+(,121/,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: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

N 2. Revise § 3.750 to read as follows:

§3.750 Entitlement to concurrent receipt

of military retired pay and disability

compensation.

(a) Definition of military retired pay.

For the purposes of this 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 of the 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 and Atmospheric

Administration.

(b) Payment of both military retired

pay and disability compensation or

improved pension-(1) Compensation.

Subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of

this section, a veteran 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 or more,

under the schedule for rating disabilities

(38 CFR part 4, subpart B), or based on

a determination of individual

unemployability under 38 CFR 4.16, is

entitled to receive both payments

subject to the phase-in period described

in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Chapter 61 disability retirees

retiring with 20 or more years of service.

Disability retired pay payable under 10

U.S.C. Chapter 61 to a veteran with 20

or more years of creditable service may

be paid concurrently with disability

compensation to a qualifying veteran

subject to the following:

(i) Any waiver required during the

phase-in period under paragraph

.(c)(1)(ii) of this section; and

(ii) if the veteran's disability retired

pay exceeds the amount of retired pay

the veteran would have received had the

veteran retired based on length of

service, the veteran must waive that

excess amount of disability retired pay

in order to receive VA disability

compensation.

(3)Chapter 61 disability retirees

retiring with less than 20 years of

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 for concurrent

receipt.

(4) Improved Pension. 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 a waiver is

necessary. (i) A waiver of military

retired pay is necessary in order to

receive disability compensation when a

veteran is eligible for both military

retired pay and disability cbmpensation

but is not eligible under paragraphs

(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to receive

both benefits at the same time.

(ii) All veterans who are eligible to

receive both military retired pay and

disability compensation at the same

time under paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of

.this section, 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 a VA

determination of individual

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 in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this

section.

(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1414, 38 U.S.C. 5304,

5305)

(2) How to file a waiver of military

'retired pay. A veteran may request a

waiver of military retired pay in any

written, signed statement, including a

VA form, which reflects a desire to

waive all or some military retired pay.

The statement mist be 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 filed by a veteran who is

entitled to military retired pay.

(d) Elections and the right to reelect

either benefit. (1) A veteran who has

filed a waiver of military retired pay

under this section has elected to receive

disability compensation. A veteran may

reelect between benefits covered by this

section at any time by submitting a

written, signed statement to VA or to the

Federal agency that pays the veteran's

military retired pay.

(2) An election filed within 1 year

from the date of notification of

Department of Veterans Affairs

entitlement will be considered as

"timely filed" for effective date

purposes. See § 3.401(e)(1). If the

veteran is incompetent, the 1-year

period will begin 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 of his or

her right of election and its 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 Resolution of Notice of

Deficiency for Clean Air Operating

Permits Program; Maricopa County, AZ

AGENCY' Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of resolution.

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice of

deficiency on May 17, 2005, in which

EPA identified problems with Maricopa

County's Clean Air Act title V operating

permits program and a timeframe for the

County to correct these deficiencies.

The Maricopa County Air Quality

Department submitted corrections to its

permit program in quarterly updates

beginning in February 2006 and in a

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 of the issues identified in

the May 17, 2005 Notice of Deficiency.

As a result, EPA will not impose

sanctions set forth under the mandatory

sanctions provisions of the Clean Air

Act. In addition, EPA will not

promulgate, administer, and enforce a

whole or partial operating permit

program pursuant to the title V

regulations of the Clean Air Act within

two years after the date of the finding of

deficiency.

DATES: Effective Date: November 9,

2006. 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:

Anna Yen, EPA, Region 9, Air Division

(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 of Contents

I. Background

II. Maricopa County's Submittal and EPA's

Determination

III. EPA's Action

67061

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 67061 2006
67062 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

of deficiency (NOD) for the title V

operating permits program in Maricopa

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 of the.Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act) or with the implementing

regulations at 40 CFR part 70. The

deficiencies EPA found were in two

main categories: (1) Permit fees and (2)

permit processing.

Maricopa County was required to

address these deficiencies within 18

months of the effective date of the NOD,.

or the County would be subject to the

sanctions under 40 CFR 70.10(b)(3) and

section 179(b) of the Act. In addition, 40

CFR 70.10(b)(4) provides that, if the

permitting authority has not corrected

the deficiency within 18 months of the

date of the finding of deficiency, EPA

will promulgate, administer, and

enforce a whole or partial program

within 2 years of the date of the finding.

Region 9performed a title V program

evaluation of Maricopa 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 in the NOD

are a subset of the findings described in

the program evaluation report. While

the program evaluation report was still

being finalized, Maricopa County

initiated a number of changes. In

November of 2004, Maricopa County

created a new 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 Graf was promoted

to the position of Permit Engineering

Division Manager. 2 With the

reorganization and new management,

Maricopa County has implemented or

begun to implement many

improvements to its title V program, in

terms of both accepted practices and

formalized procedures.

1 The report titled "Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department Title V

Operating Permit Program Evaluation," is available

at http://www.epa.gov/regionO9/air/titlevevals.htmI.

2 MCAQD has nine divisions, one of which 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 a correction 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 in February 2006, Maricopa

County Air Quality Department

(MCAQD) submitted quarterly updates

to EPA to show its progress in correcting

the deficiencies noted in the NOD and

in addressing the findings of the title V

program evaluation report. The

submittals included numerous

attachments, many of which were new

policy documents, guidance documents,

and standard operating procedures. On

October 23, 2006, EPA received

MCAQD's submittal, the "Response to

the Notice of Deficiency," (NOD

Response), dated October 20, 2006. The

NOD Response is available to view in

the docket, Docket ID No. AZMaricopa-06-1-OPS. In the NOD

Response, and the preceding quarterly

updates, MCAQD explained and

documented how each of the

deficiencies identified in the NOD had

been, or were 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 of the revised fee rule

and new delinquent fee policy, a fee

demonstration, a description of the

improved accounting system, a

workload assessment for title V, and

other supporting attachments.

This notice focuses only on MCAQD's

responses to correct the deficiencies

identified in the NOD. Based on the

information in MCAQD's NOD

Response, and the preceding quarterly

updates, EPA has determined that

MCAQD has demonstrated that it has

resolved each of the issues listed in the

May 17, 2005 NOD, as discussed below.

A. Permit Fees

1. Demonstration of Sufficient 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 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. 42

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

provide that a permitting 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 of the permit fees are not

assessed on a per-ton basis, it was

difficult to determine if the 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 not have a clear

accounting of its 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 V program.

To address this issue, MCAQD

provided a fee demonstration to show

that the aggregate of its title V fees is

equivalent to a fee greater than the

presumptive minimum, as -allowed by

40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). MCAQD charges a

dollar-per-ton emissions-based fee for

actual emissions of all regulated

pollutants emitted during the previous

calendar year. Therefore, the. fee

demonstration includes fiscal year 2006

(July 2005 through June 2006) title V

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 of the aggregate of its title V

fees in fiscal year 2006 3 was 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

made to MCAQD's accounting system throughout

fiscal year 2006, title V program revenue and

expenses may not be 100% accurate in reflecting

the title V program. However, MCAQD feels it is of

sufficient acuracy to show that the aggregate of its

fees is substantially greater than EPA's presumptive

minimum. MCAQD is in the process of completing

reconciliation of fiscal 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.

4 September 19, 2005, Memorandum, Calculation

of the Part 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 of revenues

sufficient to- cover the title V permit

program costs.

b. Demonstration of Title V Fees Being

Used Solely for the Title V Program

As stated above, Maricopa County

was able to account for title V revenues;

however, it did not have a clear

accounting of costs incurred under title

V. Furthermore, Maricopa County

maintained a single account for title V

fees, non-title V fees, and enforcement

penalties. Both title V and non-title V

costs were paid from this account.

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

7661a(b), and 40 CFR 70.9(a) provide

that a permitting authority's title V

program must ensure that all title V fees

are used solely for title V permit

program costs.

To correct this deficiency, MCAQD

started out by hiring a third party to

conduct an audit of its 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 for costs

and revenues and creation of new

accounting identifiers. Each title V

direct revenue and cost is now tagged

with one of the 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 a full

accounting of its title V program costs.

With this new accounting system-,

MCAQD has been able to submit to EPA

a table of title V revenues and costs,

listed by activity code and by general

category of revenue/cost, for fiscal year

2006. MCAQD showed that, for fiscal

year 2006, its total title V revenues were

more than sufficient to fund total title V

costs, thus confirming the results of

MCAQD's fee demonstration that used

EPA's presumptive minimum as a basis

for comparison.

OAQPS, to Operating Permits Contacts EPA Regions

I-X.

With the improvements to its

accounting system, MCAQD only

partially addressed the issue of

demonstrating that title V permit fees

are used solely for title V program costs.

MCAQD realized that it still needed to

address the scenario of title V revenues

exceeding title V costs. Currently, all

title V revenues and costs 5 are 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 title V program and

manually track costs against the title V

revenue total. However, to facilitate

tracking of title V revenbes and costs,

MCAQD plans to implement an

automated method of tracking 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 regular basis to provide a year-todate total of title V revenues, a year-todate total of title V costs, and the net

balance. It will also provide inceptionto-date totals and net balance. This will

allow MCAQD to know immediately,

upon receipt of the report, the title V

balance.

Currently, Maricopa County's

Department of Finance 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 set up in the

financial system.

With its accounting system

improvements, MCAQD has

demonstrated that it has the systematic

ability to provide a detailed accounting

of title 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 by MCAQD'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 of Maricopa County's Fee

Rule

Maricopa County's fee rule, Rule 280,

prevented the permitting authority from

issuing a final initial title V permit,

permit revision, or renewal permit if the

source did not pay the balance of fees

due. Maricopa County's Rule 280

§ 301.1, at the time of NOD issuance,

stated, "The Control Officer shall not

issue a permit or permit revision until

the balance due on the itemized invoice

is paid in full." Maricopa County

encountered problems with

implementation of this rule when

several sources refused to pay the

balance of permit fees due when they

were dissatisfied with certain

conditions in their permits. Existing

sources retain the initial application

shield granted upon their submittal of a

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 a policy directive that

required permit fee payment within 30

days of the conclusion of the 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 of sources of air 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 a permit renewal in

accordance with Rule 200 of these rules

if the applicant does not pay fees

required for billable permit actions

within 90 days of the invoice date."

MCAQD also removed the $40,000

maximum fee for processing 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 the Notice 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 in the 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 of Final Rulemaking).

B. Permit Processing

1. Implementation Guidance Document

To Ensure That Title V Permits Assure

Compliance With All 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 in its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) and the part

70 requirements in its title V program.

Maricopa County, at times,

implemented its title V rule, Rule 210,

without proper consideration of the

requirements of its NSR SIP Rule 20,

resulting in the submittal to EPA of title

V permits that did not contain all

applicable requirements.

MCAQD has been working

continuously over the past year, and

communicating regularly with EPA, on

an implementation guidance document.

It has also given industry an

opportunity to comment. MCAQD

submitted a final implementation

guidance document entitled "Interim

Guidance Document for Title V Permit

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 and using 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 of the type of

permit it would need.

MCAQD plans to accomplish the

following implementation steps by

November 17, 2006: (1) Distribute a

copy of the guidance document to all

current title V permit 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 of Rule 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 its NSR

rulemaking to codify the principles

spelled out in the guidance document.

2. Written Procedures on Processing of

Permit Revisions

EPA noted two deficiencies related to

Maricopa County's processing of permit

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 did not 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 of the NOD Response,

provides a procedure for determining

the appropriate processing track for title

V permit revisions. One of MCAQD'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 title V program. Regarding the

deficiency involving minor permit

revisions, MCAQD has changed its

practices to ensure that a minor permit

revision, and not just a signed

application, is issued. Furthermore,

MCAQD has implemented a new

procedure which requires that all title V

permit revisions be signed by the

Permitting Division Manager and

Department Director, unless MCAQD

formalizes delegation of the authority to

a management level official.

3. Adequate Administering of Fees To

Provide Sufficient Staffing

Section 502(b) of the 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 of its title V program. In

the NOD, EPA identified the deficiency

that Maricopa County was not

adequately staffing its title V proiram.

MCAQD's strategy for hiring and

retaining adequate staffing for

successful implementation of its title V

program included the following

elements, not necessarily in this -order:

(1) Conduct a countywide market study

to evaluate current job descriptions,

career ladders, and salaries, for an "environmental engineering specialist"

position; (2) implement salary increases

based on the market study results; (3)

perform a workload assessment to

estimate the number of permitting 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 Couity has a history of high

staff turnover within the Permit

Engineering Division. As will be

described in further detail below, EPA,

in its title V program evaluation report,

listed poor compensation as one of the

contributing factors to low morale at

Maricopa County. To address this issue,

Maricopa County's general human

resources department conducted a

market study countywide to evaluate

current job descriptions, career ladders,

and salaries, for an "environmental

engineering specialist." Based on the

results of the study, salary increases

were approved and became effective

December 5, 2005.

MCAQD also analyzed its workload to

determine the number of additional

staffpersons it would need in the Permit

Engineering Division. As part of the

NOD Response, MCAQD submitted a

title V-specific workload assessment for

fiscal year 2006 in which MCAQD

estimated that it would need a total of

eight title V engineers. MCAQD

projected a need for three 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

of the MCAQD Permit Engineering

Division. In addition, the Board of

Supervisors approved three contract

engineering positions, each with a oneyear contract, for title V work. 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 will be eight, which is

consistent with MCAQD's latest

workload assessment. MCAQD is

actively recruiting to fill the four open

title V 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 at Maricopa County. 6 So as

part of its strategy to retain existing

staff, Maricopa County focused on these

two main issues. As noted earlier,

Maricopa County addressed the first

issue of poor compensation through a

market study and resulting salary

increases. To address the second issue

of career development, MCAQD has

begun to develop or has already

completed the following actions EPA

recommended in the title V program

evaluation report: a review of the job

classifications that would apply to title

V engineers, implementation of a

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 of years of

experience as well 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 at least

two years of experience, and the secondlevel EES classification requires a P.E.

license. In addition, as evidenced by the

implementation of salary increases on

December 5, 2005, the range of salaries

for each of the current EES

classifications is higher than that for any

of the former EES classifications. In fact,

the range of salaries 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

6 See Finding 7.6 of EPA's program evaluation

report.

7According to MCAQD Human Resources, the

average salary increase for the MCAQD Permit

Engineering Division per employee ranged from

0.21% to 21%.

positions can be 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 30 to 60 days,

which is substantially faster than-the

standard RFP process. Since 2005, one

permitting action has been 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

four projects (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 staff to

successfully implement its title V

program. Included in the submittal was

an updated workload assessment

specific to title V tasks. MCAQD also

described a contingency plan if it was

unable to fill open title V engineering

positions. MCAQD has followed

through on implementation of its

strategy and, though it has not

completed all steps, we are confident

that MCAQD will continue its efforts

until it is able to 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 County has resolved each of

the deficiencies identified by EPA in the

NOD for Maricopa County's title V

operating permits program, 70 FR 32243

(June 2, 2005). Therefore, based on the

rationale set forth above, EPA is not

invoking sanctions pursuant to section

179(b) of the Act, nor administering any

portion of the County's operating

permits program, pursuant to40 CFR

70.10(b)(4).

IV. Administrative Requirements

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

today's action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by January 19, 2007.

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: November 9, 2006.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. E6-19555 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal

-Regulations, parts 72 to 80, revised as of

July 1, 2006, on page 695, § 80.75 is

corrected by reinstating paragraph (a)(2)

to read as follows:

§80.75 Reporting requirements. • * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) The following information shall be

included in each quarterly report for

each batch of reformulated gasoline or

RBOB which is included under

paragraph (a)(1) of this section:

(i) The batch number;

(ii) The date of production;

(iii) The volume of the batch;

(iv) The grade of gasoline produced

(i.e., premium, mid-grade, or regular);

(v) For any refiner or importer:

(A) Each designation of the 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) In the case of any previously

certified gasoline used in a refinery

operation under the terms of § 80.65(i),

the following information relative to the

previously certified gasoline when

received at the refinery:

(A) Identification of the previously

certified gasoline as such;

(B) The batch number assigned by the

receiving refinery;

(C) The date of receipt; and

(D) The volume, properties and

designation of the 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