Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7069 

days. Thus, written comments are now 

due on or before February 21, 2022. 

Himamauli Das, 

Acting Director, Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02593 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0107; FRL–9426–01– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa 

County; Power Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department’s (MCAQD or 

County) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter 

(PM) from power plants. We are 

proposing to approve a local rule to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

Elsewhere in this Federal Register, we 

are making an interim final 

determination to defer CAA sanctions 

associated with our previous 

disapproval action concerning the 

County’s revision of this local rule. 

DATES: must be received on or before 

March 10, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0107 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3073 or by 

email at gong.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of Rule 322? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does Rule 322 meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 

submitted MCAQD Rule 322 ‘‘Power 

Plant Operations’’ as amended on June 

23, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on 

June 24, 2021. On September 25, 2021, 

the EPA determined that the submittal 

for MCAQD Rule 322 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved a previous version of 

Rule 322 (locally revised on October 17, 

2007) into the Arizona SIP on October 

14, 2009 (74 FR 52693). The County 

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 

version on November 2, 2016, and 

ADEQ submitted them to us on June 22, 

2017. The EPA disapproved that 

revision in a final rule published on July 

20, 2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take final 

action to approve the June 23, 2021 

version of Rule 322, this version will 

replace the previously approved version 

of this rule in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of Rule 322? 

Emissions of NOX contribute to the 

production of ground-level ozone, smog 

and PM, which harm human health and 

the environment. Emissions of PM, 

including PM equal to or less than 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM 

equal to or less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10), contribute to effects 

that are harmful to human health and 

the environment, including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

NOX and PM emissions. Rule 322 

regulates equipment at power plants 

that emit these and other pollutants. 

The EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about this 

rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). 

Generally, SIP rules must require 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for each major source of NOX in 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or above (see CAA sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The MCAQD 

regulates a portion of the Phoenix-Mesa 

ozone nonattainment area which is 

classified as Moderate for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (40 CFR 81.303). Maricopa 

County’s ‘‘Analysis of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology For The 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),’’ 

adopted December 5, 2016, submitted 

June 22, 2017 (the ‘‘2016 RACT SIP’’), 

found that there were major sources of 

NOX within the Maricopa County 

portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone 

nonattainment area subject to Rule 322. 

Accordingly, this rule must establish 

RACT levels of control for applicable 

major sources of NOX. 

The EPA’s previous rulemaking on 

the 2017 version of Rule 322 found 

several deficiencies that did not allow 

for approval of that revision into the 

Arizona SIP. These deficiencies 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7070 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(described further in our 2019 TSD for 

that rule) include the following: 

a. Air Pollution Control Officer 

discretion to approve alternative control 

strategies as RACT without further 

approval from the EPA. 

b. NOX emission limits for steam 

generating units used for electricity 

generation that were less stringent than 

RACT. 

c. Overly broad exemptions from 

certain requirements during emergency 

fuel use operations. 

d. Air Pollution Control Officer 

discretion to extend compliance 

deadlines for applicable units. 

e. Absence of a compliance 

determination requirement, such as a 

regular stack testing requirement. 

As a result of these deficiencies, the 

EPA finalized disapproval of the 2017 

revision to Rule 322, which initiated 

offset sanctions to commence 18 months 

after the effective date of that 

rulemaking (August 19, 2020), highway 

sanctions to commence 24 months after 

the effective date, and a requirement to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to commence 24 months after 

the effective date, under CAA sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a). If MCAQD revises 

Rule 322 to resolve the identified 

deficiencies and EPA approves the 

revision into the Arizona SIP, these 

sanctions and FIP clocks will be 

stopped. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised 

January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Stationary 

Gas Turbines,’’ EPA 453/R–93–007, January 

1993. 

4. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Industrial, 

Commercial & Institutional Boilers,’’ EPA 

453/R–94–022, March 1994. 

5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,’’ 

EPA 453/R–93–032, July 1993. 

6. ‘‘De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Group 

Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, 

U.S. EPA, January 1, 1995. 

7. ‘‘Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT),’’ Memorandum from D. Ken Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, US. EPA, March 16, 1994. 

B. Does Rule 322 meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe that this revision to Rule 

322 meets CAA requirements, and 

addresses the deficiencies we identified 

in our 2020 rulemaking. The MCAQD 

corrected the first deficiency (discretion 

for alternative control strategies without 

EPA approval) by amending the 

provisions allowing for this deviation 

from the RACT requirements to include 

the EPA’s approval of any such 

alternatives into the SIP. The County 

also clarified that the only equipment 

currently seeking to use an alternative 

control strategy were doing so under a 

low use requirement restricting annual 

operations to 10 percent of their annual 

capacity, expressed as fuel input limits. 

We have evaluated the analysis 

supporting this approach and agree that 

units operating under the low use 

threshold would not find RACT to be 

cost effective (see our TSD for further 

discussion). Therefore, we find that this 

revision resolves this deficiency. 

The MCAQD corrected the second 

deficiency by including in the rule new 

NOX emission limits of 30 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) NOX for 

gaseous fuel fired operations and 40 

ppmv NOX for liquid fuel fired 

operations at new units. Existing steam 

generating boilers must limit NOX

emissions to 0.1 pounds per million 

British thermal units per hour. We 

believe these emission limits to 

constitute RACT for this source 

category, and we find that these 

revisions resolve the deficiency. 

The deficiency for emergency fuel 

operations (unbounded length, and 

ambiguity for testing operations) was 

corrected by the MCAQD through two 

revisions. The first is an annual limit of 

168 hours for emergency fuel fired 

operations. The second is a clarification 

of the exemption for emergency fuel 

testing operations to be limited only to 

the period needed for testing. We find 

that these revisions resolve the 

deficiency for emergency fuel 

operations in Rule 322. 

The fourth deficiency (unbounded 

discretion for extending compliance 

deadlines) was resolved by removing 

the discretion of the Control Officer to 

extend the increments of progress, and 

therefore the compliance schedule. 

Operators of applicable non-compliant 

equipment must now submit a permit 

revision to the MCAQD within 18 

months of becoming subject to the rule, 

and be fully compliant within 36 

months of issuance of the final permit. 

We find that this revision resolves the 

deficiency for compliance deadlines in 

Rule 322. 

The fifth deficiency, lack of 

compliance determination requirements 

for NOX emissions, was resolved by 

specifying that performance tests must 

be conducted annually. Units that are 

equipped with continuous emission 

monitoring systems are not required to 

conduct performance tests, but must 

maintain and and test the CEMS in 

accordance with the applicable EPA 

regulations in 40 CFR part 60 and 40 

CFR part 75. We find that this revision 

resolves the deficiency for compliance 

determination requirements in Rule 322. 

The revision is otherwise consistent 

with relevant guidance regarding 

enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted Rule 322 because 

it fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until March 10, 2022. 

If we take final action to approve the 

submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this local rule into the 

federally enforceable SIP and stop the 

sanctions and FIP clocks that are 

associated with our previous 

disapproval of Rule 322. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this proposed rule, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference MCAQD Rule 

322, ‘‘Power Plant Operations’’ as 

amended on June 23, 2021. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7071 

1National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

Although the level of the standard is specified in 

the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also 

described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 

0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb. 

2SIP revisions that are intended to meet the 

applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure 

SIPs and the applicable elements under section 

110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure 

requirements. 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of 

nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: February 1, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02462 Filed 2–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0075; FRL–9428–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Kansas; 2015 

Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of air quality in other 

states. The State of Kansas made a 

submission to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to 

address these requirements for the 2015 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing 

to approve the submission for Kansas as 

meeting the requirement that the SIP 

contains adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 10, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0075, to the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in www.regulations.gov. 

To reduce the risk of COVID–19 

transmission, for this action we do not 

plan to offer hard copy review of the 

docket. Please email or call the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section if you need to make 

alternative arrangements for access to 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Stone, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7714; 

email address: stone.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Kansas’s Submission 

III. EPA Evaluation of Kansas’s Submission 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated 

a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015 

ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of 

both the primary and secondary 

standards to 0.070 parts per million 

(ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires states to submit, within 3 years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIP submissions meeting the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS