Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 26813-26817 [2024-07954]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3549) requires that the
Office consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. This
NPRM does not involve an information
collection requirement that is subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, this
NPRM does not add any additional
information requirements or fees for
parties before the Board. Therefore, the
Office is not resubmitting collection
packages to OMB for its review and
approval because the revisions in this
NPRM do not materially change the
information collections approved under
OMB control number 0651–0069.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall any person be subject to, a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
P. E-Government Act Compliance:
The USPTO is committed to compliance
with the E-Government Act to promote
the use of the internet and other
information technologies, to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 42
Administrative practice and
procedure, Inventions and patents,
Lawyers.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Office proposes to amend
37 CFR part 42 as follows:
PART 42—TRIAL PRACTICE BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD
1. The authority citation for part 42 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 3, 6, 134, 135,
143, 153, 311, 314, 316, 318, 324, 326; Pub.
L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284; and Pub. L. 112–
274, 126 Stat. 2456.
■
2. Add § 42.75 to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 42.75
Director Review.
(a) Director Review Generally. In a
proceeding under part 42, the Director
may review any decision on institution
under 35 U.S.C. 314 or 324, any final
written decision under 35 U.S.C. 318 or
328, or any decision granting rehearing
of such a decision. In the course of
reviewing an institution decision, a final
written decision, or a rehearing
decision, the Director may review any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Apr 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
interlocutory decision rendered by the
Board in reaching that decision.
(b) Sua Sponte Director Review. The
Director, on the Director’s own
initiative, may order sua sponte Director
Review of a decision as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section. Absent
exceptional circumstances, any sua
sponte Director Review will be initiated
within 21 days after the expiration of
the period for filing a request for
rehearing pursuant to § 42.71(d).
(c) Requests for Director Review. A
party to a proceeding under part 42 may
file one request for Director Review of
a decision as provided in paragraph (a)
of this section, instead of filing a request
for rehearing of that decision pursuant
to § 42.71(d), subject to the limitations
herein and any further guidance
provided by the Director.
(1) Timing. The request must be filed
within the time period set forth in
§ 42.71(d) unless an extension is granted
by the Director upon a showing of good
cause. No response to a Director Review
request is permitted absent Director
authorization.
(2) Format and Length. A request for
Director Review must comply with the
format requirements of § 42.6(a). Absent
Director authorization, the request must
comply with the length limitations for
motions to the Board provided in
§ 42.24(a)(1)(v).
(3) Content. Absent Director
authorization, a request for Director
Review may not introduce new
evidence.
(d) Final Agency Decision. A decision
on institution, a final written decision,
or a decision granting rehearing of such
decision on institution or final written
decision shall become the decision of
the agency unless:
(1) A party requests rehearing or
Director Review within the time
provided by § 42.71(d); or
(2) In the absence of such a request,
the Director initiates sua sponte review
as provided by § 42.75(b). Upon denial
of a request for Director Review of a
final written decision or of a decision
granting rehearing of a final written
decision, the Board’s decision becomes
the final agency decision.
(e) Process. (1) Effect on Underlying
Proceeding. Unless the Director orders
otherwise, and except as provided in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, a request
for Director Review or the initiation of
review on the Director’s own initiative
does not stay the time for the parties to
take action in the underlying
proceeding.
(2) Grant and scope. If the Director
grants Director Review, the Director
shall issue an order or decision that will
be made part of the public record,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26813
subject to the limitations of any
protective order entered in the
proceeding or any other applicable
requirements for confidentiality. If the
Director grants review and does not
subsequently withdraw the grant, the
Director Review will conclude with the
issuance of a decision or order that
provides the reasons for the Director’s
disposition of the case.
(3) Appeal. A party may appeal a
Director Review decision of either a
final written decision or a decision
granting rehearing of a final written
decision under 35 U.S.C. 318, 328, and
135 to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit using
the same procedures for appealing other
decisions under 35 U.S.C. 141(c), 319.
Director Review decisions on decisions
on institution are not appealable. A
request for Director Review of a final
written decision or a decision granting
rehearing of a final written decision, or
the initiation of a review on the
Director’s own initiative of such a
decision, will be treated as a request for
rehearing under § 90.3(b)(1) and will
reset the time for appeal until after all
issues on Director Review in the
proceeding are resolved.
(f) Delegation. The Director may
delegate their review of a decision on
institution, a final written decision, or a
decision granting rehearing of such a
decision, subject to any conditions
provided by the Director.
(g) Ex parte communications. All
communications from a party to the
Office concerning a specific Director
Review request or proceeding must copy
counsel for all parties. Communications
from third parties regarding a specific
Director Review request or proceeding,
aside from authorized amicus briefing,
are not permitted and will not be
considered.
Katherine K. Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2024–07759 Filed 4–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0748; FRL–11882–
01–R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa
County Air Quality Department
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
26814
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), particulate matter (PM), and
oxides of sulfur (SOX). We are proposing
to approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 16, 2024.
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
SUMMARY:
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 a
disability 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-Hopper, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105; phone: (415) 972–3245; email:
evanshopper.lakenya@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 are the county rescinding,
and/or replacing?
B. What is the purpose of the rules and
what is the impact of the EPA’s
rescissions?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request
for rescission, and/or replacement?
B. Do the rule rescissions, and/or
replacements, 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 are the county rescinding,
and/or replacing?
On September 13, 2017, and
November 13, 2023, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA requests
from MCAQD to act on a series of rules
from the existing SIP, including the
rescission of various local rules. Table 1
lists the SIP-approved rules proposed to
be rescinded from the SIP by this
proposed rule with the dates that they
were adopted by the MCAQD and
previously approved into the SIP. We
are proposing action on the entire
November 13, 2023 submittal (‘‘2023
SIP Submittal’’) and a portion of the
September 13, 2017 submittal (‘‘2017
SIP Submittal’’). Portions of other rules
from the 2017 SIP Submittal were
addressed in other rulemakings (see
Table 3 and 87 FR 42324 (September 15,
2022)), and the remaining portions of
the 2017 SIP Submittal will be
addressed in a future rulemaking.1
TABLE 1—RULES TO BE RESCINDED
Rule No.
Title
Local adoption date
SIP approval date
22 .....................................
Permit Denial-Action-Transfer-ExpirationPosting-Revocation-Compliance.
Permit Fees ...............................................
Other Industries .........................................
Fuel Burning Equipment for Producing
Electric Power (Sulfur Dioxide).
Operating Requirements for an Asphalt
Kettle.
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide ................
Monitoring ..................................................
Monitoring ..................................................
Testing and Sampling ................................
Public Notification ......................................
August 12, 1971 ........
July 27, 1972 .............
37 FR 15080
March 8, 1982 ...........
October 1, 1975 ........
October 1, 1975 ........
June 18, 1982 ...........
April 12, 1982 ............
April 12, 1982 ............
47 FR 26382
47 FR 15579
47 FR 15579
June 23, 1980 ...........
April 12, 1982 ............
47 FR 15579
June 23, 1980 ...........
August 12, 1971 ........
October 2, 1978 ........
August 12, 1971 ........
June 23, 1980 ...........
April 12, 1982 ............
July 27, 1972 .............
April 12, 1982 ............
July 27, 1972 .............
April 12, 1982 ............
47
37
47
37
47
28 .....................................
32 G .................................
32 H .................................
32 J ..................................
32
41
41
42
74
K .................................
A .................................
B .................................
.....................................
C .................................
Table 2 lists the submitted rule
sections addressed by this proposal with
the dates that they were adopted by the
MCAQD and submitted by ADEQ on
FR citation
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
15579
15080
15579
15080
15579
behalf of the MCAQD for inclusion into
the SIP.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2—SUBMITTED RULES
Rule No.
Title
Local revision date
320 Section 306 ................................................
Odors and Gaseous Air Contaminants, Limitation—Sulfur from Other Industries.
July 2, 2023 ...............
1 A summary of the status of the 2017 SIP
Submittal is included in the docket for this action.
See ‘‘Maricopa Recodification Project, Submitted
2017, Rules Updates,’’ March 2024, EPA Region 9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Apr 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
EPA submission date
November 13, 2023.
26815
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2—SUBMITTED RULES—Continued
Rule No.
Title
Local revision date
320 Section 307 ................................................
Odors and Gaseous Air Contaminants, Operating Requirements—Asphalt Kettles and
Dip Tanks.
July 2, 2023 ...............
On December 4, 2023, the EPA
determined that the submittal for
MCAQD Rule 320, section 306 and
section 307 from the 2023 SIP
Submittal, met the completeness criteria
in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. On
March 13, 2018, the 2017 SIP Submittal
was deemed by operation of law to meet
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51 Appendix V. SIP submittals must
meet the completeness criteria before
formal EPA review.
without air pollution control
equipment) does not eliminate or reduce
air pollution. If the Control Officer finds
that such units under an Operating
Permit are constructed not in
accordance with the Installation Permit,
the Control Office shall not accept any
further application for an Operating
Permit for these units. If the units are
reconstructed in accordance with the
Installation Permit, they may be
permitted an Operating Permit. All
permits are non-transferable and must
be affixed to the unit. Rule 22 was
superseded by Rule 200, Rule 210, Rule
220, Rule 240, and Rule 241.2
Rule 28 supplies the fees and fee
schedules for Installation Permits and
Annual Operating Permits. Rule 28 was
included in the SIP to meet CAA section
110(a)(2)(L) that requires permitting fees
under the new source review (NSR)
preconstruction permitting program,
until it is superseded by the fee
requirement under the title V operating
permits program (CAA sections 501–
507). Since Maricopa County has an
EPA approved title V operating permits
program that includes a fee rule, permit
fees are not required to be in the SIP.3
The following sections of Rule 32 are
the subject of this proposed rule. The
remainder of Rule 32 (sections A, B, C,
D, E, and F) were removed from the SIP
on July 15, 2022 (87 FR 42324). Rule 32,
section G states that no person shall
discharge sulfur, sulfur dioxide (SO2), or
sulfur equivalent, into the atmosphere
in excess of 10% of the sulfur entering
the process as feed. Rule 32, section G
is being rescinded and replaced by
analogous requirements in Rule 320,
section 206 (submitted on November 13,
2023). Rule 32, section H applies to an
installation that operate steam power to
produce electric power with a resulting
discharge of SO2. With a two-hour
maximum average, new sources shall
not emit more than 0.80 pounds of SO2
per million Btu, and existing sources
shall not emit more than 1.0 pound of
SO2 per million Btu when coal or oil is
fired. Existing sources firing on high
sulfur oil shall not emit more than 2.2
pounds of SO2 per million Btu in a twohour average maximum. Issued permits
prohibit the use of high sulfur oil unless
the applicant demonstrates to the
control office that a) sufficient
quantities of low sulfur oil is not
available for use, and b) that the SO2
ambient air quality standards will not be
violated. If an exemption is made, then
the permittee must submit monthly
reports to the bureau. The permit shall
be modified when conditions justifying
the use of high sulfur oil no longer exist.
Rule 32, section H was superseded by
Rule 322.4 Rule 32, section J states that
asphalt kettles shall be operated with
good modern practices including, but
not limited to: (1) maintain
temperatures both below the asphalt
flash point and the manufacture
maximum recommended temperature,
(2) except when charging, operate
Kettles with a closed lid, (3) pump
asphalt from the kettle, (4) draw asphalt
through cocks without dipping, (5) fire
kettle with clean burning fuel, and 6)
maintain a clean, properly adjusted and
good operating condition kettle. Rule
32, section J is being rescinded and
replaced by analogous requirements in
Rule 320, section 307 (submitted on
November 13, 2023). Rule 32, section K
states that the discharge of carbon
monoxide (CO) from any process source
shall be effectively controlled by
secondary combustion. Rule 32, section
K was superseded by Rule 322 and Rule
323.5
Rule 41, section A requires owners,
lessees, or operators to provide, install,
maintain, and operate air contaminant
monitoring devices that are required to
determine compliance acceptable to the
Control Officer. Owners, lessees, or
operators shall also provide monitoring
information in writing to the Control
Office, with the devices available for
inspection during all reasonable times.
Rule 41, section A was superseded by
Arizona Revised Statute 36–780.6 Rule
41, section B requires owners or
operators of fossil fuel-fired steam
generators, fluid bed catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators, sulfuric acid
and nitric acid plants to install,
B. What is the purpose of the rules and
what is the impact of the EPA’s
rescissions?
Since initial SIP approval in the
1970s, Maricopa County has revised
many of its rules to comply with the
CAA national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) requirements, and
to implement reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for various
source categories in nonattainment
areas. These rules 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
(CFR) 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 2017 SIP submittal that
requests to rescind or replace many
obsolete rules in the federally
enforceable SIP in favor of rules that
reflect their current locally enforceable
rulebook. The MCAQD also submitted
an updated request on November 13,
2023, to replace Rule 32, sections G and
J with Rule 320 sections 306 and 307.
The 2023 SIP Submittal request
supersedes the 2017 SIP Submittal
request with respect to Rules 32,
sections G and J. What follows is a
summary of the rules identified in Table
1 that we are proposing for rescission
and/or replacement in this rulemaking.
Rule 22 states that the Control Officer
shall deny or revoke an Installation
Permit and an Operating Permit if the
applicant does not show that every
machine, equipment, incinerator, device
or other article usage (units; with or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Apr 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
2 87
FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
dated June 28, 2023, from Philip A.
McNeely, Director, MCAQD, to Matthew Lakin,
Acting Director, EPA Region IX, Subject: ‘‘RE: Rule
28 (Permit Fees) Justification to Rescind from the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) Without
Replacement.’’
3 Letter
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4 87
EPA submission date
November 13, 2023.
FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
FR 7879 (February 7, 2023).
6 47 FR 26382 (June 18, 1982).
5 88
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
26816
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
calibrate, operate, and maintain all
monitoring equipment to continually
monitor opacity, NOX, SO2, oxygen and
CO2. The rule provides basic
requirements for monitoring equipment
and performance specifications as set
forth in Title 40 CFR, Part 60, Chapter
1, Appendix B. SIP Rule 41, section B
also provides requirements for the
calibration of gases, cycling times,
monitor location, combined effluents,
span, and data reporting and
recordkeeping. Sources of catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
sulfuric acid and nitric acid plants that
are applicable to Rule 41, section B are
not currently located in Maricopa
County. However, if a new source is
constructed in the County for one of
these categories, it will be subject to the
New Source Performance Standards
promulgated in 40 CFR part 60 and the
New Source Review program, and
would be exempted from Rule 41,
section B. Therefore, Rule 41, section B
is unenforceable or superseded by other
requirements.
Rule 41, section B is being rescinded
without replacement.
Rule 42 requires that an owner or
operator test the openings in a system,
stack, or the stack extension. If the
facilities are not adequate for testing, the
Control Office shall supply to the owner
or operator, in writing, the necessary
testing requirements for these facilities.
Rule 42 does not specify emission limits
or achieve any emission reductions, nor
are any test methods specified in Rule
42. MCAQD rules now contain a section
that identifies test methods for the rule
and EPA reviews those methods when
each rule is approved. Rule 42 is being
rescinded without replacement.
Rule 74, section C states that the
public shall have daily notifications for
the concentrations of total suspended
particles, CO, and ozone based on the
Pollution Standard Index. Rule 74,
section C was superseded by Rule 100.7
Additionally, Table 3 identifies rules
from the 2017 SIP submittal that were
requested to be rescinded and/or
replaced but have since been
superseded by action on other SIP
submittals that contained the same
rules.
TABLE 3—RULES SUPERSEDED BY DIFFERENT RULEMAKINGS
Rule No.
100
210
220
322
323
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
336 ...................................
Title
SIP submittal date
SIP approved date
General Provisions and Definitions ...........
Title V Permit Provisions ...........................
Non-Title V Permit Provisions ...................
Power Plant Operations ............................
Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/
Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Sources.
Surface Coating Operations ......................
December 20, 2019 ..
December 20, 2019 ..
December 20, 2019 ..
June 30, 2021 ...........
June 30, 2021 ...........
February 15, 2022 .....
February 15, 2022 .....
February 15, 2022 .....
December 15, 2021 ..
February 7, 2023 .......
87
87
87
87
88
June 22, 2017 ...........
January 1, 2021 ........
86 FR 971
The EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) has more information
about these rules.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
request for rescission, and/or
replacement?
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
7 87
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).
2. Letter dated February 12, 1990,
from Johnnie L. Pearson, Chief Regional
Activities Section, ROB, to Chief, Air
Branch, Region I–X, Subject: ‘‘Review of
State Regulation Recodifications.’’
B. Do the rule rescissions, and/or
replacements, meet the evaluation
criteria?
We have concluded that the rules in
Table 1 are appropriate for rescission,
and/or replacement. The rule sections to
be rescinded from the SIP without
replacement either have already been
superseded in the SIP by requirements
that are at least as stringent or are
requirements that do not address any
particular CAA requirements, do not
include definitions that are not
otherwise defined elsewhere, do not
include provisions that are necessary to
16:42 Apr 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
8418
8418
8418
8046
7879
implement or protect any of the NAAQS
and do not fulfill RACT requirements.
For the rule sections to be rescinded and
replaced, the requirements are being
replaced with analogous requirements
that are at least as stringent. As such,
the removal and/or replacement of the
rules covered by this proposed
rulemaking would not impact the
overall stringency of the Arizona SIP.
The reasons for the rule rescissions,
and/or replacements, can be
summarized into the following
categories:
Category 1—Rules that do not
establish emission limits or enforce the
NAAQS: Rule 42 and Rule 28.
Category 2—Rules that have been
superseded and are no longer needed in
the SIP: Rule 22, Rule 32 sections G, H,
and J, Rule 41, section A, and Rule 74,
section C.
Category 3—Unenforceable Rules:
Rule 32, section K and Rule 41, section
B.
Category 4—Rules that are being
rescinded and replaced: Rule 32,
sections G and J are being replaced by
Rules 320, sections 306 and 307.
In sum, the rules being rescinded and/
or replaced address local issues and are
no longer needed for the purposes for
which SIPs are developed and
approved, namely the implementation,
FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
FR citation
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS.
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 listed in Table 1 above, and
subsequent replacement of SIPapproved rules, because they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal until May 16, 2024. If we take
final action to approve the rescission,
and/or replacement, of the submitted
rules, our final action will remove the
rescinded rules from the federally
enforceable SIP, and replace these rules
in the federally enforceable SIP as
described.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department, Rule 320, Odors and
Gaseous Air Contaminants, sections 306
and 307, revised on July 2, 2003, which
regulate emissions of SO2 from fossil
fuel fired steam generators. In addition,
the EPA is proposing to rescind Rule 22,
Rule 28, Rule 32 sections H and K, Rule
41 sections A and B, Rule 42, and Rule
74 section C from the MCAQD SIP
without replacement because the rules
either have already been superseded in
the SIP by requirements that are at least
as stringent or are requirements that do
not address any particular CAA
requirements, do not include definitions
that are not otherwise defined
elsewhere, do not include provisions
that are necessary to implement or
protect any of the NAAQS and do not
fulfill RACT requirements. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Apr 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it proposes to approve a state
program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26817
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to
mean that ‘‘no group of people should
bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an
EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in
this action. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 9, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024–07954 Filed 4–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0448; FRL–11677–
01–R9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
California; Coachella Valley; Extreme
Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 16, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26813-26817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07954]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748; FRL-11882-01-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26814]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter (PM), and oxides of
sulfur (SOX). We are proposing to approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2024.
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 a disability
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-Hopper, EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3245;
email: [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 are the county rescinding, and/or replacing?
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of
the EPA's rescissions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission, and/or
replacement?
B. Do the rule rescissions, and/or replacements, 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 are the county rescinding, and/or replacing?
On September 13, 2017, and November 13, 2023, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA
requests from MCAQD to act on a series of rules from the existing SIP,
including the rescission of various local rules. Table 1 lists the SIP-
approved rules proposed to be rescinded from the SIP by this proposed
rule with the dates that they were adopted by the MCAQD and previously
approved into the SIP. We are proposing action on the entire November
13, 2023 submittal (``2023 SIP Submittal'') and a portion of the
September 13, 2017 submittal (``2017 SIP Submittal''). Portions of
other rules from the 2017 SIP Submittal were addressed in other
rulemakings (see Table 3 and 87 FR 42324 (September 15, 2022)), and the
remaining portions of the 2017 SIP Submittal will be addressed in a
future rulemaking.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A summary of the status of the 2017 SIP Submittal is
included in the docket for this action. See ``Maricopa
Recodification Project, Submitted 2017, Rules Updates,'' March 2024,
EPA Region 9.
Table 1--Rules To Be Rescinded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Title Local adoption date SIP approval date FR citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22.............................. Permit Denial-Action- August 12, 1971............... July 27, 1972................ 37 FR 15080
Transfer-Expiration-
Posting-Revocation-
Compliance.
28.............................. Permit Fees............. March 8, 1982................. June 18, 1982................ 47 FR 26382
32 G............................ Other Industries........ October 1, 1975............... April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
32 H............................ Fuel Burning Equipment October 1, 1975............... April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
for Producing Electric
Power (Sulfur Dioxide).
32 J............................ Operating Requirements June 23, 1980................. April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
for an Asphalt Kettle.
32 K............................ Emissions of Carbon June 23, 1980................. April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
Monoxide.
41 A............................ Monitoring.............. August 12, 1971............... July 27, 1972................ 37 FR 15080
41 B............................ Monitoring.............. October 2, 1978............... April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
42.............................. Testing and Sampling.... August 12, 1971............... July 27, 1972................ 37 FR 15080
74 C............................ Public Notification..... June 23, 1980................. April 12, 1982............... 47 FR 15579
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 lists the submitted rule sections addressed by this
proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the MCAQD and
submitted by ADEQ on behalf of the MCAQD for inclusion into the SIP.
Table 2--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Title Local revision date EPA submission date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
320 Section 306................ Odors and Gaseous July 2, 2023................. November 13, 2023.
Air Contaminants,
Limitation--Sulfu
r from Other
Industries.
[[Page 26815]]
320 Section 307................ Odors and Gaseous July 2, 2023................. November 13, 2023.
Air Contaminants,
Operating
Requirements--Asp
halt Kettles and
Dip Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 2023, the EPA determined that the submittal for
MCAQD Rule 320, section 306 and section 307 from the 2023 SIP
Submittal, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.
On March 13, 2018, the 2017 SIP Submittal was deemed by operation of
law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. SIP
submittals must meet the completeness criteria before formal EPA
review.
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of the EPA's
rescissions?
Since initial SIP approval in the 1970s, Maricopa County has
revised many of its rules to comply with the CAA national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) requirements, and to implement reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for various source categories in
nonattainment areas. These rules 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 (CFR) 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 2017 SIP submittal that requests to
rescind or replace many obsolete rules in the federally enforceable SIP
in favor of rules that reflect their current locally enforceable
rulebook. The MCAQD also submitted an updated request on November 13,
2023, to replace Rule 32, sections G and J with Rule 320 sections 306
and 307. The 2023 SIP Submittal request supersedes the 2017 SIP
Submittal request with respect to Rules 32, sections G and J. What
follows is a summary of the rules identified in Table 1 that we are
proposing for rescission and/or replacement in this rulemaking.
Rule 22 states that the Control Officer shall deny or revoke an
Installation Permit and an Operating Permit if the applicant does not
show that every machine, equipment, incinerator, device or other
article usage (units; with or without air pollution control equipment)
does not eliminate or reduce air pollution. If the Control Officer
finds that such units under an Operating Permit are constructed not in
accordance with the Installation Permit, the Control Office shall not
accept any further application for an Operating Permit for these units.
If the units are reconstructed in accordance with the Installation
Permit, they may be permitted an Operating Permit. All permits are non-
transferable and must be affixed to the unit. Rule 22 was superseded by
Rule 200, Rule 210, Rule 220, Rule 240, and Rule 241.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 28 supplies the fees and fee schedules for Installation
Permits and Annual Operating Permits. Rule 28 was included in the SIP
to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) that requires permitting fees under
the new source review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program, until
it is superseded by the fee requirement under the title V operating
permits program (CAA sections 501-507). Since Maricopa County has an
EPA approved title V operating permits program that includes a fee
rule, permit fees are not required to be in the SIP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter dated June 28, 2023, from Philip A. McNeely,
Director, MCAQD, to Matthew Lakin, Acting Director, EPA Region IX,
Subject: ``RE: Rule 28 (Permit Fees) Justification to Rescind from
the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) Without Replacement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections of Rule 32 are the subject of this proposed
rule. The remainder of Rule 32 (sections A, B, C, D, E, and F) were
removed from the SIP on July 15, 2022 (87 FR 42324). Rule 32, section G
states that no person shall discharge sulfur, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), or sulfur equivalent, into the atmosphere in excess
of 10% of the sulfur entering the process as feed. Rule 32, section G
is being rescinded and replaced by analogous requirements in Rule 320,
section 206 (submitted on November 13, 2023). Rule 32, section H
applies to an installation that operate steam power to produce electric
power with a resulting discharge of SO2. With a two-hour
maximum average, new sources shall not emit more than 0.80 pounds of
SO2 per million Btu, and existing sources shall not emit
more than 1.0 pound of SO2 per million Btu when coal or oil
is fired. Existing sources firing on high sulfur oil shall not emit
more than 2.2 pounds of SO2 per million Btu in a two-hour
average maximum. Issued permits prohibit the use of high sulfur oil
unless the applicant demonstrates to the control office that a)
sufficient quantities of low sulfur oil is not available for use, and
b) that the SO2 ambient air quality standards will not be
violated. If an exemption is made, then the permittee must submit
monthly reports to the bureau. The permit shall be modified when
conditions justifying the use of high sulfur oil no longer exist. Rule
32, section H was superseded by Rule 322.\4\ Rule 32, section J states
that asphalt kettles shall be operated with good modern practices
including, but not limited to: (1) maintain temperatures both below the
asphalt flash point and the manufacture maximum recommended
temperature, (2) except when charging, operate Kettles with a closed
lid, (3) pump asphalt from the kettle, (4) draw asphalt through cocks
without dipping, (5) fire kettle with clean burning fuel, and 6)
maintain a clean, properly adjusted and good operating condition
kettle. Rule 32, section J is being rescinded and replaced by analogous
requirements in Rule 320, section 307 (submitted on November 13, 2023).
Rule 32, section K states that the discharge of carbon monoxide (CO)
from any process source shall be effectively controlled by secondary
combustion. Rule 32, section K was superseded by Rule 322 and Rule
323.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
\5\ 88 FR 7879 (February 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 41, section A requires owners, lessees, or operators to
provide, install, maintain, and operate air contaminant monitoring
devices that are required to determine compliance acceptable to the
Control Officer. Owners, lessees, or operators shall also provide
monitoring information in writing to the Control Office, with the
devices available for inspection during all reasonable times. Rule 41,
section A was superseded by Arizona Revised Statute 36-780.\6\ Rule 41,
section B requires owners or operators of fossil fuel-fired steam
generators, fluid bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
sulfuric acid and nitric acid plants to install,
[[Page 26816]]
calibrate, operate, and maintain all monitoring equipment to
continually monitor opacity, NOX, SO2, oxygen and
CO2. The rule provides basic requirements for monitoring
equipment and performance specifications as set forth in Title 40 CFR,
Part 60, Chapter 1, Appendix B. SIP Rule 41, section B also provides
requirements for the calibration of gases, cycling times, monitor
location, combined effluents, span, and data reporting and
recordkeeping. Sources of catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, sulfuric acid and nitric acid plants that are applicable
to Rule 41, section B are not currently located in Maricopa County.
However, if a new source is constructed in the County for one of these
categories, it will be subject to the New Source Performance Standards
promulgated in 40 CFR part 60 and the New Source Review program, and
would be exempted from Rule 41, section B. Therefore, Rule 41, section
B is unenforceable or superseded by other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 47 FR 26382 (June 18, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 41, section B is being rescinded without replacement.
Rule 42 requires that an owner or operator test the openings in a
system, stack, or the stack extension. If the facilities are not
adequate for testing, the Control Office shall supply to the owner or
operator, in writing, the necessary testing requirements for these
facilities. Rule 42 does not specify emission limits or achieve any
emission reductions, nor are any test methods specified in Rule 42.
MCAQD rules now contain a section that identifies test methods for the
rule and EPA reviews those methods when each rule is approved. Rule 42
is being rescinded without replacement.
Rule 74, section C states that the public shall have daily
notifications for the concentrations of total suspended particles, CO,
and ozone based on the Pollution Standard Index. Rule 74, section C was
superseded by Rule 100.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Table 3 identifies rules from the 2017 SIP submittal
that were requested to be rescinded and/or replaced but have since been
superseded by action on other SIP submittals that contained the same
rules.
Table 3--Rules Superseded by Different Rulemakings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Title SIP submittal date SIP approved date FR citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................. General Provisions and December 20, 2019............. February 15, 2022............ 87 FR 8418
Definitions.
210............................. Title V Permit December 20, 2019............. February 15, 2022............ 87 FR 8418
Provisions.
220............................. Non-Title V Permit December 20, 2019............. February 15, 2022............ 87 FR 8418
Provisions.
322............................. Power Plant Operations.. June 30, 2021................. December 15, 2021............ 87 FR 8046
323............................. Fuel Burning Equipment June 30, 2021................. February 7, 2023............. 88 FR 7879
from Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional (ICI)
Sources.
336............................. Surface Coating June 22, 2017................. January 1, 2021.............. 86 FR 971
Operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, and/or
replacement?
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).
2. Letter dated February 12, 1990, from Johnnie L. Pearson, Chief
Regional Activities Section, ROB, to Chief, Air Branch, Region I-X,
Subject: ``Review of State Regulation Recodifications.''
B. Do the rule rescissions, and/or replacements, meet the evaluation
criteria?
We have concluded that the rules in Table 1 are appropriate for
rescission, and/or replacement. The rule sections to be rescinded from
the SIP without replacement either have already been superseded in the
SIP by requirements that are at least as stringent or are requirements
that do not address any particular CAA requirements, do not include
definitions that are not otherwise defined elsewhere, do not include
provisions that are necessary to implement or protect any of the NAAQS
and do not fulfill RACT requirements. For the rule sections to be
rescinded and replaced, the requirements are being replaced with
analogous requirements that are at least as stringent. As such, the
removal and/or replacement of the rules covered by this proposed
rulemaking would not impact the overall stringency of the Arizona SIP.
The reasons for the rule rescissions, and/or replacements, can be
summarized into the following categories:
Category 1--Rules that do not establish emission limits or enforce
the NAAQS: Rule 42 and Rule 28.
Category 2--Rules that have been superseded and are no longer
needed in the SIP: Rule 22, Rule 32 sections G, H, and J, Rule 41,
section A, and Rule 74, section C.
Category 3--Unenforceable Rules: Rule 32, section K and Rule 41,
section B.
Category 4--Rules that are being rescinded and replaced: Rule 32,
sections G and J are being replaced by Rules 320, sections 306 and 307.
In sum, the rules being rescinded and/or replaced address local
issues and are no longer needed for the purposes for which SIPs are
developed and approved, namely the implementation,
[[Page 26817]]
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
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 listed in Table 1
above, and subsequent replacement of SIP-approved rules, because they
fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until May 16, 2024. If we take final action to
approve the rescission, and/or replacement, of the submitted rules, our
final action will remove the rescinded rules from the federally
enforceable SIP, and replace these rules in the federally enforceable
SIP as described.
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 Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Rule 320, Odors and
Gaseous Air Contaminants, sections 306 and 307, revised on July 2,
2003, which regulate emissions of SO2 from fossil fuel fired
steam generators. In addition, the EPA is proposing to rescind Rule 22,
Rule 28, Rule 32 sections H and K, Rule 41 sections A and B, Rule 42,
and Rule 74 section C from the MCAQD SIP without replacement because
the rules either have already been superseded in the SIP by
requirements that are at least as stringent or are requirements that do
not address any particular CAA requirements, do not include definitions
that are not otherwise defined elsewhere, do not include provisions
that are necessary to implement or protect any of the NAAQS and do not
fulfill RACT requirements. 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 9, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-07954 Filed 4-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
