Proposed Rule2023-28495
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
December 27, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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 a rule that includes definitions for certain terms that are necessary for the implementation of local rules that regulate sources of air pollution. We are proposing to approve the rule 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 88 Issue 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89355-89357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28495]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0599; FRL-11591-01-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 revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern a rule that includes definitions for certain terms that are
necessary for the implementation of local rules that regulate sources
of air pollution. We are proposing to approve the rule 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 January 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0599 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 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: Kira Wiesinger, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3827 or by
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17607e72647e79707265397c7e65765772677639707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5126383422383f3634237f3a382330113421307f363e27">[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 rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to the EPA.
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted on
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD................. 100........................ General Provisions and 8/9/2023 \1\ 8/23/2023
Definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 110(k)(1), the EPA must determine whether a SIP
submittal meets the minimum completeness criteria established in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V for an official SIP submittal on which the EPA is
obligated to take action. We find that the ADEQ's August 23, 2023 SIP
submittal for MCAQD Rule 100 meets the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ADEQ submitted the amendment to MCAQD Rule 100
electronically on August 23, 2023. ADEQ's submittal letter is dated
August 23, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Are there other versions of this rulemaking?
We approved an earlier version of MCAQD Rule 100 into the SIP on
February 15, 2022.\2\ The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on August 9, 2023, and the ADEQ
submitted them to us on August 23, 2023. If we take final action to
approve the August 9, 2023 version of Rule 100, this version will
replace the previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 87 FR 8418 (February 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
The purpose of the submitted rule revisions is to clarify and
update definitions in Rule 100 of the Maricopa County portion of the
Arizona SIP as part of the MCAQD's Title V permit program revision.
Revisions include the following, but a more complete list and
discussion can be found in the technical support document (TSD) for
this action found in the docket:
<bullet> The addition of definitions for the terms ``alternative
operating scenario'' and ``business day or working day'' and a revision
of the definition of ``major source.'' A definition for the term
``alternative operating scenario'' was added to allow MCAQD Title V
permit applications the opportunity to submit an alternative operating
scenario for their source. The ``major source'' definition has been
revised to make it consistent with the Title V permit program
definition of ``major source,'' by including language describing a 100
tons per year emission threshold.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the rulemaking?
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
[[Page 89356]]
without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA
section 193).
Since Rule 100 sets forth the legal authority for the Maricopa
County Air Pollution Rules, which include MCAQD's Federal new source
review (NSR) rules in Rule 240 for stationary sources located in
nonattainment areas and in attainment and/or unclassifiable areas, the
revisions must be more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all
respects as the corresponding SIP definitions in 40 CFR part
51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b), which are the implementing regulations for
CAA parts C and D of title I. 40 CFR part 51.165(a)(1) contains the SIP
definitions applicable to Federal NSR operating permit programs for
stationary sources located in nonattainment areas, and 40 CFR 51.166(b)
contains the SIP definitions for stationary sources located in
attainment and/or unclassified areas. 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. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
This rule meets CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding
enforceability. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD includes a recommendation for the next time the local
agency modifies Rule 100.
D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until January 26, 2024. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the
federally enforceable SIP.
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 MCAQD's Rule 100, General Provisions and Definitions,
revised on August 9, 2023, which sets forth the legal authority for the
Maricopa County Air Pollution Rules, and provides definitions of terms
used throughout these rules. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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:
<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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<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.
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.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. 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.
[[Page 89357]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 20, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-28495 Filed 12-26-23; 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 December 27, 2023.
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.