# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 67061 2006

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 18 18:06:02 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. 71, No. 223 /Monday, November 20, 2006/Rules and Regulations

Authority: 38U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.

N 2. Revise § 3.750to read as follows:
§3.750 Entitlement to concurrent receipt ofmilitary retired pay and disability compensation. (a) Definitionofmilitaryretired pay. For the purposes ofthis part, military retired pay is payment received by a veteran that is classified as retired pay by the Service Department, including retainer pay, based on the recipient's service as a member ofthe Armed Forces or as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Environmental Science Services Administration, or the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration.



### (b)Paymentofbothmilitaryretired
payanddisabilitycompensationor improvedpension-(1) Compensation. Subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, aveteran who is entitled to military retired pay and disability compensation for a'service-connected disability rated 50 percent or more, or

a combination of service-connected disabilities rated at 50 percent ormore, under the schedule forrating disabilities (38 CFR part4, subpart B), orbased on

a determination ofindividual unemployability under 38 CFR 4.16, is entitled to receive both payments subject to the phase-in period described inparagraph (c) ofthis section.

(2) Chapter61 disability retirees retiringwith 20ormoreyearsofservice. Disabilityretired pay payable under 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61 to aveteran with 20

ormore years ofcreditable service may be paid concurrently with disability compensation to a qualifying veteran subject to the following:

(i) Any waiver required duringthe phase-in period under paragraph .(c)(1)(ii) ofthis section; and (ii)if the veteran's disability retired
pay exceeds the amount ofretired pay the veteran would have received had the
veteran retired based on length of service, the veteran must waive that

excess amount ofdisability retired pay in order to receive VAdisability compensation. (3)Chapter 61 disability retirees retiringwith lessthan20yearsof service.Veterans who receive disability retired pay urder 10 U.S.C. Chapter 61 with less than 20 years of creditable service are not eligible forconcurrent receipt. (4)ImprovedPension.A veteran may receive improved pension and military retired pay at the same time without having to waive military retired pay. However, in determining entitlement to improved pension, VA will treat military retired pay in the same manner

as countable income from other sources.

(c) Waiver-(1) When awaiveris
necessary.(i) A waiver ofmilitary retiredpay is necessary in orderto receive disability compensation when a veteran is eligible forboth military retired pay and disability cbmpensation but is not eligible under paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) ofthis section to receive bothbenefits atthe same time.

(ii) All veterans who are eligible to receive both military retired pay and disability compensation atthe same time under paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of .thissection, except those receiving compensation for a disability rated 100 percent, must file a waiver in order to receive the maximum allowable amount of disability compensation during the phase-in period. For veterans receiving disability compensation based on aVA determination ofindividual unemployability, the phase-in period ends'on December 30, 2009. For all other veterans, the phase-in pQriod ends

on December 31, 2013. After the phasein period, veterans retired under 10 U.S.C. chapter 61 who are eligible for
concurrent receipt must Still file a waiver under the circumstances described inparagraph (b)(2)(ii) ofthis section. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1414, 38U.S.C. 5304, 5305)

(2) Howtofile awaiverofmilitary 'retired pay.A veteran may request a waiver ofmilitary retired pay in any written, signed statement, including a VA form, whichreflects a desire to waive all or some military retired pay. The statement mistbe submitted to VA

or to the Federal agency that pays the veteran's military retired pay. VA will
treat as a waiver an application for VA compensation filedby aveteran who is entitled to military retired pay. (d)Electionsandthe righttoreelect eitherbenefit. (1) A veteran who has filed a waiver ofmilitary retired pay under this section has elected to receive disability compensation. A veteran may reelect between benefits covered by this section at anytime by submitting a written, signed statement to VA orto the Federal agency that pays the veteran's military retired pay. (2)An election filed within 1 year from the date ofnotification of Department ofVeterans Affairs entitlement willbe considered as "timely filed" for effective date
purposes. See §3.401(e)(1). Ifthe
veteran is incompetent, the 1-year period willbegin on the date that notification is sent to the next friend or fiduciary. In initial determinations, elections may be applied retroactiVely if 

### the claimant was not advised ofhis or herright ofelection andits effect. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5304(a), 5305)
[FR Doc. E6-19603 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70 [AZ-06-01; FRL-8243-8]



### Notice of Resolutionof Notice of Deficiency forClean Air Operating Permits Program; Maricopa County,AZ

AGENCY' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofresolution.

SUMMARY: EPA issued anotice of deficiency on May 17, 2005, inwhich EPA identified problems with Maricopa County's Clean Air Acttitle Voperating permits program and atimeframe for the County to correct these deficiencies. The Maricopa County AirQuality Department submitted corrections to its permit program in quarterly updates beginning in February 2006 and ina final submittal dated October 20, 2006. This notice announces that, based on information provided by Maricopa County Air Quality Department, EPA concludes that Maricopa County has resolved all ofthe issues identified in the May 17, 2005 Notice ofDeficiency. Asa result, EPA will notimpose sanctions set forthunder the mandatory sanctions provisions ofthe Clean Air Act. In addition,EPA will not promulgate, administer, and enforce a whole or partial operating permit
program pursuant tothe title V regulations ofthe Clean AirAct within
two years after the date ofthe finding of deficiency. DATES: Effective Date:November 9, 2006. Because this Notice ofDeficiency 

### is an adjudication andnot afinal rule, the Administrative Procedure Act's 30- day deferral ofthe effective date ofa rule does not apply.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Yen, EPA, Region 9, AirDivision (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3976, or r9airpermits@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.
Table ofContents
I.Background II.Maricopa County's Submittal andEPA's Determination III. EPA'sAction 

### 67061

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67061 200667062 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 223/Monday, November 20, .2006/Rules and Regulations

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

On May 17, 2005, EPA issued a notice ofdeficiency (NOD) for the title V operating permits program inMaricopa County, Arizona. (70 FR 32243, June 2, 2005). The NOD was based upon EPA's findings that the County's title V
program did not comply with the requirements ofthe.Clean Air Act (CAA

orAct) or with the implementing regulations at 40 CFRpart 70. The deficiencies EPA found were intwo main categories: (1)Permit fees and (2) permit processing.

Maricopa County was required to address these deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date ofthe NOD,.

orthe County would be subject to the sanctions under 40 CFR 70.10(b)(3) and section 179(b) ofthe Act. In addition, 40 CFR 70.10(b)(4) provides that,ifthe permitting authority has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months ofthe date ofthe finding of deficiency, EPA will promulgate, administer, and enforce a whole or partial program within 2years ofthe date ofthe finding.

Region 9performed atitle V program evaluation ofMaricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) beginning May 27, 2004. On May 18, 2005, Region 9 issued the final
program evaluation report ' to MCESD. The deficiencies identified inthe NOD

are a subset ofthe findings described in the program evaluation report. While the program evaluation report was still being finalized, Maricopa County initiated anumber ofchanges. In November of2004, Maricopa County created anew Air Quality Department, separate from MCESD. In addition, Maricopa County filled two key management positions in the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD): Department Director and Permit Engineering Division Manager. In March 2005, Robert Kard was hired

as the new Department Director. In April 2005, Kathlene Grafwas promoted
to the position ofPermit Engineering Division Manager. 2 Withthe reorganization andnew management, Maricopa County has implemented or begun to implement many improvements to its title Vprogram, in
terms ofboth accepted practices and formalized procedures.

1The report titled "Maricopa County Environmental Services Department TitleV Operating Permit Program Evaluation," is available at http://www.epa.gov/regionO9/air/titlevevals.htmI.

2MCAQD has nine divisions, one ofwhich is the Permit Engineering Division. Ii. Maricopa County's Submittal and EPA's Determination

On August 15, 2005, Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) submitted a corrective action plan entitled "Response to EPA Notice of Deficiency &Title V Audit" to EPA. In the plan,MCAQD responded to each deficiency n6ted in the May 17, 2005 NOD and to each finding in EPA's title V program evaluation report by proposing acorrection for each deficiency and an action to address each EPA finding. The submittal also included a timeline that showed milestones and dates for completion of each milestone.

Beginning inFebruary 2006, Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) submitted quarterly updates
to EPA to show its progress in correcting the deficiencies noted inthe NOD and inaddressing the findings ofthe title V program evaluation report. The submittals included numerous attachments, many ofwhich were new policy documents, guidance documents, and standard operating procedures. On October 23, 2006, EPA received MCAQD's submittal, the "Response to the Notice ofDeficiency," (NOD Response), dated October 20, 2006. The NOD Response is available to view in the docket, Docket IDNo. AZMaricopa-06-1-OPS. In the NOD Response, and the preceding quarterly updates, MCAQD explained and documented how each ofthe deficiencies identified in the NOD had been, orwere being, addressed. The NOD Response contains documented internal organizational and operational changes within MCAQD, an interim guidance document for title V permit revisions, a copy ofthe revised fee rule and new delinquent fee policy, afee demonstration, a description of the improved accounting system, a workload assessment for titleV, and other supporting attachments.

This notice focuses only on MCAQD's responses to correct the deficiencies identified inthe NOD. Based onthe information in MCAQD's NOD Response, and the preceding quarterly updates, EPA has determined that MCAQD has demonstrated that it has resolved each ofthe issues listed inthe May 17, 2005 NOD, as discussed below.

A. PermitFees

1.Demonstration ofSufficient Fees To Cover Program Costs and That Fees Are Used Solely for Title V

a. Fee Demonstration

Pursuant t642 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(a), a permitting authority's title V program must require that the

owners oroperators ofpart 70 sources pay annual fees, or the equivalent over

some other period, that are sufficient to

cover the permit program costs. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3) and 40 CFR 70.9(b) provide that apermitting authority may collect fees that cover the actual permit
program costs, or may use a presumptive fee schedule, adjusted for inflation.

Maricopa County's permit fee
structure is 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, and, since other components ofthe permit fees are not assessed on aper-ton basis, it was difficult to determine ifthe aggregate of the fees met the presumptive minimum. In addition, though Maricopa County

was able to account for title V revenues quite accurately, it did nothave a clear accounting ofits costs incurred under title V. Therefore, Maricopa County was not able to demonstrate that title V permit fees collected were sufficient to fund its title Vprogram.

To address this issue, MCAQD provided afee demonstration to show that the aggregate ofits title V fees is equivalent to a fee greater than the presumptive minimum, as-allowedby 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). MCAQD charges a dollar-per-ton emissions-based fee for actual emissions ofall regulated pollutants emitted during the previous calendar year.Therefore, the. fee demonstration includes fiscal year 2006 (July 2005 through June 2006) titleV
revenue, the total reported emissions of regulated pollutants for calendar year 2005, and the resulting dollar-per-ton number, which was compared with EPA's presumptive minimum adjusted for inflation. MCAQD showed that the equivalent ofthe aggregate of itstitle V fees infiscal year 2006 3was greater than EPA's presumptive minimum which, adjusted for fiscal year 2006, is $39.48/ton. 4 Therefore, by 40 CFR

Because changes and improvements were being madeto MCAQD's accounting system throughout fiscal year 2006, title V program revenue and expenses may not be 100% accurate in reflecting thetitle V program. However, MCAQD feels it is of sufficient acuracy toshow that the aggregate ofits fees is substantially greater than EPA's presumptive minimum. MCAQD is in the process ofcompleting reconciliation offiscal year 2006 title V revenues and expenses tothe extent possible, and any corrections made will be reflected in the title V reporting category being established to track the title V fund balance.

4September 19, 2005, Memorandum, Calculation ofthePart 70 Presumptive Minimum Fee Effective from September 2005 through August 2006, from Jeff Herring, Operating Permits Group, ITPID,

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67062 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 223/Monday, November 20, 2006/Rules and Regulations

70.9(b)(2)(i), EPA presumes that MCAQD's fee schedule results in the collection and retention ofrevenues sufficient to- cover the title V permit
program costs. 

### b. Demonstration ofTitle V Fees Being Used Solelyfor the Title V Program

As stated above, Maricopa County

was able to account for title V revenues; however, it didnot have a clear accounting ofcosts incurred under title V. Furthermore, Maricopa County 

### maintained a single account for titleV fees, non-title V fees, and enforcement penalties. Both title V and non-title V
costs were paid from this account. Section 502(b) ofthe Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.9(a) provide that apermitting authority's title V program must ensure that all titleV fees

are used solely for title V permit
program costs.

To correct this deficiency, MCAQD started outbyhiring a third party to conduct an audit ofits accounting system, department-wide. MCAQD's existing accounting system was an activity-based system to an extent; i.e., it did tag certain revenues with identifiers to distinguish one program's

revenue from another program's

revenue. However, the system did not provide enough detail such that title V
costs could be accurately identified. The audit findings led to correction of existing accounting identifiers forcosts and revenues and creation ofnew accounting identifiers. Each titleV directrevenue and cost is now tagged with one ofthe following two activity codes: LSPC (Large Source Permit Compliance) and LSPR (Large Source Permit Engineering Review). These codes are now reflected in MCAQD's financial, personnel, and budgeting systems for all revenues and costs. MCAQD has also defined formulas to allocate title V indirect costs (e.g., administrative, ambient monitoring, planning, modeling) to the appropriate activity codes, thus allowing for afull accounting ofits titleV program costs.

With thisnew accounting system-, MCAQD has been able to submit to EPA

a table oftitle V revenues and costs, listedby activity code and by general category ofrevenue/cost, forfiscal year 2006. MCAQD showed that, for fiscal
year 2006, its total title Vrevenues were
morethan sufficient to fund total titleV costs,thus confirming the results of MCAQD's fee demonstration that used EPA's presumptive minimum as abasis for comparison.

OAQPS, to Operating Permits ContactsEPA Regions I-X. With the improvements to its accounting system, MCAQD only partially addressed the issue of demonstrating that titleV permit fees

are used solely fortitle Vprogram costs. MCAQD realized that it still needed to address the scenario oftitle V revenues exceeding title Vcosts. Currently, all title V revenues and costs5are coded before being deposited into or withdrawn from the Air Quality Fee Fund. MCAQD has the ability to identify and total the revenues originating from the titleV program and manually track costs against the title V

revenue total. However, to facilitate tracking oftitle V revenbes and costs, MCAQD plans to implement an automated method oftracking the title V portion of the Air Quality Fee Fund by setting up a reporting category code in the financial system, similar to the way its grant revenue and costs are tracked. This reporting code will, in effect, generate a "fund balance report"

on a regularbasis to provide ayear-todate total oftitle V revenues, ayear-todate total oftitle V costs, and the net balance. It will also provide inceptionto-date totals and netbalance. This will allow MCAQD to know immediately,
upon receipt ofthe report, the title V balance.

Currently, Maricopa County's Department ofFinance generates a fund balance report monthly for the existing funds with reporting codes (e.g., grant funds). The fond balance report is reviewed, reconciled, and certified for accuracy by MCAQD's Financial Administrator. A written response to Maricopa County's Department of Finance is required to certify/validate the information on the report. The procedure will not differ once the title V reporting code is setup in the financial system.

With its accounting system improvements, MCAQD has demonstrated that it has the systematic ability to provide a detailed accounting oftitle V program costs separately from other program costs. In addition, the

5 Costs such as salaries and benefits are charged
to the organizational unit to which the employee belongs or supports. These determinations are made jointly byMCAQD's Financial Administrator, the applicable program manager, and.the Planning and Analysis Division Manager. Costs such as supplies, services, and capital outlays are charged in the organizational unit that will use the purchased items/services to the extent possible. The program manager determines, with assistance from MCAQD's Finance Division, the appropriate organizational unit and activity code to which the costs should be charged. All expenditures require approval by a program manager and the Financial Administrator. On a mdnthly basis, program managers review revenue and costs charged to their organizational unit and corresponding activity codes. above new reporting code coupled with the existing review procedures will reinforce MCAQD's ability to show that title V fumds are being used solely for title V program costs.
2. Revision ofMaricopa County's Fee Rule

Maricopa County's fee rule, Rule 280, prevented the permitting authority from issuing a final initialtitle V permit, permit revision, orrenewal permit ifthe

source did notpay the balance offees due. Maricopa County's Rule 280 § 301.1, at the time ofNOD issuance, stated, "The Control Officer shall not issue apermit or permit revision until the balance due onthe itemized invoice is paid in full." Maricopa County encountered problems with implementation ofthisrule when several sources refused to paythe balance ofpermit fees due whenthey

were dissatisfied with certain conditions in theirpermits. Existing

sources retain the initial application shield granted upon their submittal ofa complete application; thus, these

sources claimed that they could continue to operate without an operating permit. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that Maricopa County did not enforce against those

sources that refused to pay fees.

The first step MCAQD took in correcting this deficiency was to implement apolicy directive that required permit fee payment within 30 days ofthe conclusion ofthe month in which a source was billed. While MCAQD worked on revising its-Rule 280, it also created a policy document
to provide a consistent process for collecting unpaid fees charged to
owners, operators, applicants, and/or permittees ofsources ofair pollution subject to the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations. The document serves as guidance for MCAQD personnel.

MCAQD completed revisions to its Rule 280 in February 2006. It added the following language to the rule: "The Control Officer may deny a permit, a permit revision, or apermit renewal in accordance with Rule 200 ofthese rules ifthe applicant does notpay fees required forbillable permit actions within 90 days ofthe invoice date." MCAQD also removed the $40,000 maximum fee forprocessing Title V permit applications, thus enabling MCAQD to recover the full cost associated with issuing a Title V permit. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved revisions to the rule on July 12, 2006, and theNotice of Final Rulemaking waspublished in the Arizona Administrative.Register on 

### 67063

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67063 2006

### 67064 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 223/Monday, November 20, 2006/Rules and Regulations

August 18, 2006. Though EPA did not include this step inthe NOD as a correction to the deficiency, MCAQD also plans to formally submit the revised Rule 280 to EPA (through the State) as a revision to the title V program once all formal rulemaking documents are available (e.g., Board of Supervisor's certification, publication affidavits, Notice ofFinal Rulemaking).

B. PermitProcessing

1. Implementation Guidance Document To Ensure That Title VPermits Assure Compliance WithAll Applicable Requirements

Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a)(1)(iv), title V permits must assure compliance with all applicable requirements, including

new source review (NSR) requirements. Maricopa County issues combined preconstruction/operating permits, with the intention of meeting both the NSR requirements inits State Implementation Plan (SIP)and the part 70 requirements inits title V program. Maricopa County, attimes, implemented its title Vrule, Rule 210, without proper consideration ofthe requirements of its NSR SIP Rule 20, resulting inthe submittal to EPA oftitle V permits that did not contain all applicable requirements.

MCAQD has been working continuously overthe pastyear, and communicating regularly with EPA, on
an implementation guidance document. It has also given industry an opportunity to comment. MCAQD submitted a finalimplementation guidance document entitled "Interim Guidance Document forTitle VPermit Revisions" in the NOD Response. The guidance document explains how title V

sources and MCAQD will ensure that changes or modifications to an emissions unit or operation at a title V

source will comply with both the pr.econstruction provisions in the NSR SIP-and the permitting procedures in the current Rule 210. Before making changes subject to the NSR SIP, title V

sources must obtain preconstruction approval from the County. By laying out procedures for determining the appropriate processing track for title V permit revisions andusing flowcharts to step through the gatekeepers, the guidance document provides guidance
not only for distinguishing between a significant revision and a minor revision under the title V program, but also for determining whether preconstruction approval is required pursuant to its SIP Rule 20. The guidance document also suggests that a title V source use an attached checklist to document how it proceeded through the flowcharts to reach a determination ofthe type of permit it would need.

MCAQD plans to accomplish the following implementation steps by November 17, 2006: (1)Distribute a copy ofthe guidance document to all
current title Vpermit holders; (2) Include the guidance document with all title V permit application forms provided to applicants; (3)Publish the guidance document with printed and on-line versions ofRule 210, to be distributed by the County.; and (4) Provide training to title V permit staff

on the administration of this guidance.

MCAQD plans to revise its rules when it makes the changes necessary for NSR Reform. MCAQD states that it must wait for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to make the changes to the State rules before it can proceed. The Interim Guidance Document will be effective only until the time MCAQD completes itsNSR rulemaking to codify the principles spelled out inthe guidance document.

2. Written Procedures onProcessing of Permit Revisions

EPA noted two deficiencies related to Maricopa County's processing ofpermit revisions: (a)Maricopa County did not take adequate steps to ensure that significant permit revisions were not incorrectly processed as minor permit revisions; and (b)Maricopa County typically didnot issue a separate revised permit document or technical support document when processing its minor permit revisions. Instead, it signed the application for the minor permit revision and allowed it to serve

as the final minor permit revision.

MCAQD's implementation guidance document entitled "Interim Guidance Document for Title V Permit Revisions,." which was part ofthe NOD Response, provides a procedure for determining the appropriate processing track for title V permit revisions. One ofMCAQD's objectives with this guidance document is to facilitate its own efforts to ensure that significant permit revisions are not incorrectly processed as minor revisions under the titleV program. Regarding the deficiency involving minorpermit revisions, MCAQD has changed its practices to ensure that a minor permit revision, and notjust a signed application, is issued. Furthermore, MCAQD has implemented a new procedure which requires that all title V permit revisionsbe signed bythe Permitting Division Manager and Department Director, unless MCAQD formalizes delegation ofthe authority to

a management level official. 3. Adequate Administering ofFees To Provide Sufficient Staffing

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

a permitting authority muit have adequate personnel to ensure that the permitting authority can carry out implementation ofits title V program. In the NOD, EPA identified the deficiency that Maricopa County was not adequately staffing its title V proiram.

MCAQD's strategy forhiring and retaining adequate staffing for successful implementation ofits title V program included the following elements, not necessarily in this-order: (1)Conduct a countywide market study
to evaluate currentjob descriptions,

career ladders, and salaries, foran "environmental engineering specialist" position; (2) implement salary increases based onthe market studyresults; (3) perform a workload assessment to estimate the number ofpermitting staff needed; (4) recruit for the additional permitting staff positions; and (5) address career development (e.g., review job classifications, implement a formal training program for staff, provide mentorship to staff).

Maricopa Couityhas ahistory ofhigh staff turnover within the Permit Engineering Division. As will be described in further detail below, EPA, in its titleV program evaluation report, listed poor compensation as one ofthe contributing factors to low morale at Maricopa County. To address this issue, Maricopa County's generalhuman

resources department conducted a market studycountywide to evaluate
current job descriptions, career ladders, and salaries, for an "environmental engineering specialist." Based on the results ofthe study, salary increases

were approved and became effective December 5, 2005.

MCAQD also analyzed its workload to determine the number ofadditional staffpersons it would need inthe Permit Engineering Division. As part ofthe NOD Response, MCAQD submitted a title V-specific workload assessment for fiscal year 2006 in which MCAQD estimated that it would need atotal of eight titleV engineers. MCAQD projected a need forthree contract engineers to complete its backlog of work. On March 1, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved MCAQD's request for an additional four full-time employees (FTEs)for the title V group ofthe MCAQD Permit Engineering Division. In addition, the Board of Supervisors approved three contract engineering positions, each with a oneyear contract, for title Vwork. If MCAQD is able to fill the four FTE

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67064 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 223/Monday, November 20, 2006/Rules and Regulations

positions, the resulting total number of title V engineers willbe eight, which is consistent with MCAQD's latest workload assessment. MCAQD is actively recruiting to fill the four open titleV engineer positions, as well as the three contract engineer positions.

EPA noted in its title V program evaluation report that poor compensation and lack of opportunity for career development contributed to low morale atMaricopa County. 6 So as part ofits strategy toretain existing staff, Maricopa County focused on these
two main issues. As noted earlier, Maricopa County addressed the first issue ofpoor compensation through a market study and resulting salary increases. To address the second issue ofcareer development, MCAQD has begun to develop or has already completed the following actions EPA recommended inthe title V program evaluation report: areview ofthe job classifications that would apply to title V engineers, implementation ofa training program for staff,creation of standard operating procedures (SOPs), and providing mentorship to staff.

Regarding job classifications, MCAQD has streamlined the number of' "environmental engineering specialist" (EES)job classifications from three to
two and changed the definition of each classification in an effort to clarify the criteria for salary increases and promotions. MCAQD has placed more ol

an emphasis on number ofyears of experience aswell as having a professional engineering (P.E.) license. For example,MCAQD decided to eliminate the former EES Intern classification which required no experience; instead, the current firstlevel EES classification requires atleast
two years of experience, and the secondlevel EES classification requires aP.E. license. In addition, as evidenced by the implementation ofsalary increases on December 5, 2005, the range ofsalaries for each ofthe current EES classifications is higher than that for any ofthe former EES classifications. In fact, the range ofsalaries for the current second-level tES classification is even higher than that for the former EES Supervisor classification.7

MCAQD has a contingency plan in place until the open title V engineering

6See Finding 7.6 ofEPA's program evaluation report.

7According to MCAQD Human Resources, the
average salary increase for theMCAQD Permit Engineering Divisionper employee ranged from
0.21% to 21%. positions canbe filled. MCAQD's fee rule allows MCAQD to bill a source for the cost of obtaining consultants for expedited permit processing. Because MCAQD has an approved consultant list,the entire process from sending requests for proposals (RFP)to selecting

a bidder takes only about 30to 60 days, which is substantially faster than-the standard RFP process. Since 2005, one permitting action hasbeen completed by a consultant through this expedited
process. Currently, there are three consulting firms under contract, each

one working on a different permitting action. MCAQD estimates that the work performed by the consultants for these fourprojects (the one completed and the three still in progress) would be equivalent to the work performed by 3 FTEs. MCAQD plans to continue to use consultants as necessary.

MCAQD submitted to EPA a strategy to hire and retain adequate staffto successfully implement its title V
program. Included inthe submittal was

an updated workload assessment specific to title V tasks.MCAQD also described a contingency plan ifit was unable to fill open title V engineering positions. MCAQD has followed through on implementation ofits strategy and, though it has not completed all steps, we are confident that MCAQD will continue its efforts until it is ableto fill all opefi title V positions.-

I.EPA's Action

EPA is notifying the public that,based

on the information provided by MCAQD, internal operational changes within MCAQD, and a Maricopa County rule change, EPA has determined that Maricopa Countyhas resolved each of the deficiencies identified by EPA in the NOD forMaricopa County's title V operating permits program, 70 FR 32243 (June 2, 2005). Therefore, based on the rationale setforth above, EPA is not invoking sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) ofthe Act, nor administering any portion ofthe County's operating permits program, pursuant to40 CFR 70.10(b)(4).

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of today's action mustbe filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby January 19, 2007.

List ofSubjects 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: November 9,2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region9. [FR Doc. E6-19555 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives

CFR Correction

In Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal -Regulations,parts 72 to 80, revised as of July 1, 2006, on page 695, § 80.75 is corrected by reinstating paragraph (a)(2)
toread as follows:
§80.75 Reporting requirements.

• * * * * 

### (a) * * * (2) The following information shall be included ineach quarterly report for each batch ofreformulated gasoline or RBOB which is included under paragraph (a)(1) ofthis section: (i)

The batch number; (ii) The date ofproduction; (iii) The volume of thebatch; (iv) The grade ofgasoline produced (i.e., premium, mid-grade, orregular);

(v) For any refiner or importer: (A) Each designation ofthe gasoline, pursuant to §80.65; and

-

(B) The properties, pursuant to §§ 80.65 and 80.66;

(vi)For any importer, the PADD in which the import facility is located;

(vii) [Reserved] (viii)Inthe case of anypreviously certified gasoline used in arefinery operation under the terms of § 80.65(i), the following information relative to the previously certified gasoline when received atthe refinery:

(A) Identification ofthe previously certified gasoline as such;

(B) The batch number assigned by the receiving refinery;

(C) The date ofreceipt; and (D) The volume, properties and designation ofthe batch.

[FR Doc. 06-:55529 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-0 

### -0 67065

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67065 2006