# + 2

(,1 1/,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 ofmaterials, 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 notuse technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use ofvoluntary consensus standards.
Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that there are no factors inthis case that limitthe use of

a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 ofthe Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), ofthe 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.
ListofSubjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
NFor thereasons discussed inthe preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

m 1.Theauthority citation forpart 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 SafetyZone; 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 inthis zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain ofthe Port,Buffalo.

(2)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 ofthis part, entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain ofthe Port Buffalo, or his designated onscene representative.

(c)Effective timeanddate.This section is effective from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. (local) onJune 21, 2005.

Dated: May 19, 2005. K.C. Burke, Commander,U.S. CoastGuard, Acting CaptainofthePortBuffalo., [FRDoc. 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 ofdeficiency.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under section 502(i) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA is publishing thisnotice of deficiency for the Clean Air Acttitle 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 ofthe Clean Air Act orwith the implementing regulations ofthe Operating Permit Program in two respects: permit fees and permit processing. With respect topermit 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 ofthe 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 ofthis rule have contributed to delay in issuance of initial titleV 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 itis providing sufficient staffing. Publication ofthis action is a prerequisite for withdrawal ofMaricopa County's title V program approval, but does not effect such withdrawal.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2005. Because this Notice ofDeficiency is an adjudication and not a final rule, the Administrative Procedure Act's 30-day deferral ofthe effective date ofa 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, orr9airpernits@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table ofContents
I.Background II.Description ofActi6n III. Federal Oversight and Sanctions IV.Administrative Requirements
I. Background

The Clean AirAct (CAA orAct) requires all State and local permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that meet therequirements of title V ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f, and its implementing regulation§, 40 CFR part 70. On November 15, 1993, the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted, on behalf of Maricopa County, aproposed 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 ofInspector General (OIG) issued areport on the progress oftitle V permit issuance based

on its evaluation ofseveral selected state and local air pollution control agencies. In response to OIG's recommendations, EPA made a commitment inJuly 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 ofthe'title Vprogram evaluation in a letter, dated May 27, 2004, in which Region 9 also expressed existing concerns about MCESD's implementation ofits title V permitting program. Over the next several months ofEPA'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

inwhich MCESD failed to meet the requirements oftitle V ofthe Act and 40 CFR part 70.

Section 503(c) ofthe Act requires permitting authorities to act on all initial permit applications within three
years ofprogram approval, which would have been November 29, 1999 for Maricopa County. In aJanuary 28, 2002 letter to EPA, MCESD stated that it had issued sixteen ofits 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 ofApril 15, 2005, MCESD still has
not completed issuance ofallinitial title V permits and has abacklog oftitle V renewal permits as well.

For full details ofEPA 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 ofchanges to its title Vprogram. One significant change has been the formation of anew Air Quality Department (AQD), separate from MCESD, within the Regional Development Services group of Maricopa County. This reorganization should allow Maricopa Countyto 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 Vprogram since the start ofEPA's program evaluation, EPA believes a NOD is necessary in light ofthe existing issues, and to ensure that those issues are adequately addressed going forward.

II.Description ofAction

EPA is publishing a.notice of deficiency for the Clean Air Act title V operating permits progra.m forMaricopa County, Arizona. This document is being published pursuant to 40 CFR 70.10(b)(1), whichprovides that EPA shall publish in the Federal Register a notice ofany 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 morefully below. A. Permit Fees
1.Maricopa County Has Not Demonstrated That It Collects Fees Sufficient To Fund Its Permit Program, Nor That ItUses 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 mustrequire that the

owners oroperators ofpart 70 sources pay annual fees, orthe equivalent over
some other period, that are sufficient to

cover the permit program costs, and the .permittingauthority must ensure that any fee collected be used solely fortitle V permit program costs. Although 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(b) require that apermitting 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 ofthat fee.schedule. See 40 CFR 70.9(b)(3).

- a. Maricopa County has not demonstrated that itsrevised fee rule
meets the requirements oftitle V and part 70.

Maricopa County's fee rule, as included inthe County's 1993 initial title V program submittal, had an annual emissions-based feewhich 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 feerule in 1998, 2000, 2003, and 2004. Currently, permit fees are imposed based on acombination ofan• 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 ofthe permit fees are not assessed on a per-ton basis, itis difficult to determine ifthe aggregate ofthe fees
meets EPA's presumptive minimum. Maricopa County has never submitted any ofits fee rulerevisions to EPA as

aprogram revision submittal or provided a demonstration to EPA, based

onthe current fee rule, that it collects title V fees sufficient to cover the title Vpermit program costs and that title V fees collected are used solely for title V permit program costs.

b. A clear accounting ofcosts 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 aclear accounting ofcosts incurredunder title V (separate from costs incurred under other non-title Vprograms). Maricopa County is able to account fortitle V

revenues quite accurately because payment ofpermit feesby each applicant is recorded inthe permitting agency's Environmental Management System database. However, Maricopa County has more difficulty tracking title V costs.

Maricopa County maintains a single
account for titleV fees, non-title V fees, and enforcement penalties. Bothtitle V and non-title V costs are paid from this
account. Maricopa County title V permitting staff are required to log inthe number ofhours spent preparing title V permits. However, Maricopa County does not maintain an accounting oftotal salary costs for title V activities, nor has Maricopa Countykept an accounting of other actual costs ofthe 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 ofhours required to write a permit in each source category (e.g., cement.plants, compressor stations, limeplants, landfills) and an average number ofpermits issued per source category. Maricopa County's projections also use averages of salaries for a category of an entire group such as "technical" staffofthe title V permitting group.

While thisbroad 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 ofcosts, a direct approach, based on employee-specific salaries and the number ofhours logged fortitle V activities for each employee would be more accurate.

Because Maricopa Countyhas not instituted a system that provides a clear accounting ofcosts incurred for title V activities (separate from non-titleV activities), it has beenunable to detail its permit program cosfs and demonstrate that its titleV revenues

cover those program costs. Maricopa County has also beenunable to demonstrate that titleV revenues are used solely for title Vprogram costs.

EPA would consider correction ofthis deficiency to include submittal ofa demonstration that Maricopa County has the systematic ability to provide a detailed accounting oftitle V program costs separately from other program costs. This accouhting should also provide aclear 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 thattitle V

revenues are used solely fortitle V costs.
2. Maricopa County's Fee Rule and the Implementation ofThis 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, orrenewal permit ifthe

source has notpaid the balance offees due. MCESD's Rule'280 section 301.1 states, "Before issuance ofa permit to construct and operate a source, an applicant shall pay to the Control Officer afee billed by the Control Officer representing thetotal actual .cost ofreviewing and actingupon the application minus any application fee remitted." Maricopa"County has encountered problems with issuing permits when sources refuse to pay their permit feebalances because they are dissatisfied with theirproposed permits. It would appear that existing sources retain the initial application shield granted upon submittal ofa 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 canbe 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 ofthis deficiency to include arevision to Rule 280 and submittal ofa standard setof policies and procedures. The rule revision should eliminate the possibility that a source could prevent Maricopa Countyfrom issuing a final permit by withholding fees. The standard set of policies and procedures would provide

aprocedure for addressing non-payment ofpermit feesthrough enforcement, collection activities, or other means.'

IItmay be worth noting that ifEPA takes over
a fee program, EPA is required by the Act tocharge

a penalty of50% ofthe feeamount, plus interest,

on any unpaid permitfees. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b}(3)(C}(ii); 40CFR 71.9(1)(2). B.Permit Processing
1.Maricopa County Has Issued Title V Permits That DoNot Assure Compliance With All Applicable Requirements

Maricopa County issues combined preconstruction/operating permits, with the intention of meeting both thenew
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 Vprogram. Maricopa County's approved title V program contains Rule 200, which establishes permit requirements and describes the different types ofpermits, and Rule 210, which establishes the requirements for title V permitting inparticular. Maricopa County's SIP, approved by EPA, contains rules for implementing its NSR program (bothmajor and minor). In particular, SIP Rule 20 establishes the requirement for sources to obtain installation (preconstruction) permits for all new and modified sources, and SIPRule 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, attimes, implemented the title V -rule,Rule 210, without proper consideration ofthe requirements ofthe NSR SIP Rule 20, resulting in the submittal to EPA oftitle V permits that do notcontain 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 ofwhich 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 notavoid a requirement to obtain a preconstruction permit byrelying on the operational

IThese conditions, as listed in Maricopa County's Rule 210 Section 403.1, include the following: that thechanges are not title Imodifications, do not exceed emissions allowable under the permit,meet thecriteria forprocessing as a minor title V permit revision, and donot violate applicable requirements. flexibility provisions of atitle V permit.3 Maricopa County's practice typically follows only the requirements ofRule 210 Section 403 without proper implementation of SIPRule 20.

EPA would consider correction ofthis 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 Vrules may notbe used to avoid obtaining an otherwiserequired preconstruction permit; (2) a demonstration that Maricopa County's title Vpermits 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 ofMaricopa's new procedures for' issuing preconstruction and operating permit revisions fortitle V sources, including the requirement to ensure that allpreconstruction reviewrequired under the SIP occurs. Maricopa County might also consider rule changes that

assure that all facility changes comply withpreconstruction review requirements under the SIP.

.2.Maricopa County's Processing of Permit Revisions Is Deficient

a. Incorrect processing ofsignificant revisions as minor revisions

EPA has found that Maricopa County does not take adequate steps to ensure that significantpermit revisions are not incorrectly processed as minor permit revisions. A change that requires a significant permit revision may notbe 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 criteriaby which changes

3 Inaddition, NSRpermit conditions do not expire, sopermitting authorities must ensure that NSR conditions remain in effect evqn after the expiration ofa 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 canbe processed as a minor revision.4

b. Incorrect administrative processing ofminor revisions

Maricopa County typically has not issued a separate revised permit document ortechnical support document when processing its minor permit revisions. EPA has found many minorpermit 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 asthe 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 ofa revised permit document compromises the enforceability of Maricopa County'spermits.

This practice is also inconsistent with 40 CFRpart 70, which requires the permitting authority to issue a revised permit and statement ofbasis. See 40 CFR 70.7(a)(1) and 70.7(a)(5). 5

c. Policies and procedures onpermit revisions

In orderto address parts 2.a. and b. ofthe deficiency above, EPA would consider correction ofthe deficiency to include development and submittal ofa standard set ofpolicies and procedures

onpermit revision procedures fortitle 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 ofbasis for significant and minor permit revisions; and (3) Maricopa's permit processing procedures from receipt ofapplication
to permit issuance.
3. Maricopa County Has Not Demonstrated That It Is Providing Sufficient Staffing

Section 502(b) ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.4 provide that

apermitting authority must have adequate personnel to ensure that the permitting authority can carry out implementation ofits title Vprogram. As noted above, Maricopa County has experienced a significant delay in

4See Finding 5.5 ofEPA'sprogram evaluation report for specific examples.

In

addition, Maricopa Countyhas made it a practice tohave the permit engineer sign the minor permit revision application. Authorizations to approve minor permit revisions have not been delegated to thepermit engineer from theDirector. 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 ofthe 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 -titleV program submittal. In the WLA, Maricopa County projected the number ofhours required for each task of implementing.its title V program, the corresponding number offull-time employees (FTE) required, and the corresponding costs based on salary
-averages.In 2003, Maricopa County updated its WLA tc-provide abasis -for

a change to its fee structure and fee
amounts. The 2003 WLA found that the 1993 WLA hadunderestimated 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 7FTE "air quality engineers" in permitting and 26total FTEs inthe Permits &Compliance Section (these
two functions were in one section at the time). The 2003 WLA projected a need for 21.3 FTEs forthe Permits Section alone.6 The 2003 WLA also stated that the Permits Section had, atthat 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 ofbeing understaffed. The 2003 WLA states, when referring to the 1993 FTE projections, that Maricopa County was not able "to fill all the positions because ofhigh 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 thebeginning ofApril 2005, the Permits Section has 9 permitting staffpersons, at least 11 FTEs short ofits own projected need for "technical" staff.Maricopa County failed to meet allofits 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 ofthis deficiency to include submittal to EPA

6Out'of the 21.3 FTEs, Maricopa County categorized 16.5 ofthese FTEs as "technical." Since Maricopa Countylabeled another category as "manager," EPA is inferring that the "technical"- category includes only technical staff-level employees and does not include managers. ofa strategy that Maricopa Countywill 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 ifMaricopa County is unable to meet these milestones.
C.Significant Action and Correctionof Deficiencies

EPA would consider significant action within 90 days after the date ofthe NOD
to be submittal ofaworkplan containing associated'milestones forresolution 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 laterthan 18 months after the date ofthe NOD. The milestones inthe workplan should include not only the completion ofthe resolution of each deficiency but also intermediate steps and corresponding dates.

Each subsection ofthisnotice which contains a description of a deficiency also contains a suggested correction of the deficiency. EPA will.also consider alternative resolutions proposedby Maricopa County to correct deficiencies. These alternative resolutions should be described inthe workplan forthe significant action submittal. After Maricopa County's submittal ofthe workplan; EPA intends to have an active role intracking Maricopa County's progress towards correcting the deficiencies identified inthis notice within the specified timeframes.
III. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

Part 70 provides-that EPA may withdraw a part 70program approval, in whole or in part, whenever the approved program no longer complies with the requirements ofpart 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 forprogram 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 ofprogram approval, and requires as a prerequisite
to withdrawal that the permitting authority be notified ofany finding of deficiency by the Administrator and that the notice be published inthe Federal Register. Today's notice satisfies thisrequirement and constitutes afinding ofprogram deficiency. Ifthe permitting authority I 

### 32246 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 ofa notice of deficiency, EPA may withdraw approval ofthe permitting authority's program, apply either ofthe sanctions specified in section 179(b) ofthe Act, or promulgate, administer,'and enforce a Federal titleV program. 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2). Section 70.10(b)(3) provides that ifa permitting authority has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months ofthe finding ofdeficiency, EPA will apply the sanctions under section 179(b) ofthe Act, in accordance with section 179(a) ofthe Act.7 In addition, section 70.10(b)(4) provides that, ifthe permitting authority has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months after the date ofnotice of deficiency, EPA must promulgate, administer, and enforce a whole or partial program within 2years ofthe date ofthe finding.

This document is not aproposal to withdraw approval ofMaricopa County's title V program..Consistent with 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2), EPAwill wait at least 90 days before determining whether Maricopa County has taken significant action to correct the deficiencies outlined inthis notice.
IV.Administrative Requirements

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of today's action may be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of June 2, 2005.
Listof Subjects in40 CFR Part70

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

7Section 179(a) provides that unless such deficiency has been corrected within 18 months after thefinding, one ofthe sanctions in section 179(b)ofthe Act shall apply as selected bythe Administrator. If theAdministrator has selected one ofthe sanctions and the deficiency has not been corrected within 6months 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 finalrule.
SUMMARY: Alabama has applied to EPA for final authorization ofthe 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 aprior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do notexpect 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. Ifwe get comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document inthe Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes effect and a separate document in the proposed rules section ofthis 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 byJuly 5, 2005. IfEPA receives such comments, it willpublish

a timely withdrawal ofthis immediate finalrule in the Federal Register and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by

one ofthe following methods:

e FederaleRulemakingPortal: http:// www.regulations.gov.Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

* E-mail:middlebrooks.gail@epa.gov. " Fax:(404) 562-8439 (priorto faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below).

* Mail:Send written comments to Gail Middlebrooks atthe address listed below.

Instructions: Donot submit information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov,ore-mail. The Federal regulations.govWeb site is an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will notknow your identity or contact information unless you provide itin thebody ofyour comments. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment and with any disk orCD-ROM you submit.

You can view and copy Alabama's application from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. atthe following addresses: Alabama Department ofEnvironmental 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 ProgramsNecessary?

States whichhave 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 askEPA 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 theirprograms because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code ofFederal 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 itsauthorized program meet all ofthe statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Alabama Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program withthe changes described inthe authorization application. Alabama has responsibility forpermitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except inIndian Country) and for carrying outthe aspects ofthe RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the 

### 32247

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 32247 2005