[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47666-47669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16492]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0609; FRL-10025-01-R9]


Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available 
Control Technology--Combustion Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a

[[Page 47667]]

revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's (MCAQD or 
County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 
revision concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
particulate matter (PM) from combustion equipment and internal 
combustion (IC) engines. We are proposing to approve local rules to 
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 
Act) and to determine that the County's control measures implement 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources of 
NOX under the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to 
follow with a final action. Elsewhere in thi's Federal Register, we are 
making an interim final determination to defer CAA sanctions associated 
with our previous disapproval action concerning the County's RACT 
demonstration for major sources of NOX.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0609 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3073 or by 
email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of these rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules proposed for approval with the date they 
were revised by Maricopa County and the date they were submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            TABLE 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Rule No.                  Rule title                    Revised                      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
323.......................  Fuel Burning Equipment    June 23, 2021...............  June 30, 2021.
                             from Industrial/
                             Commercial/
                             Institutional (ICI)
                             Sources.
324.......................  Stationary Reciprocating  June 23, 2021...............  June 30, 2021.
                             Internal Combustion
                             Engines (RICE).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2021, the EPA determined that the submittal for 
the rules in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We conditionally approved previous versions of Rule 323 and Rule 
324 (locally revised on November 2, 2016 and submitted to EPA in 2017 
\1\) into the Arizona SIP on July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take 
final action to approve the June 23, 2021 versions of Rule 323 and Rule 
324, these versions will replace the previously approved versions of 
the rules in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original date of submittal for this SIP revision was 
December 19, 2016. However, due to an administrative error, the 
submittal lacked adequate documentation that demonstrated the 
County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements 
required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The 
County subsequently addressed the public notice requirement and the 
State resubmitted the submittal on June 22, 2017, and withdrew the 
December 19, 2016 submittal on May 17, 2019. As such, we will refer 
to the 2017 submittal when discussing the previously submitted 
version of Rule 323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of these rules?

    Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health 
and the environment. Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less 
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less 
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contribute to effects 
that are harmful to human health and the environment, including 
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular 
disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to 
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to 
submit regulations that control NOX and PM emissions. Any 
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 100 
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary 
source in a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(b)(2), 
(f) and 302(j)).
    Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ discusses RACT requirements. It states, in 
part, that in order to meet the RACT requirements, SIP revisions 
implementing these requirements (RACT SIPs) must contain adopted RACT 
regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions 
are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the 
nonattainment area are covered by a specific control techniques 
guidelines (CTG).\3\ It also provides that states must submit 
appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as 
described in the EPA's

[[Page 47668]]

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \3\ Id. at 12278.
    \4\ See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 323 regulates combustion equipment at non-power plant 
facilities and Rule 324 regulates stationary reciprocating internal 
combustion engines. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have 
more information about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA 
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements 
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions 
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each major source of 
NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or 
above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The MCAQD regulates a 
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area which is 
classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air 
quality standard (40 CFR 81.303). Maricopa County's ``Analysis of 
Reasonably Available Control Technology For The 2008 8-Hour Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan 
(RACT SIP),'' adopted December 5, 2016, submitted June 22, 2017 (the 
``2016 RACT SIP''), found that there were major sources of 
NOX within the Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa 
nonattainment area subject to the County's regulations. Accordingly, 
these rules must establish RACT levels of control for applicable major 
sources of NOX.
    The EPA's previous rulemaking on the 2017 versions of Rule 323 and 
Rule 324 found several deficiencies, which precluded full approval of 
these SIP revisions. Commitments from Maricopa County and ADEQ to 
resolve the approvability issues allowed the EPA to issue conditional 
approvals of these revisions to the Arizona SIP as provided under 
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. The deficiencies in the 2017 submittal 
that Maricopa County and ADEQ committed to resolve are listed below. We 
further explain the deficient provisions in these rules in the TSDs.
Rule 323 Deficiencies
    a. Emergency fuel use exemptions in Section 104 were not adequately 
constrained, and had unclear language that could result in unintended 
emissions.
    b. Burner maintenance requirements in section 304.1.a did not meet 
RACT, as other jurisdictions regulating units in this size category are 
able to achieve numeric limits or have more stringent tuning 
requirements.
    c. The NOX limits of 42 ppmv for gas fuel-fired 
operations and 65 ppmv for liquid fuel-fired operations for non-turbine 
combustion equipment in this rule were not consistent with limits found 
in other jurisdictions and did not meet RACT.
    d. Section 306 allowed for operators to comply with the emission 
limits in this rule by installing an Emission Control System (ECS), but 
the effectiveness of such a system in meeting the applicable emission 
standards was unknown without a compliance determination requirement 
(which in Section 503 only applies to Sections 301-304, and only for 
units larger than 100 million Btu/hr).
    e. The operations and maintenance plan requirements were only 
approved by the Control Officer in Section 306.3. This constituted 
unacceptable director's discretion.
    f. Section 503.2 specified that boilers larger than 100 MMBtu/hr 
must source test triennially, but did not describe a testing frequency 
for other units.
    g. Section 200 did not include a definition for ``boiler,'' which 
is used throughout this rule and in the context of definitions for 
``annual capacity factor,'' ``steam generating unit,'' and others, nor 
is the term defined in Maricopa's Rule 100 General Provisions and 
Definitions. Section 200 also did not include a definition for 
``continuous emissions monitoring system.''
Rule 324 Deficiencies
    a. The Rule's structure for applicability and emission limits did 
not clearly outline RACT limits for all applicable IC engines. Engines 
that were subject to similar Federal requirements in the NSPS and 
NESHAP could be exempt from this rule's RACT limits.
    b. The Rule only applied to engines rated greater than 250 bhp, and 
to engines greater than 50 bhp only when aggregated at a facility 
operating engines with a combined bhp rating of greater than 250 bhp.
    c. The Rule allowed for excessive flexibility in the treatment of 
replacement engines. Emergency engines that serve as backups to replace 
non-emergency engines may do so until the non-emergency engine is 
repaired, but this time span was unbounded, and such engines may 
operate above RACT limits. Rule provisions also allowed for engines 
that are deemed equivalent or identical to replace existing engines to 
be treated the same as the engine being replaced, but there were no 
requirements for replacement engines to quantify emissions equivalency 
or reductions.
    d. The Rule did not specify a compliance determination interval for 
engines, beyond the Control Officer's discretion.
    In our July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692) final rule promulgating our 
conditional approval of Rules 323 and 324, the EPA also finalized 
disapproval of the 2017 revision to Rule 322 regulating power plant 
combustion sources which also must implement RACT for major sources of 
NOX. Our conditional approvals and disapproval of these 
rules led to our subsequent disapproval of the County's demonstration 
for the County's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP on January 7, 2021 (86 FR 
971), which initiated offset sanctions to commence 18 months after the 
effective date of that rulemaking (February 8, 2021), and highway 
sanctions and a Federal Implementation Plan to be due 24 months after 
the effective date, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). The MCAQD 
must resolve the identified deficiencies in all of the associated rules 
in order for the EPA to determine that that the RACT requirement is 
met, and to turn off these penalty clocks.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate 
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements 
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX 
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' EPA 453/R-93-007, January 
1993.
    4. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX 
Emissions from Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers,'' EPA 
453/R-94-022, March 1994.
    5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX 
Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,'' 
EPA 453/R-93-032, July 1993.

[[Page 47669]]

    6. ``De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,'' Memorandum from 
G. T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. EPA, 
January 1, 1995.
    7. ``Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT),'' Memorandum from D. Ken Berry, 
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S. EPA, March 16, 
1994.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that these revisions to Rules 323 and 324 meet CAA 
requirements, and address the conditional approval deficiencies we 
identified in our 2020 rulemaking. Our TSDs contain more information 
about how the revised rules meet the commitments.
    The revisions are otherwise consistent with relevant guidance 
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more 
information on our evaluations on these factors for each rule. On 
February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7069) we proposed approval for MCAQD Rule 322 
to replace the SIP-approved version of that rule, and which would 
address our previous disapproval. Therefore, we find that all three 
rules regulating major sources of NOX in Maricopa County 
meet the applicable CAA requirements and include requirements that are 
consistent with RACT for NOX sources. Based on this finding, 
the EPA concludes that the submitted rules satisfy CAA section 182 RACT 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for major sources of 
NOX.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to 
fully approve the submitted Rules 323 and 324 because they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. In addition, we propose to convert the partial 
conditional approval of RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS with respect to Rules 323 and 324 as found in 40 CFR 
52.119(c)(2), to full approval. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal until September 6, 2022. If we take final action to 
approve the submitted rules, our final action would correct the 
deficiencies identified in our January 7, 2021 partial approval, 
partial disapproval, and partial conditional approval of the RACT 
demonstration as they relate to major sources of NOX in 
MCAQD's RACT SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (86 FR 971).

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the rules identified above in sections I.A, I.B. and I.C of 
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of 
nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-16492 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P