7784 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02772 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0748; FRL–9217–01– 

R9] 

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

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 (MCAQD or 

County) portion of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). We are 

proposing action on rescissions of local 

rules that regulate these pollutants 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0748 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: La 

Kenya Evans, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3245 or by 

email at evans.lakenya@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 is the County rescinding? 

B. What is the purpose of the rules and 

what is the impact of the EPA’s 

rescission? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request 

for rescission? 

B. Do the rule rescissions 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 is the County rescinding? 

On September 13, 2017, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA a request 

from MCAQD to act on a series of rules 

from the SIP, including the rescission of 

various local rules. Table 1 lists the 

portion of the SIP approved rules from 

MCAQD’s 2017 rescission request that 

the EPA is proposing to act on in this 

notice. The table includes the dates that 

the rules were adopted by the MCAQD 

and the dates they were approved into 

the SIP by the EPA. 

TABLE 1—SIP APPROVED RULES

Rule No. Title Local adopted date SIP approved date FR citation 

27 ....................................... Performance Tests ........................................... June 23, 1980 ........... April 12, 1982 ............ 47 FR 15579. 

32 A .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (General prohibitions).August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

32 B .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Treatment or 

processing of animal or vegetable matter).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

32 C .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Storage requirements).August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

32 D .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Stack, vent, 

or other outlet).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

32 E .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Hydrogen 

sulfide).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

32 F .................................... Odors and Gaseous Emissions (Relating to 

sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid).

August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

34 A .................................... Organic Solvents-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326. 

34 D.1 ................................. Dry Cleaning .................................................... June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Proposed Rules 7785 

TABLE 1—SIP APPROVED RULES—Continued 

Rule No. Title Local adopted date SIP approved date FR citation 

34 E.1 ................................. Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating Operations (General Requirements).June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326. 

34 E.3 ................................. Spray Paint and Other Surface Coating Operations (Architectural Coating).June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326. 

34 L .................................... Cutback Asphalt ............................................... June 23, 1980 ........... May 5, 1982 .............. 47 FR 19326. 

81 ....................................... Operation ......................................................... August 12, 1971 ........ July 27, 1972 ............. 37 FR 15080. 

340 ..................................... Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt ...................... September 13, 1988 .. February 1, 1996 ....... 61 FR 3578. 

On March 13, 2018, the submittal for 

MCAQD’s rescission request was 

deemed by operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. The SIP-approved 

sections from Rules 32 and 34 not 

described in Table 1, along with other 

rules in this submittal, will be 

addressed in a separate rulemaking. 

B. What is the purpose of the rules and 

what is the impact of the EPA’s 

rescission? 

MCAQD has revised many of its rules 

to comply with the CAA national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

requirement to implement reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

various source categories in 

nonattainment areas. These rules, 

including Rules 27, 32, 34, 81, and 340, 

were submitted to the EPA for 

incorporation into the Arizona SIP at 

various times. In 2016, the EPA 

reformatted the Arizona SIP as codified 

in the Code of Federal Regulations into 

a tabulated ‘‘notebook’’ format. While 

developing the updated SIP tables for 

that conversion, the EPA worked closely 

with the ADEQ and local air agencies to 

clarify what was in their applicable SIP, 

including older provisions that had not 

been updated or replaced to reflect local 

rulemakings. The result of that 

coordination was the MCAQD’s 

September 13, 2017 request to rescind 

or replace many obsolete rules in their 

federally enforceable SIP in favor of 

rules that reflect their current locally 

enforceable rulebook. What follows is a 

summary of the rules that we are 

proposing for rescission. 

Rule 27 states the need for 

performance testing within 60, but no 

later than 180, days after the initial 

start-up of sources or facilities. 

Rule 32.A prohibits emitting gaseous 

or odorous emissions in such quantities 

as to cause air pollution. Rule 32.B 

covers treatment or processing of animal 

or vegetable matter and prohibits such 

operations unless all effluents from such 

operations have been incinerated under 

certain specified conditions. Rule 32.B 

also requires the use of control devices 

as necessary to prevent air pollution. 

Rule 32.C requires reasonable measures 

and installation of control devices to 

reduce emissions from evaporation, 

leakage or discharge from the 

processing, storage, use and transport of 

materials such as solvents, paints, acids, 

fertilizers and manure. Rule 32.D relates 

to nuisance effects from emissions on 

adjoining properties and authorizes the 

Control Officer to require abatement 

equipment or alterations to the stack to 

reduce nuisance impacts. Rule 32.E 

establishes a property line concentration 

standard for hydrogen sulfide. Rule 32.F 

establishes ambient air standards for 

any sulfur oxide and sulfuric acid 

ground level concentrations beyond the 

premises of a facility. Rule 32.F was 

superseded by Rule 510 (86 FR 54628, 

October 04, 2021). The remainder of 

Rule 32 (sections G, H, J, and K) are not 

addressed in this rulemaking. 

Rule 34.A defines the term volatile 

organic compound. Rule 34.D.1 

describes the operating requirements for 

dry cleaning equipment using 

chlorinated synthetic solvents. Rule 

34.E.1 describes the requirements for 

containing overspray from surface 

coating operations. Rule 34.E.3 defines 

architectural coating. Rule 34.L limits 

the application of cutback asphalt or an 

emulsified asphalt containing petroleum 

solvents. In addition, the rule limits the 

VOC content of the emulsified asphalts 

and dust palliatives to no more than 

three percent (3%) by volume of VOC. 

Rule 34.L was superseded by Rule 340. 

The remainder of Rule 34 (sections B, C, 

D.2, E, E.2, E.4, F, G, H, I, J, and K) are 

not addressed in this rulemaking. 

Rule 81 states that no other provision 

of the County’s rulebook shall in any 

manner be constructed as authorizing or 

permitting the creation or maintenance 

of a nuisance. 

Rule 340 regulates cutback and 

emulsified asphalt and replaced Rule 

34.L in 1988 after the MCAQD revised 

and renumbered all of their local rules. 

The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about these rules. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the 

request for rescission? 

Once a rule has been approved as part 

of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from 

the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To 

approve such a revision, the EPA must 

determine whether the revision meets 

relevant CAA criteria for stringency, if 

any, and complies with restrictions on 

relaxation of SIP measures under CAA 

section 110(l), and the General Savings 

Clause in CAA section 193 for SIPapproved control requirements in effect 

before November 15, 1990. 

Stringency: Generally, rules must be 

protective of the NAAQS, and must 

require RACT in nonattainment areas 

for ozone. Maricopa County is currently 

designated as nonattainment for ozone 

and classified as Moderate for the 2008 

8-hour NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.303, 81 

FR 26699). 

Plan Revisions: States must 

demonstrate that SIP revisions would 

not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA 

under the provisions of CAA section 

110(l) and section 193. 

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. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We have concluded that the rules in 

Table 1 are appropriate for rescission. 

The reasons for the rule rescissions are 

described in the following categories: 

Category 1—Rules that do not 

establish emission limits or enforce the 

NAAQS; rules that do not improve or 

impact the stringency of other measures 

in the SIP and are not appropriate for 

the SIP: Rules 27, 32.A, B, C, D, and E, 

34.D.1 and E.3, and 81. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7786 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1See CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Category 2—Rules that have a 

negative declaration stating that the 

facilities they covered are no longer 

located in Maricopa County: Rules 34.L 

and 340. 

Category 3—Rules that have been 

superseded by a newer SIP-approved 

rule and are no longer needed in the 

SIP: Rules 32.F and 34.A. 

Category 4—Rules that are not 

enforceable: Rule 34E.1. 

These rules address local issues but 

are not connected to the purposes for 

which SIPs are developed and 

approved—namely the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. Thus, they are not required to 

be included in the SIP.1 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 requested rescission of the 

rules because the request fulfills all 

relevant requirements. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal until March 14, 2022. If we 

take final action to approve the 

rescission of the submitted rules, our 

final action will remove these rules from 

the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

delete rules that were previously 

incorporated by reference from the 

applicable Arizona SIP. In accordance 

with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the 

EPA is proposing to delete certain 

Maricopa County rules, as described in 

Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, 

incorporation by reference documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by 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 Clean Air Act; 

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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 2, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02570 Filed 2–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0702 FRL–9537–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Air Quality 

Control, Miscellaneous Rule Revisions 

to Definitions and Permitting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the Georgia state 

implementation plan (SIP) submitted on 

behalf of the State of Georgia by the 

Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division (GA EPD) through a letter 

dated September 1, 2020. This revision 

includes changes to the State’s air 

quality regulations incorporated into the 

SIP by changing the definition of 

‘‘pollution control project’’ and making 

minor changes to the corresponding 

minor new source review (NSR) 

permitting regulations for consistency. 

EPA is proposing to approve this SIP 

revision because the State has 

demonstrated that these changes are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2020–0702 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 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, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1