Proposed Rule2022-02570
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD or County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). We are proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7784-7786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02570]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748; FRL-9217-01-R9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality
Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD
or County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). We
are proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these
pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0748 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3245 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c796a7d726f32707d777972657d5c796c7d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="492c3f28273a672528222c273028092c3928672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What is the County rescinding?
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of
the EPA's rescission?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What is the County rescinding?
On September 13, 2017, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA a request from MCAQD to act on a
series of rules from the SIP, including the rescission of various local
rules. Table 1 lists the portion of the SIP approved rules from MCAQD's
2017 rescission request that the EPA is proposing to act on in this
notice. The table includes the dates that the rules were adopted by the
MCAQD and the dates they were approved into the SIP by the EPA.
Table 1--SIP Approved Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Title Local adopted date SIP approved date FR citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27............................... Performance Tests........ June 23, 1980.................. April 12, 1982................. 47 FR 15579.
32 A............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (General
prohibitions).
32 B............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Treatment or
processing of animal or
vegetable matter).
32 C............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Storage
requirements).
32 D............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Stack, vent,
or other outlet).
32 E............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Hydrogen
sulfide).
32 F............................. Odors and Gaseous August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
Emissions (Relating to
sulfur oxide and
sulfuric acid).
34 A............................. Organic Solvents-Volatile June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Organic Compounds (VOC).
34 D.1........................... Dry Cleaning............. June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
[[Page 7785]]
34 E.1........................... Spray Paint and Other June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Surface Coating
Operations (General
Requirements).
34 E.3........................... Spray Paint and Other June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
Surface Coating
Operations
(Architectural Coating).
34 L............................. Cutback Asphalt.......... June 23, 1980.................. May 5, 1982.................... 47 FR 19326.
81............................... Operation................ August 12, 1971................ July 27, 1972.................. 37 FR 15080.
340.............................. Cutback and Emulsified September 13, 1988............. February 1, 1996............... 61 FR 3578.
Asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2018, the submittal for MCAQD's rescission request was
deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. The
SIP-approved sections from Rules 32 and 34 not described in Table 1,
along with other rules in this submittal, will be addressed in a
separate rulemaking.
B. What is the purpose of the rules and what is the impact of the EPA's
rescission?
MCAQD has revised many of its rules to comply with the CAA national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) requirement to implement
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for various source
categories in nonattainment areas. These rules, including Rules 27, 32,
34, 81, and 340, were submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the
Arizona SIP at various times. In 2016, the EPA reformatted the Arizona
SIP as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations into a tabulated
``notebook'' format. While developing the updated SIP tables for that
conversion, the EPA worked closely with the ADEQ and local air agencies
to clarify what was in their applicable SIP, including older provisions
that had not been updated or replaced to reflect local rulemakings. The
result of that coordination was the MCAQD's September 13, 2017 request
to rescind or replace many obsolete rules in their federally
enforceable SIP in favor of rules that reflect their current locally
enforceable rulebook. What follows is a summary of the rules that we
are proposing for rescission.
Rule 27 states the need for performance testing within 60, but no
later than 180, days after the initial start-up of sources or
facilities.
Rule 32.A prohibits emitting gaseous or odorous emissions in such
quantities as to cause air pollution. Rule 32.B covers treatment or
processing of animal or vegetable matter and prohibits such operations
unless all effluents from such operations have been incinerated under
certain specified conditions. Rule 32.B also requires the use of
control devices as necessary to prevent air pollution. Rule 32.C
requires reasonable measures and installation of control devices to
reduce emissions from evaporation, leakage or discharge from the
processing, storage, use and transport of materials such as solvents,
paints, acids, fertilizers and manure. Rule 32.D relates to nuisance
effects from emissions on adjoining properties and authorizes the
Control Officer to require abatement equipment or alterations to the
stack to reduce nuisance impacts. Rule 32.E establishes a property line
concentration standard for hydrogen sulfide. Rule 32.F establishes
ambient air standards for any sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid ground
level concentrations beyond the premises of a facility. Rule 32.F was
superseded by Rule 510 (86 FR 54628, October 04, 2021). The remainder
of Rule 32 (sections G, H, J, and K) are not addressed in this
rulemaking.
Rule 34.A defines the term volatile organic compound. Rule 34.D.1
describes the operating requirements for dry cleaning equipment using
chlorinated synthetic solvents. Rule 34.E.1 describes the requirements
for containing overspray from surface coating operations. Rule 34.E.3
defines architectural coating. Rule 34.L limits the application of
cutback asphalt or an emulsified asphalt containing petroleum solvents.
In addition, the rule limits the VOC content of the emulsified asphalts
and dust palliatives to no more than three percent (3%) by volume of
VOC. Rule 34.L was superseded by Rule 340. The remainder of Rule 34
(sections B, C, D.2, E, E.2, E.4, F, G, H, I, J, and K) are not
addressed in this rulemaking.
Rule 81 states that no other provision of the County's rulebook
shall in any manner be constructed as authorizing or permitting the
creation or maintenance of a nuisance.
Rule 340 regulates cutback and emulsified asphalt and replaced Rule
34.L in 1988 after the MCAQD revised and renumbered all of their local
rules.
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about these rules.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant
CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements
in effect before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and
must require RACT in nonattainment areas for ozone. Maricopa County is
currently designated as nonattainment for ozone and classified as
Moderate for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.303, 81 FR 26699).
Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section
110(l) and section 193.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that the rules in Table 1 are appropriate for
rescission. The reasons for the rule rescissions are described in the
following categories:
Category 1--Rules that do not establish emission limits or enforce
the NAAQS; rules that do not improve or impact the stringency of other
measures in the SIP and are not appropriate for the SIP: Rules 27,
32.A, B, C, D, and E, 34.D.1 and E.3, and 81.
[[Page 7786]]
Category 2--Rules that have a negative declaration stating that the
facilities they covered are no longer located in Maricopa County: Rules
34.L and 340.
Category 3--Rules that have been superseded by a newer SIP-approved
rule and are no longer needed in the SIP: Rules 32.F and 34.A.
Category 4--Rules that are not enforceable: Rule 34E.1.
These rules address local issues but are not connected to the
purposes for which SIPs are developed and approved--namely the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Thus, they
are not required to be included in the SIP.\1\ The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See CAA section 110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the requested rescission of the rules because the request
fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until March 14, 2022. If we take final action
to approve the rescission of the submitted rules, our final action will
remove these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, the EPA is proposing to delete rules that were
previously incorporated by reference from the applicable Arizona SIP.
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
delete certain Maricopa County rules, as described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, incorporation by
reference documents generally available electronically through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 2, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-02570 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.