[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47211-47213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19308]



[[Page 47211]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0497; FRL-9999-35-Region 9]


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 emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate 
matter (PM) from brick and structural clay products manufacturing, 
rubber sports ball manufacturing, and vegetable oil extraction 
processes. We are proposing approval of the rescission of local rules 
that 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: Any comments must arrive by October 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0497 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the County rescind?
    B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the County rescind?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were most recently adopted by MCAQD and approved by the EPA. 
MCAQD rescinded these rules on December 13, 2017, from the local 
rulebook, and forwarded the rescissions to the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for adoption and submittal to the EPA for 
approval. On December 18, 2017, ADEQ adopted the rule rescissions and 
submitted them to the EPA for approval.

                    Table 1--MCAQD Rules for Which Rescission Has Been Submitted for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Adopted/      SIP approval
             Local  agency                 Rule No.            Rule title             revised          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.................................             325  Brick and Structural          08/10/2005      08/21/2007
                                                         Clay Products (BSCP)
                                                         Manufacturing.
MCAQD.................................             334  Rubber Sports Ball            06/19/1996      02/09/1998
                                                         Manufacturing.
MCAQD.................................             339  Vegetable Oil Extraction      11/16/1992      02/09/1998
                                                         Processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2018, the submittal of the rescission of MCAQD Rules 
325, 334, and 339 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.

B. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone, smog and PM, 
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 
requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 
334 and Rule 339 were adopted to meet reasonably available control 
measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
requirements as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), 
and they address specific, single sources in each rule that were 
emitting >=100 tons of VOC/year. The purpose of Rule 334 is to limit 
VOC emissions from natural and synthetic rubber adhesives used in the 
manufacture of non-inflatable rubber balls. The source, Penn Racquet 
Sports, ceased rubber sports ball manufacturing operations in Maricopa 
County in 2009, and MCAQD closed Penn Racquet Sports' permit in 2009. 
The purpose of Rule 339 is to limit VOC emissions during the extraction 
of vegetable oil using solvents. MCAQD closed Western Cotton Services' 
permit (operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) in 1999. MCAQD does not 
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 334 or Rule 
339 to establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's technical 
support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.
    Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in 
diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in 
diameter (PM10), contribute to effects that are harmful to 
human health and the environment, including premature mortality, 
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and 
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit 
regulations that control PM emissions. Rule 325 was adopted to meet the 
best available control measures (BACM)/most stringent measures (MSM) 
requirements for all significant sources of PM10 for the 
Phoenix planning area of Maricopa County, classified as Serious 
nonattainment in 1996 for the annual and 24-hour PM10 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

[[Page 47212]]

The purpose of Rule 325 is to limit particulate matter emissions from 
the use of tunnel kilns for curing in brick and structural clay 
products (BSCP) manufacturing processes. The source, Phoenix Brick 
Yard, ceased manufacturing operations in Maricopa County in 2012 and 
its air quality permit from MCAQD was closed in 2012. MCAQD does not 
anticipate any new sources that would be subject to Rule 325 to 
establish operations in Maricopa County. The EPA's TSD has more 
information about this rule.

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, SIP rules must require RACT for each 
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The 
MCAQD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as Moderate for 
the 2008 8-hour NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Phoenix-Mesa area, which includes the northern two-
thirds of Maricopa County and small portions of Pinal County, is 
classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 
Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, SIP rules must implement BACM, including Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT), in Serious PM10 
nonattainment areas (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)). The MCAQD regulates 
a PM10 nonattainment area classified as Serious for the 
PM10 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.303).
    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). Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) requirements, 
MCAQD must demonstrate that the rescission of Rules 325, 334, and 339 
would not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress 
(RFP) of the NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification 
of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an 
order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, 
in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the 
modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the 
relevant pollutant.
    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).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment 
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas 
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that MCAQD Rules 325, 334, and 339 are 
appropriate for rescission, given that the sources for which the rules 
were originally developed have shut down and no longer perform 
manufacturing operations in the Phoenix-Mesa area, as evidenced by the 
surrender of their operating permits.2 3 4 In addition, we 
find no other sources subject to these rules in Maricopa County, as 
evidenced by our review of the Maricopa County emissions inventories 
for PM10 and VOCs.\5\ MCAQD also documented6 7 8 
that these three rescissions will not result in any changes to 
allowable or actual emissions from existing sources of ozone precursors 
or particulate matter, and will not interfere with the attainment or 
maintenance of the applicable NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa area. We agree 
with MCAQD that no such changes or interference would result from the 
subject rule rescissions. Lastly, we note that Rules 325, 334, and 339 
were SIP-approved post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193 does not apply 
to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter dated April 7, 2016, from Richard Sumner, Manager, 
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Clinton-Campbell Contractor, Inc., 
Owner, Phoenix Brick Yard, ``Your air quality permit #090298 was 
permanently relinquished on August 13, 2012 and has been closed.''
    \3\ MCAQD Permit Closeout Form, dated August 4, 2009, for Head 
Penn Racquet Sports permit #V95001, signed by Douglas L. Erwin, 
Manager, Permit Division, MCAQD.
    \4\ Email dated June 20, 2019, from Richard Sumner, Manager, 
MCAQD Permitting Division, to Lisa Beckham, U.S. EPA Region IX, with 
attachments detailing closeout of Western Cotton Services permit 
(operated by Anderson Clayton Corp.) on March 4, 1999.
    \5\ The EPA 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), facility-
level emissions.
    \6\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan, 
Rescission of Rule 325 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution 
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c), 
2.2(d), p.5-6.
    \7\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan, 
Rescission of Rule 334 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution 
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c), 
2.2(d), p.5-6.
    \8\ MCAQD, ``Revision to Arizona's State Implementation Plan, 
Rescission of Rule 339 from the Maricopa County Air Pollution 
Control Rules and Regulations,'' December 2017, sections 2.2(c), 
2.2(d), p.5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to 
approve the rescission of MCAQD Rules 325 (Brick and Structural Clay 
Products (BSCP) Manufacturing), 334 (Rubber Sports Ball Manufacturing) 
and 339 (Vegetable Oil Extraction Processes) from the Maricopa County 
portion of the Arizona SIP because they are no longer necessary to meet 
any CAA requirement and because rescission would not interfere with 
reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will 
accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 9, 2019. 
If we take final action to approve the rule rescissions, our final 
action will remove these rules from the federally enforceable SIP.

III. 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

[[Page 47213]]

beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 27, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-19308 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P