+(,121/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 32243 2005 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jun 18 18:02:22 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 105/Thursday, June 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

technical standards (e.g., specifications

of materials, performance, design, or

operation; test methods; sampling

procedures; and related management

systems practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical

standards. Therefore, we did not

consider the use of voluntary consensus

standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,

which guides the Coast Guard in

complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and

have determined that there are no factors in this case that limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this

rule is categorically excluded, under

figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the

Instruction from further environmental

documentation. Paragraph (34)(g) is

applicable to this event because this

rule establishes a safety zone.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of

the Instruction, an "Environmental

Analysis Check List" and a "Categorical

Exclusion Determination" are not

required for this.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

N For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

m 1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR

1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.

107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

* 2. Add new temporary § 165.T09-016

to read as follows: -

§ 165.T09-016 Safety Zone; Presque Isle

Bay, Dobbins Landing, Erie, PA.

(a) Location. The following area is a

temporary safety zone: All waters of

Presque Isle Bay within an 800-foot

radius around the fireworks launch

platform located at 42°08'19- N,

080°05'30" W. These coordinates are based upon NAD 83.

(b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited

unless authorized by the Coast Guard

Captain of the Port, Buffalo.

(2) In accordance with the general

regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry

into this safety zone is prohibited unless

authorized by the Coast Guard Captain

of the Port Buffalo, or his designated onscene representative.

(c) Effective time and date. This

section is effective from 10 p.m. through

10:30 p.m. (local) on June 21, 2005.

Dated: May 19, 2005.

K.C. Burke,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Captain of the Port Buffalo.,

[FR Doc. 05-10941 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AZ-ND-127; FRL-7919-5]

Notice of Deficiency for Clean Air

Operating Permits Program; Maricopa

County, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of deficiency.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority

under section 502(i) of the Clean Air

Act, EPA is publishing this notice of

deficiency for the Clean Air Act title V

operating permits program of Maricopa

County, Arizona. The notice of

deficiency is based upon EPA's finding

that Maricopa County's title V program

does not comply with the requirements

of the Clean Air Act or with the

implementing regulations of the

Operating Permit Program in two

respects: permit fees and permit

processing. With respect to permit fees,

specific deficiencies include the

following: Maricopa County has failed

to demonstrate that its title V program

requires owners or operators of

Operating Permit Program sources to

pay fees that are sufficient to cover the

costs of the County's title V program,

and has failed to adequately ensure that

its title V program funds are used solely

for title V permit program osts; and

Maricopa County's fee rule and the

implementation of this rule have

contributed to delay in issuance of

initial title V permits. With respect to

permit processing, specific deficiencies

include the following: Maricopa County

has issued title V permits that do not assure compliance with all applicable

requirements; Maricopa County's

processing of permit revisions is

deficient; and Maricopa County has not

demonstrated that it is providing

sufficient staffing. Publication of this

action is a prerequisite for withdrawal

of Maricopa County's title V program

approval, but does not effect such

withdrawal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2005. Because

this Notice of Deficiency is an

adjudication and not a final rule, the

Administrative Procedure Act's 30-day

deferral of the effective date of a rule

does not apply.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerardo Rios, EPA, Region 9, Air

Division (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA-94105, (415) 972-

3974, or r9airpernits@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Description of Acti6n

III. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)

requires all State and local permitting

authorities to develop operating permits

programs that meet the requirements of

title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f,

and its implementing regulation§, 40

CFR part 70. On November 15, 1993, the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) submitted, on behalf of

Maricopa County, a proposed title V

program to the Administrator for

approval. Maricopa County's title V

program was granted final interim

approval by EPA on November 29, 1996

and was granted full approval on November 30, 2001.

In March 2002, the Office of Inspector

General (OIG) issued a report on the

progress of title V permit issuance based on its evaluation of several selected

state and local air pollution control

agencies. In response to OIG's

recommendations, EPA made a

commitment in July 2002 to conduct

comprehensive title V program

evaluations throughoutthe nation. EPA

Region 9 began its program evaluations

in 2003, with Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department

(MCESD) as the second permitting

agency on its program evaluation

schedule. Region 9 informed MCESD of

the start of the'title V program

evaluation in a letter, dated May 27,

2004, in which Region 9 also expressed

existing concerns about MCESD's

implementation of its title V permitting

program. Over the next several months

of EPA's title V program evaluation,

Region 9 learned more details of

MCESD's implementation practices and

procedures, including many instances

32243

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32243 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 105/Thursday, June 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations

in which MCESD failed to meet the

requirements of title V of the Act and 40

CFR part 70.

Section 503(c) of the Act requires

permitting authorities to act on all

initial permit applications within three

years of program approval, which would

have been November 29, 1999 for

Maricopa County. In a January 28, 2002

letter to EPA, MCESD stated that it had

issued sixteen of its fifty-six initial title

V permits. MCESD committed to issue

its remaining forty initial permits by

December 1, 2003, completing ten

permits every six months. MCESD failed

to meet each six month milestone for

permit issuance as well as the December

1, 2003 deadline for all initial permits.

As of April 15, 2005, MCESD still has

not completed issuance of all initial title

V permits and has a backlog of title V

renewal permits as well.

For full details of EPA Region 9's

findings, please see the report,

"Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department Title V Operating

Permit Program Evaluation," which is

available at http://www.epa.govl

regiono9/air/titlevevals.htm.

Maricopa County has recently

initiated a number of changes to its title

V program. One significant change has

been the formation of a new Air Quality

Department (AQD), separate from

MCESD, within the Regional

Development Services group of

Maricopa County. This reorganization

should allow Maricopa County to focus

its resources on air quality in an area

that has increasingly complex air

permitting issues and, thus, requires a

more concentrated effort. Though

Maricopa County has initiated many

improvements to its title V program

since the start of EPA's program

evaluation, EPA believes a NOD is

necessary in light of the existing issues,

and to ensure that those issues are

adequately addressed going forward.

II. Description of Action

EPA is publishing a. notice of

deficiency for the Clean Air Act title V

operating permits progra.m for Maricopa

County, Arizona. This document is

being published pursuant to 40 CFR

70.10(b)(1), which provides that EPA

shall publish in the Federal Register a

notice of any determination that a title

V permitting authority is not adequately

administering or enforcing its title V

operating permits program. The

deficiencies being noticed today are in

two main categories of (1) permit fees

and (2) permit processing. The specific

deficiencies are described more fully

below.

A. Permit Fees

1. Maricopa County Has Not

Demonstrated That It Collects Fees

Sufficient To Fund Its Permit Program,

Nor That It Uses Fees Solely for Program

Costs

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and

40 CFR 70.9(a), a permitting authority's

title V program must require that the

owners or operators of part 70 sources

pay annual fees, or the equivalent over

some other period, that are sufficient to

cover the permit program costs, and the

.permitting authority must ensure that

any fee collected be used solely for title

V permit program costs. Although 42

U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(b)

require that a permitting authority's title

V permit program include a fee

schedule that results in the collection of

sufficient fees to cover all title V permit

program costs, permitting authorities

have flexibility in- developing the.

components of that fee. schedule. See 40

CFR 70.9(b)(3). - a. Maricopa County has not

demonstrated that its revised fee rule

meets the requirements of title V and

part 70.

Maricopa County's fee rule, as

included in the County's 1993 initial

title V program submittal, had an annual

emissions-based fee which met the

presumptive minimum prescribed in 40

CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i) for existing sources, in

addition to an annual "processing and

inspection" fee. Maricopa County later

revised its fee rule in 1998, 2000, 2003,

and 2004. Currently, permit fees are

imposed based on a combination of an•

application fee, hourly-based processing

fee, annual administrative fee, and

annual emissions-based fee. The

emissions-based fee is less than EPA's

presumptive minimum. Since other

components of the permit fees are not

assessed on a per-ton basis, it is difficult

to determine if the aggregate of the fees

meets EPA's presumptive minimum.

Maricopa County has never submitted

any of its fee rule revisions to EPA as

a program revision submittal or

provided a demonstration to EPA, based

on the current fee rule, that it collects

title V fees sufficient to cover the title

V permit program costs and that title V

fees collected are used solely for title V

permit program costs.

b. A clear accounting of costs is

- necessary

Maricopa County is not able to

demonstrate that title V permit fees

collected are sufficient to fund its title

V program and that title V permit fees

are used solely for title V program costs,

because it does not have a clear

accounting of costs incurred under title

V (separate from costs incurred under

other non-title V programs). Maricopa

County is able to account for title V

revenues quite accurately because

payment of permit fees by each

applicant is recorded in the permitting

agency's Environmental Management

System database. However, Maricopa

County has more difficulty tracking title

V costs.

Maricopa County maintains a single

account for title V fees, non-title V fees,

and enforcement penalties. Both title V

and non-title V costs are paid from this

account. Maricopa County title V

permitting staff are required to log in the

number of hours spent preparing title V

permits. However, Maricopa County

does not maintain an accounting of total

salary costs for title V activities, nor has

Maricopa County kept an accounting of

other actual costs of the title V program

such as training, equipment, and travel.

Maricopa County has provided EPA

with workload assessments that preject

future costs by estimating an average

number of hours required to write a

permit in each source category (e.g.,

cement.plants, compressor stations,

lime plants, landfills) and an average

number of permits issued per source

category. Maricopa County's projections

also use averages of salaries for a

category of an entire group such as

"technical" staff of the title V permitting

group.

While this broad approach could be

considered adequate for the purpose of

projecting future costs, Maricopa

County should be able to provide a more

accurate, detailed accounting of actual

title V revenues, costs, and expenditures

to demonstrate that title V fees are not

being directed to do non-title V work.

For an accounting of costs, a direct

approach, based on employee-specific

salaries and the number of hours logged

for title V activities for each employee

would be more accurate.

Because Maricopa County has not

instituted a system that provides a clear

accounting of costs incurred for title V

activities (separate from non-title V

activities), it has been unable to detail

its permit program cosfs and

demonstrate that its title V revenues

cover those program costs. Maricopa

County has also been unable to

demonstrate that title V revenues are

used solely for title V program costs.

EPA would consider correction of this

deficiency to include submittal of a

demonstration that Maricopa County

has the systematic ability to provide a

detailed accounting of title V program

costs separately from other program

costs. This accouhting should also

provide a clear demonstration that total

title V revenues are sufficient to fund

total title V costs. The accounting

32244

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32244 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 105/Thursday, June 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations

should also clearly show that title V

revenues are used solely for title V

costs.

2. Maricopa County's Fee Rule and the

Implementation of This Rule Have

Contributed to the Delay in Issuance of

Initial Title V Permits

Maricopa County's fee rule, Rule 280,

prevents the permitting authority from

issuing a final initial title V permit,

permit revision, or renewal permit if the

source has not paid the balance of fees

due. MCESD's Rule'280 section 301.1

states, "Before issuance of a permit to

construct and operate a source, an

applicant shall pay to the Control

Officer a fee billed by the Control

Officer representing the total actual .cost

of reviewing and acting upon the

application minus any application fee

remitted." Maricopa" County has

encountered problems with issuing

permits when sources refuse to pay their

permit fee balances because they are

dissatisfied with their proposed permits.

It would appear that existing sources

retain the initial application shield

granted upon submittal of a complete

application; thus, these sources can

continue to operate without a title V

operating permit. The problem is further

exacerbated by the fact that Maricopa

County has not enforced against those

sources that refused to pay fees.

The end result is that issuance of

certain title V permits can be delayed if sources refuse to pay fees, and the delay

may extend until Maricopa County

revises the permit conditions in

question. The rule could cause similar

problems during permit renewal. This

situation is inconsistent with Maricopa

County's obligation under the Act to

have sufficient authority to issue

permits and assure compliance with

each applicable requirement, as well as

its obligation to take final action on

complete applications in a timely

fashion, as specified in part 70.

EPA would consider correction of this

deficiency to include a revision to Rule

280 and submittal of a standard set of

policies and procedures. The rule

revision should eliminate the possibility

that a source could prevent Maricopa

County from issuing a final permit by

withholding fees. The standard set of

policies and procedures would provide

a procedure for addressing non-payment

of permit fees through enforcement,

collection activities, or other means.'

IIt may be worth noting that if EPA takes over a fee program, EPA is required by the Act to charge

a penalty of 50% of the fee amount, plus interest,

on any unpaid permit fees. See 42 U.S.C.

7661a(b}(3)(C}(ii); 40 CFR 71.9(1)(2).

B. Permit Processing

1. Maricopa County Has Issued Title V

Permits That Do Not Assure Compliance

With All Applicable Requirements

Maricopa County issues combined

preconstruction/operating permits, with

the intention of meeting both the new

source review (NSR) requirements

contained in Maricopa County's

approved State Implementation Plan

(SIP) and the part 70 requirements

contained in Maricopa County's

approved title V program. Maricopa

County's approved title V program

contains Rule 200, which establishes

permit requirements and describes the

different types of permits, and Rule 210,

which establishes the requirements for

title V permitting in particular.

Maricopa County's SIP, approved by

EPA, contains rules for implementing its

NSR program (both major and minor). In

particular, SIP Rule 20 establishes the

requirement for sources to obtain

installation (preconstruction) permits

for all new and modified sources, and

SIP Rule 21 establishes the procedures

for obtaining an installation permit.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a)(1)(iv), title

V permits must assure compliance with.

all applicable requirements, including

NSR requirements. Maricopa County

has, at times, implemented the title V

-rule, Rule 210, without proper

consideration of the requirements of the

NSR SIP Rule 20, resulting in the

submittal to EPA of title V permits that

do not contain all applicable

requirements.

Sections 403 and 403.2 of Rule 210

allow title V sources to make certain

changes without a permit revision if

specific conditions are met.2 SIP Rule

20, however, does not contain a similar

exemption from installation permitting

requirements. Specifically, SIP Rule 20

requires that "any person erecting,

installing, replacing, or making a major

alteration to any machine, equipment,

incinerator, device or other article

which may cause or contribute to air

pollution or the use of which may

eliminate or reduce or control the

emission of air pollutants, shall first

obtain an Installation Permit from the

Control Officer."

Permitting authorities may issue

combined NSR/title V permits.

However, a source may not avoid a

requirement to obtain a preconstruction

permit by relying on the operational

I These conditions, as listed in Maricopa County's

Rule 210 Section 403.1, include the following: that

the changes are not title I modifications, do not exceed emissions allowable under the permit, meet

the criteria for processing as a minor title V permit

revision, and do not violate applicable

requirements.

flexibility provisions of a title V

permit.3 Maricopa County's practice

typically follows only the requirements

of Rule 210 Section 403 without proper

implementation of SIP Rule 20.

EPA would consider correction of this

deficiency to include submittal of an

implementation guidance document

that ensures that Maricopa County's title

V permits assure compliance with all

applicable requirements, including SIPapproved NSR requirements. An

implementation guidance document

might include the following elements:

(1) An explanation that Maricopa

County's title V rules may not be used

to avoid obtaining an otherwiserequired preconstruction permit; (2) a

demonstration that Maricopa County's

title V permits assure compliance with

SIP-approved preconstruction

requirements; (3) a plan for evaluating

applications and issuing permit

revisions that include all applicable

requirements, including any applicable

preconstruction review requirements;

(4) any necessary revisions to

Maricopa's standard application form to

ensure that pre-construction review

requirements are addressed; and (5)

guidance to affected sources advising

them of Maricopa's new procedures for'

issuing preconstruction and operating

permit revisions for title V sources,

including the requirement to ensure that

all preconstruction review required

under the SIP occurs. Maricopa County

might also consider rule changes that

assure that all facility changes comply

with preconstruction review

requirements under the SIP.

.2. Maricopa County's Processing of

Permit Revisions Is Deficient

a. Incorrect processing of significant

revisions as minor revisions

EPA has found that Maricopa County

does not take adequate steps to ensure

that significant permit revisions are not

incorrectly processed as minor permit

revisions. A change that requires a

significant permit revision may not be

implemented before the permit revision

is subject to public notice and comment,

approved by the permitting authority,

and reviewed by EPA. Maricopa

County's incorrect processing of

significant revisions has allowed

sources to bypass these requirements.

Maricopa's Rule 210 Section 405.1

specifies the criteria by which changes

3 

In addition, NSR permit conditions do not

expire, so permitting authorities must ensure that

NSR conditions remain in effect evqn after the

expiration of a title V permit that incorporates thb

conditions.

32245

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32245 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 105 / Thursday, June 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

at a source can be processed as a minor

revision.4

b. Incorrect administrative processing

of minor revisions

Maricopa County typically has not

issued a separate revised permit

document or technical support

document when processing its minor

permit revisions. EPA has found many

minor permit revisions that do not

contain any revision to the title V

permit but, instead, the permittee's

application is signed by an MCESD

permit engineer and initialed by the title

V supervisor. This application then

serves as the permit revision.

The signed application does not

contain an engineering analysis or

revised permit conditions to support the

application approval. This practice of

issuing the signed permit application

instead of a revised permit document

compromises the enforceability of

Maricopa County's permits.

This practice is also inconsistent with

40 CFR part 70, which requires the

permitting authority to issue a revised

permit and statement of basis. See 40

CFR 70.7(a)(1) and 70.7(a)(5). 5

c. Policies and procedures on permit

revisions

In order to address parts 2.a. and b.

of the deficiency above, EPA would

consider correction of the deficiency to

include development and submittal of a

standard set of policies and procedures

on permit revision procedures for title V

sources. EPA envisions that such a

document would include the following

elements: (1) Criteria for determining if

a proposed revision is significant, minor

or administrative; (2) procedures for

developing appropriate permit

conditions and statements of basis for

significant and minor permit revisions;

and (3) Maricopa's permit processing

procedures from receipt of application

to permit issuance.

3. Maricopa County Has Not

Demonstrated That It Is Providing

Sufficient Staffing

Section 502(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.4 provide that

a permitting authority must have

adequate personnel to ensure that the

permitting authority can carry out

implementation of its title V program.

As noted above, Maricopa County has

experienced a significant delay in

4 See Finding 5.5 of EPA's program evaluation

report for specific examples.

In addition, Maricopa County has made it a

practice to have the permit engineer sign the minor

permit revision application. Authorizations to

approve minor permit revisions have not been

delegated to the permit engineer from the Director.

Thus, Maricopa County has not been following the

proper administrative procedures for issuance of

minor permit revisions.

issuing initial title V permits. In

addition, Maricopa County has had

problems with the quality of the title V

permits issued, specifically, ensuring

that the permit assures compliance with

all applicable requirements.

In 1993, Maricopa County submitted

a workload assessment (WLA) with its

-title V program submittal. In the WLA,

Maricopa County projected the number

of hours required for each task of

implementing. its title V program, the

corresponding number of full-time

employees (FTE) required, and the

corresponding costs based on salary

-averages. In 2003, Maricopa County

updated its WLA tc- provide a basis -for

a change to its fee structure and fee

amounts. The 2003 WLA found that the

1993 WLA had underestimated the'

initial assumptions for title V program

implementation. As far as staffing

needs, the 2003 WLA increased FTE

projections, compared to 1993

projections, for all sections or groups. In

particular, the 1993 WLA projected a

need for 7 FTE "air quality engineers"

in permitting and 26 total FTEs in the

Permits & Compliance Section (these

two functions were in one section at the

time). The 2003 WLA projected a need

for 21.3 FTEs for the Permits Section

alone.6 The 2003 WLA also stated that

the Permits Section had, at that time, 13

FTEs and that, at this staffing level, "the

Section struggles to meet permit

issuance timelines, keep up with rule

revisions * * * and to implement

community outreach."

Maricopa County appears to

acknowledge a history of being

understaffed. The 2003 WLA states,

when referring to the 1993 FTE

projections, that Maricopa County was

not able "to fill all the positions because

of high turnover and inability to find

qualified applicants." In addition,

Maricopa County.has left the position of

Permits Section Manager vacant for

many years. As of the beginning of April

2005, the Permits Section has 9

permitting staffpersons, at least 11 FTEs

short of its own projected need for

"technical" staff. Maricopa County

failed to meet all of its deadlines for

issuing initial title V permits and, as of

April 15, 2005, still has not issued all

initial title-V permits. In its 2003 WLA,

Maricopa County admitted that it is

understaffed and cannot meet permit

issuance deadlines.

EPA would consider correction of this

deficiency to include submittal to EPA

6 Out'of the 21.3 FTEs, Maricopa County

categorized 16.5 of these FTEs as "technical." Since

Maricopa County labeled another category as

"manager," EPA is inferring that the "technical"-

category includes only technical staff-level

employees and does not include managers.

of a strategy that Maricopa County will

implement to hire and'retain adequate

staffing to successfully implement its

title V program. The strategy could be

based either on the 2003 WLA or an

updated WLA, should include

milestones with corresponding dates,

and should describe contingency

options to fill positions if Maricopa

County is unable to meet these

milestones.

C. Significant Action and Correction of

Deficiencies

EPA would consider significant action

within 90 days after the date of the NOD

to be submittal of a workplan containing

associated'milestones for resolution of

each deficiency, for review and

approval by EPA. The workplan should

clearly describe Maricopa County's

proposed correction for each deficiency

and a completion date no later than 18

months after the date of the NOD. The

milestones in the workplan should

include not only the completion of the

resolution of each deficiency but also

intermediate steps and corresponding

dates.

Each subsection of this notice which

contains a description of a deficiency

also contains a suggested correction of

the deficiency. EPA will. also consider

alternative resolutions proposed by

Maricopa County to correct deficiencies.

These alternative resolutions should be

described in the workplan for the

significant action submittal. After

Maricopa County's submittal of the

workplan; EPA intends to have an active

role in tracking Maricopa County's

progress towards correcting the

deficiencies identified in this notice

within the specified timeframes.

III. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

Part 70 provides-that EPA may

withdraw a part 70 program approval, in

whole or in part, whenever the

approved program no longer complies

with the requirements of part 70 and the

permitting authority fails to take

corrective action. 40 CFR 70.10(c)(1).

This section goes on to list a number of

potential bases for program withdrawal,

including inadequate fee collection and

failure to comply with the requirements

of part 70 in administering the program.

40 CFR 70.10(b) sets'forth the

procedures for withdrawal of program

approval, and requires as a prerequisite

to withdrawal that the permitting

authority be notified of any finding of

deficiency by the Administrator and

that the notice be published in the

Federal Register. Today's notice

satisfies this requirement and

constitutes a finding of program

deficiency. If the permitting authority

32246 I 32246

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32246 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 105 /Thursday, June 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

has not taken "significant action to

assure adequate administration and

enforcement of the program" within 90

days after the date of a notice of

deficiency, EPA may withdraw approval

of the permitting authority's program,

apply either of the sanctions specified

in section 179(b) of the Act, or

promulgate, administer,'and enforce a

Federal title V program. 40 CFR

70.10(b)(2). Section 70.10(b)(3) provides

that if a permitting authority has not

corrected the deficiency within 18

months of the finding of deficiency,

EPA will apply the sanctions under

section 179(b) of the Act, in accordance

with section 179(a) of the Act. 7 In

addition, section 70.10(b)(4) provides

that, if the permitting authority has not

corrected the deficiency within 18

months after the date of notice of

deficiency, EPA must promulgate,

administer, and enforce a whole or

partial program within 2 years of the

date of the finding.

This document is not a proposal to

withdraw approval of Maricopa

County's title V program..Consistent

with 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2), EPA will wait

at least 90 days before determining

whether Maricopa County has taken

significant action to correct the

deficiencies outlined in this notice.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

today's action may be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit within 60 days of

June 2, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Operating permits, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 17, 2005.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 05-10995 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

7 Section 179(a) provides that unless such

deficiency has been corrected within 18 months

after the finding, one of the sanctions in section

179(b) of the Act shall apply as selected by the

Administrator. If the Administrator has selected one

of the sanctions and the deficiency has not been

corrected within 6 months thereafter, then

sanctions under both sections 179(b)(1) and

179(b)(2) shall apply until the Administrator

determines that the permitting authority has come

into compliance.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-7920-6]

Alabama: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Alabama has applied to EPA

for final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation-and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that

these changes satisfy all requirements

needed to qualify for final authorization,

and Is authorizing the State's changes

through this immediate final action.

EPA is publishing this rule to authorize

the changes without a prior proposal

because we believe this action is not

controversial and do not expect

comments that oppose it. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the decision to authorize

Alabama's changes to its hazardous

waste program will take effect. If we get

comments that oppose this action, we

will publish a document in the Federal

Register withdrawing this rule before it

takes effect and a separate document in

the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register will serve as a proposal

to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will

become effective on August 1, 2005

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by July 5, 2005. If EPA

receives such comments, it will publish

a timely withdrawal of this immediate

final rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that this authorization

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by

one of the following methods:

e Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.

* E-mail: middlebrooks.gail@epa.gov.

" Fax: (404) 562-8439 (prior to

faxing, please notify the EPA contact

listed below).

* Mail: Send written comments to

Gail Middlebrooks at the address listed

below.

Instructions: Do not submit

information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The

Federal regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know your identity

or contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your

comments. If you submit an electronic

comment, EPA recommends that you

include your name and other contact

information in the body of your

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM

you submit.

You can view and copy Alabama's

application from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the

following addresses: Alabama

Department of Environmental

Management, 1400 Coliseum Blvd.,

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463;

(334) 271-7700 and EPA Region 4,

Library, 9th Floor, The Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-

3104; (404) 562-8190.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail

Middlebrooks, RCRA Services Section,

RCRA Programs Branch, Waste

Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, The Sam Nunn Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104; (404) 562-

8494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received Final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to State programs may

be necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

We conclude that Alabama's

applications to revise its authorized

program meet all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Alabama

Final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. Alabama has responsibility

for permitting Treatment, Storage, and

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its

borders (except in Indian Country) and

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA

program described in its revised

program application, subject to the

32247

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32247 2005