490 Filed 8–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0609; FRL–10025–
01–R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa
County; Reasonably Available Control
Technology—Combustion Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47667
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2022 / Proposed Rules
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 combustion equipment and
internal combustion (IC) engines. We
are proposing to approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) and
to determine that the County’s control
measures implement Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
for major sources of NOX under the 2008
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
Elsewhere in thi’s Federal Register, we
are making an interim final
determination to defer CAA sanctions
associated with our previous
disapproval action concerning the
County’s RACT demonstration for major
sources of NOX.
Comments must be received on
or before September 6, 2022.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2022–0609 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
ADDRESSES:
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 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 rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of these rules?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating these 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 proposed for
approval with the date they were
revised by Maricopa County and the
date they were submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Rule No.
Rule title
Revised
323 .......................
324 .......................
Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Sources
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) ...........................
June 23, 2021 ........
June 23, 2021 ........
On September 25, 2021, the EPA
determined that the submittal for the
rules in Table 1 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 these
rules?
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
We conditionally approved previous
versions of Rule 323 and Rule 324
(locally revised on November 2, 2016
and submitted to EPA in 2017 1) into the
Arizona SIP on July 20, 2020 (85 FR
43692). If we take final action to
1 The original date of submittal for this SIP
revision was December 19, 2016. However, due to
an administrative error, the submittal lacked
adequate documentation that demonstrated the
County’s SIP revision had met the public notice
requirements required for completeness under 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V. The County subsequently
addressed the public notice requirement and the
State resubmitted the submittal on June 22, 2017,
and withdrew the December 19, 2016 submittal on
May 17, 2019. As such, we will refer to the 2017
submittal when discussing the previously
submitted version of Rule 323.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
approve the June 23, 2021 versions of
Rule 323 and Rule 324, these versions
will replace the previously approved
versions of the rules in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of these rules?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the
production of ground-level ozone, smog
and particulate matter (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. Any stationary
source that emits or has the potential to
emit at least 100 tons per year (tpy) of
VOCs or NOX is a major stationary
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
June 30, 2021.
June 30, 2021.
source in a Moderate ozone
nonattainment area (CAA section
182(b)(2), (f) and 302(j)).
Section III.D of the preamble to the
EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008
ozone NAAQS 2 discusses RACT
requirements. It states, in part, that in
order to meet the RACT requirements,
SIP revisions implementing these
requirements (RACT SIPs) must contain
adopted RACT regulations,
certifications where appropriate that
existing provisions are RACT, and/or
negative declarations that no sources in
the nonattainment area are covered by a
specific control techniques guidelines
(CTG).3 It also provides that states must
submit appropriate supporting
information for their RACT submissions
as described in the EPA’s
2 80
3 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
at 12278.
04AUP1
47668
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2022 / Proposed Rules
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.4
Rule 323 regulates combustion
equipment at non-power plant facilities
and Rule 324 regulates stationary
reciprocating internal combustion
engines. The EPA’s technical support
documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
A. How is the EPA evaluating these
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 require
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
nonattainment area subject to the
County’s regulations. Accordingly, these
rules must establish RACT levels of
control for applicable major sources of
NOX.
The EPA’s previous rulemaking on
the 2017 versions of Rule 323 and Rule
324 found several deficiencies, which
precluded full approval of these SIP
revisions. Commitments from Maricopa
County and ADEQ to resolve the
approvability issues allowed the EPA to
issue conditional approvals of these
revisions to the Arizona SIP as provided
under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. The
deficiencies in the 2017 submittal that
Maricopa County and ADEQ committed
to resolve are listed below. We further
explain the deficient provisions in these
rules in the TSDs.
4 See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29,
2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
Rule 323 Deficiencies
a. Emergency fuel use exemptions in
Section 104 were not adequately
constrained, and had unclear language
that could result in unintended
emissions.
b. Burner maintenance requirements
in section 304.1.a did not meet RACT,
as other jurisdictions regulating units in
this size category are able to achieve
numeric limits or have more stringent
tuning requirements.
c. The NOX limits of 42 ppmv for gas
fuel-fired operations and 65 ppmv for
liquid fuel-fired operations for nonturbine combustion equipment in this
rule were not consistent with limits
found in other jurisdictions and did not
meet RACT.
d. Section 306 allowed for operators
to comply with the emission limits in
this rule by installing an Emission
Control System (ECS), but the
effectiveness of such a system in
meeting the applicable emission
standards was unknown without a
compliance determination requirement
(which in Section 503 only applies to
Sections 301–304, and only for units
larger than 100 million Btu/hr).
e. The operations and maintenance
plan requirements were only approved
by the Control Officer in Section 306.3.
This constituted unacceptable director’s
discretion.
f. Section 503.2 specified that boilers
larger than 100 MMBtu/hr must source
test triennially, but did not describe a
testing frequency for other units.
g. Section 200 did not include a
definition for ‘‘boiler,’’ which is used
throughout this rule and in the context
of definitions for ‘‘annual capacity
factor,’’ ‘‘steam generating unit,’’ and
others, nor is the term defined in
Maricopa’s Rule 100 General Provisions
and Definitions. Section 200 also did
not include a definition for ‘‘continuous
emissions monitoring system.’’
Rule 324 Deficiencies
a. The Rule’s structure for
applicability and emission limits did
not clearly outline RACT limits for all
applicable IC engines. Engines that were
subject to similar Federal requirements
in the NSPS and NESHAP could be
exempt from this rule’s RACT limits.
b. The Rule only applied to engines
rated greater than 250 bhp, and to
engines greater than 50 bhp only when
aggregated at a facility operating engines
with a combined bhp rating of greater
than 250 bhp.
c. The Rule allowed for excessive
flexibility in the treatment of
replacement engines. Emergency
engines that serve as backups to replace
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
non-emergency engines may do so until
the non-emergency engine is repaired,
but this time span was unbounded, and
such engines may operate above RACT
limits. Rule provisions also allowed for
engines that are deemed equivalent or
identical to replace existing engines to
be treated the same as the engine being
replaced, but there were no
requirements for replacement engines to
quantify emissions equivalency or
reductions.
d. The Rule did not specify a
compliance determination interval for
engines, beyond the Control Officer’s
discretion.
In our July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692)
final rule promulgating our conditional
approval of Rules 323 and 324, the EPA
also finalized disapproval of the 2017
revision to Rule 322 regulating power
plant combustion sources which also
must implement RACT for major
sources of NOX. Our conditional
approvals and disapproval of these rules
led to our subsequent disapproval of the
County’s demonstration for the County’s
2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP on January
7, 2021 (86 FR 971), which initiated
offset sanctions to commence 18 months
after the effective date of that
rulemaking (February 8, 2021), and
highway sanctions and a Federal
Implementation Plan to be due 24
months after the effective date, under
CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). The
MCAQD must resolve the identified
deficiencies in all of the associated rules
in order for the EPA to determine that
that the RACT requirement is met, and
to turn off these penalty clocks.
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.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2022 / Proposed Rules
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, U.S.
EPA, March 16, 1994.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe that these revisions to
Rules 323 and 324 meet CAA
requirements, and address the
conditional approval deficiencies we
identified in our 2020 rulemaking. Our
TSDs contain more information about
how the revised rules meet the
commitments.
The revisions are otherwise consistent
with relevant guidance regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions.
The TSDs have more information on our
evaluations on these factors for each
rule. On February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7069)
we proposed approval for MCAQD Rule
322 to replace the SIP-approved version
of that rule, and which would address
our previous disapproval. Therefore, we
find that all three rules regulating major
sources of NOX in Maricopa County
meet the applicable CAA requirements
and include requirements that are
consistent with RACT for NOX sources.
Based on this finding, the EPA
concludes that the submitted rules
satisfy CAA section 182 RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for major sources of NOX.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted Rules 323 and
324 because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. In addition, we propose
to convert the partial conditional
approval of RACT demonstrations for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with
respect to Rules 323 and 324 as found
in 40 CFR 52.119(c)(2), to full approval.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until September
6, 2022. If we take final action to
approve the submitted rules, our final
action would correct the deficiencies
identified in our January 7, 2021 partial
approval, partial disapproval, and
partial conditional approval of the
RACT demonstration as they relate to
major sources of NOX in MCAQD’s
RACT SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (86 FR 971).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
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
the rules identified above in sections
I.A, I.B. and I.C 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 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47669
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 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: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022–16492 Filed 8–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 8360
[LLMTB01000–L12200000.MA0000 212—
MO# 4500157128]
Notice of Proposed Supplementary
Rule for Public Lands Managed by the
Missoula Field Office in Missoula,
Granite, and Powell Counties, Montana
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed supplementary rule.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) proposes to
establish a supplementary rule for BLMadministered public lands within the
jurisdiction of the Missoula Field Office.
This proposed supplementary rule
would allow the BLM to enforce
decisions in the Missoula Resource
Management Plan (RMP) that cover the
general area and specific rules for the
Bear Creek Flats, Blackfoot River
Recreation Area, Dupont Acquired
Lands, Garnet Ghost Town, Limestone
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47666-47669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16492]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0609; FRL-10025-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available
Control Technology--Combustion Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a
[[Page 47667]]
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 combustion equipment and internal
combustion (IC) engines. We are proposing to approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) and to determine that the County's control measures implement
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources of
NOX under the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action. Elsewhere in thi's Federal Register, we are
making an interim final determination to defer CAA sanctions associated
with our previous disapproval action concerning the County's RACT
demonstration for major sources of NOX.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0609 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 rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of these rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating these 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 proposed for approval with the date they
were revised by Maricopa County and the date they were submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
TABLE 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
323....................... Fuel Burning Equipment June 23, 2021............... June 30, 2021.
from Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional (ICI)
Sources.
324....................... Stationary Reciprocating June 23, 2021............... June 30, 2021.
Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2021, the EPA determined that the submittal for
the rules in Table 1 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 these rules?
We conditionally approved previous versions of Rule 323 and Rule
324 (locally revised on November 2, 2016 and submitted to EPA in 2017
\1\) into the Arizona SIP on July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take
final action to approve the June 23, 2021 versions of Rule 323 and Rule
324, these versions will replace the previously approved versions of
the rules in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original date of submittal for this SIP revision was
December 19, 2016. However, due to an administrative error, the
submittal lacked adequate documentation that demonstrated the
County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements
required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The
County subsequently addressed the public notice requirement and the
State resubmitted the submittal on June 22, 2017, and withdrew the
December 19, 2016 submittal on May 17, 2019. As such, we will refer
to the 2017 submittal when discussing the previously submitted
version of Rule 323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of these rules?
Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and particulate matter (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. Any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary
source in a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(b)(2),
(f) and 302(j)).
Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ discusses RACT requirements. It states, in
part, that in order to meet the RACT requirements, SIP revisions
implementing these requirements (RACT SIPs) must contain adopted RACT
regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions
are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the
nonattainment area are covered by a specific control techniques
guidelines (CTG).\3\ It also provides that states must submit
appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as
described in the EPA's
[[Page 47668]]
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\3\ Id. at 12278.
\4\ See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 323 regulates combustion equipment at non-power plant
facilities and Rule 324 regulates stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines. 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 these 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 require 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
nonattainment area subject to the County's regulations. Accordingly,
these rules must establish RACT levels of control for applicable major
sources of NOX.
The EPA's previous rulemaking on the 2017 versions of Rule 323 and
Rule 324 found several deficiencies, which precluded full approval of
these SIP revisions. Commitments from Maricopa County and ADEQ to
resolve the approvability issues allowed the EPA to issue conditional
approvals of these revisions to the Arizona SIP as provided under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. The deficiencies in the 2017 submittal
that Maricopa County and ADEQ committed to resolve are listed below. We
further explain the deficient provisions in these rules in the TSDs.
Rule 323 Deficiencies
a. Emergency fuel use exemptions in Section 104 were not adequately
constrained, and had unclear language that could result in unintended
emissions.
b. Burner maintenance requirements in section 304.1.a did not meet
RACT, as other jurisdictions regulating units in this size category are
able to achieve numeric limits or have more stringent tuning
requirements.
c. The NOX limits of 42 ppmv for gas fuel-fired
operations and 65 ppmv for liquid fuel-fired operations for non-turbine
combustion equipment in this rule were not consistent with limits found
in other jurisdictions and did not meet RACT.
d. Section 306 allowed for operators to comply with the emission
limits in this rule by installing an Emission Control System (ECS), but
the effectiveness of such a system in meeting the applicable emission
standards was unknown without a compliance determination requirement
(which in Section 503 only applies to Sections 301-304, and only for
units larger than 100 million Btu/hr).
e. The operations and maintenance plan requirements were only
approved by the Control Officer in Section 306.3. This constituted
unacceptable director's discretion.
f. Section 503.2 specified that boilers larger than 100 MMBtu/hr
must source test triennially, but did not describe a testing frequency
for other units.
g. Section 200 did not include a definition for ``boiler,'' which
is used throughout this rule and in the context of definitions for
``annual capacity factor,'' ``steam generating unit,'' and others, nor
is the term defined in Maricopa's Rule 100 General Provisions and
Definitions. Section 200 also did not include a definition for
``continuous emissions monitoring system.''
Rule 324 Deficiencies
a. The Rule's structure for applicability and emission limits did
not clearly outline RACT limits for all applicable IC engines. Engines
that were subject to similar Federal requirements in the NSPS and
NESHAP could be exempt from this rule's RACT limits.
b. The Rule only applied to engines rated greater than 250 bhp, and
to engines greater than 50 bhp only when aggregated at a facility
operating engines with a combined bhp rating of greater than 250 bhp.
c. The Rule allowed for excessive flexibility in the treatment of
replacement engines. Emergency engines that serve as backups to replace
non-emergency engines may do so until the non-emergency engine is
repaired, but this time span was unbounded, and such engines may
operate above RACT limits. Rule provisions also allowed for engines
that are deemed equivalent or identical to replace existing engines to
be treated the same as the engine being replaced, but there were no
requirements for replacement engines to quantify emissions equivalency
or reductions.
d. The Rule did not specify a compliance determination interval for
engines, beyond the Control Officer's discretion.
In our July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692) final rule promulgating our
conditional approval of Rules 323 and 324, the EPA also finalized
disapproval of the 2017 revision to Rule 322 regulating power plant
combustion sources which also must implement RACT for major sources of
NOX. Our conditional approvals and disapproval of these
rules led to our subsequent disapproval of the County's demonstration
for the County's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP on January 7, 2021 (86 FR
971), which initiated offset sanctions to commence 18 months after the
effective date of that rulemaking (February 8, 2021), and highway
sanctions and a Federal Implementation Plan to be due 24 months after
the effective date, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). The MCAQD
must resolve the identified deficiencies in all of the associated rules
in order for the EPA to determine that that the RACT requirement is
met, and to turn off these penalty clocks.
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.
[[Page 47669]]
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, U.S. EPA, March 16,
1994.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe that these revisions to Rules 323 and 324 meet CAA
requirements, and address the conditional approval deficiencies we
identified in our 2020 rulemaking. Our TSDs contain more information
about how the revised rules meet the commitments.
The revisions are otherwise consistent with relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more
information on our evaluations on these factors for each rule. On
February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7069) we proposed approval for MCAQD Rule 322
to replace the SIP-approved version of that rule, and which would
address our previous disapproval. Therefore, we find that all three
rules regulating major sources of NOX in Maricopa County
meet the applicable CAA requirements and include requirements that are
consistent with RACT for NOX sources. Based on this finding,
the EPA concludes that the submitted rules satisfy CAA section 182 RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for major sources of
NOX.
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted Rules 323 and 324 because they fulfill all
relevant requirements. In addition, we propose to convert the partial
conditional approval of RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with respect to Rules 323 and 324 as found in 40 CFR
52.119(c)(2), to full approval. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until September 6, 2022. If we take final action to
approve the submitted rules, our final action would correct the
deficiencies identified in our January 7, 2021 partial approval,
partial disapproval, and partial conditional approval of the RACT
demonstration as they relate to major sources of NOX in
MCAQD's RACT SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (86 FR 971).
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 the rules identified above in sections I.A, I.B. and I.C 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 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 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 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: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-16492 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P