[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42324-42327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15026]



[[Page 42324]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748; FRL-9217-02-R9]


Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality 
Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality 
Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOC). We are approving rescissions of local rules that regulate these 
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for 
additional availability information. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#365340575845185a575d53584f577653465718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f09586919e83de9c919b959e8991b0958091de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On February 10, 2022 (87 FR 7784), the EPA proposed to approve the 
following rule rescissions into the Arizona SIP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            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         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (General
                                   prohibitions).
32 B............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Treatment or
                                   processing of animal or
                                   vegetable matter).
32 C............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Storage
                                   requirements).
32 D............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Stack, vent,
                                   or other outlet).
32 E............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Hydrogen
                                   sulfide).
32 F............................  Odors and Gaseous         August 12, 1971...............  July 27, 1972................  37 FR 15080
                                   Emissions (Relating to
                                   sulfur oxide and
                                   sulfuric acid).
34 A............................  Organic Solvents-         June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Volatile Organic
                                   Compounds (VOC).
34 D.1..........................  Dry Cleaning............  June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
34 E.1..........................  Spray Paint and Other     June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Surface Coating
                                   Operations (General
                                   Requirements).
34 E.3..........................  Spray Paint and Other     June 23, 1980.................  May 5, 1982..................  47 FR 19326
                                   Surface Coating
                                   Operations
                                   (Architectural Coating).
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    September 13, 1988............  February 1, 1996.............  61 FR 3578
                                   Asphalt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve the rescission of these rules because we 
determined that the rescissions comply with the relevant CAA 
requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the 
rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received one comment from the City of Phoenix in 
support of the EPA's February 10, 2022 proposed action to rescind the 
proposed rules from the Arizona's SIP. We acknowledge the comment, and 
we are approving the rescissions of these rules from the SIP. We also 
received one anonymous comment which we respond to below.
    Comment: The commenter's primary concern with the EPA's proposed 
action is that it appears to ``remov[e] longstanding local rules 
regarding air quality, due to the fact that those same standards are 
covered nationally,'' which would be problematic if ``this rule change 
was requested with the intention of ultimately undoing national 
standards.'' The commenter notes that if a potential change in the 
national standards took place, ``[rolling back air quality standards] 
would be far smoother than if the local rules were still in the way of 
those whose aim is government deregulation at the expense of the 
environment.'' They recommend that these rules remain in place as ``a 
backup option to keeping important public health rules.'' The commenter 
also raises environmental justice concerns with respect to the proposed 
SIP modification and stresses the need to maintain the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to protect marginalized communities within 
the Phoenix and South Phoenix area.
    EPA's Response: As we noted in our February 10, 2022 proposed rule,

[[Page 42325]]

modifications to a SIP must comply with all requirements of the CAA. 
The CAA contains several anti-backsliding provisions, which preclude a 
state from altering or removing provisions from an approved 
implementation plan if the revision would reduce air quality 
protection.\1\ For example, under CAA section 110(l), a SIP revision 
cannot be approved if it will interfere with attainment or other 
applicable CAA requirements. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits any 
control measure in effect in a nonattainment area prior to the 
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to be modified after enactment, 
unless such modification yields equivalent or greater emission 
reductions. Consistent with these anti-backsliding provisions, there 
are circumstances in which it may be reasonable to relieve states of 
requirements that are no longer necessary, or that can be replaced by 
other forms of protection that might better meet the local needs and 
circumstances of an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 78 FR 34178, 34211 (June 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) to our 
proposal,\2\ the State of Arizona submitted Maricopa County's Air 
Quality Regulations for approval into the Arizona SIP on January 28, 
1972. The MCAQD revised various rules in the 1980s to reflect CAA 
requirements to implement reasonably available control technology 
(RACT) for various source categories and to generally modernize their 
local rule book. The revised rules were renumbered from the existing 
two-digit system to a three-digit system with the unamended two-digit 
rules remaining in the SIP. Some of the locally revised rules were not 
submitted to the EPA for inclusion into the SIP at the time. As a 
result, there is a difference in requirements between some of the SIP 
approved two-digit rules and the locally adopted three-digit rules 
which can be a problem when the EPA, MCAQD, the regulated community, or 
the public is trying to determine the applicable rule. This is known as 
a SIP gap. In April 2016, the EPA analyzed this SIP gap to determine if 
the older two-digit rules could potentially be replaced by newer 
provisions that are currently only locally applicable. This analysis 
had several recommendations for updating the SIP, including the 
recission of obsolete two- and three-digit rules without replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See TSD, Docket ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP recissions from our February 10, 2022 proposed rule fall 
into four categories: (1) nine provisions that do not establish 
emission limits, enforce the NAAQS, or improve or impact the stringency 
of other measures in the SIP; (2) two provisions related to a source 
category subject to a control techniques guideline (CTG) document, for 
which the State submitted and the EPA approved a negative declaration 
stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by 
that CTG; (3) two provisions that have been superseded by newer SIP-
approved rules; and (4) one provision that is not enforceable. Further 
explanation on the EPA's rationale for the proposed approval is 
provided below.
    For the first category, Rule 27, Rule 32 sections A, C, D, and Rule 
34 section E do not contain specific emissions limits or other elements 
necessary for enforcement. For example, Rule 32 section C states:

    Materials including, but not limited to, solvents or other 
volatile compounds, paints, acids, alkalies, pesticides, fertilizer 
and manure shall be processed, stored, used and transported in such 
a manner and by such means that they will not unreasonably 
evaporate, leak, escape or be otherwise discharged into the ambient 
air so as to cause or contribute to air pollution; and where means 
are available to reduce effectively the contribution to air 
pollution from evaporation, leakage or discharge, the installation 
and use of such control methods, devices or equipment shall be 
mandatory.

    This provision contains no specific work practice, emission 
limitation, or enforcement mechanism that would result in the reduction 
of emissions. Therefore, the EPA has concluded, based on a CAA section 
110(l) analysis, that removal of this provision would not interfere 
with Maricopa County's progress toward attainment, reasonable further 
progress (RFP), or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    Additionally, Rule 32 sections B and E, Rule 34 section D.1, and 
Rule 81 do not regulate categories of emissions related to any NAAQS, 
and thus do not contribute to Maricopa County's attainment of the 
NAAQS. For example, Rule 34 section D.1 regulates the emission of 
perchloroethylene. In 1996, the EPA deleted perchloroethylene from the 
definition of VOC on the basis that the chemical has negligible 
photochemical reactivity.\3\ Because these emissions are no longer 
considered VOC emissions under the CAA, Maricopa County can no longer 
consider their reduction as progress towards attaining the NAAQS.\4\ 
Thus, the EPA has concluded, based on a 110(l) analysis, that removal 
of the provision will not interfere with the area's progress towards 
attainment or any other applicable CAA requirement. Additional analysis 
for each provision in this category can be found in the TSD in the 
docket for the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 61 FR 5688 (February 7, 1996).
    \4\ See id. at 5689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second category, Rule 34 section L and Rule 340 contain 
similar requirements for the regulation of cutback asphalt, which is a 
source category subject to the CTG EPA-450/2-77-037 ``Cutback 
Asphalt.'' When there are no existing sources in a nonattainment area 
covered by a particular CTG document, or no major non-CTG sources of 
NOx or VOC, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those 
sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such 
sources in the relevant nonattainment area. The State submitted, and 
the EPA approved, a negative declaration in Maricopa County on January 
7, 2021, (86 FR 971) for cutback asphalt. This negative declaration 
applies to both Rule 34 section L and Rule 340. Therefore, the EPA has 
concluded, based on a 110(l) analysis, that because there are no 
sources of emissions being regulated by Rule 34 section L and Rule 340 
in the nonattainment area, removal of these provisions will not 
interfere with Maricopa County's progress towards attainment or any 
other applicable CAA requirement.
    For the third category, Rule 32 section F and Rule 34 section A 
were both superseded by subsequent SIP submissions from Maricopa 
County. Rule 32 section F was superseded by SIP Rule 510, ``Air Quality 
Standards'' (86 FR 54628, October 04, 2021), and Rule 34 section A was 
superseded by an updated definition for VOC in the SIP, Maricopa Rule 
100, ``General Provisions and Definitions'' (84 FR 13543, April 5, 
2019). We conclude that the actions approving Rule 100 and Rule 510 
into the SIP are adequate to ensure the removal of Rule 32 section F 
and Rule 34 section A would not interfere with Maricopa County's 
progress towards attainment, RFP, or any other applicable CAA 
requirement.
    For the fourth category, there are no test methods that apply to 
the regulation in Rule 34 section E.1, which requires surface coating 
operations to utilize an ``enclosed area designed to contain not less 
than ninety-six percent (96%) by weight of the overspray.'' Without a 
test method that can determine if a spray enclosure can capture 96% of 
the overspray, the provision is unenforceable and has no impact on the 
air quality in Maricopa County. The EPA finds that the provision's 
removal would therefore not interfere with

[[Page 42326]]

attainment, RFP, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    The provisions proposed to be rescinded from the Arizona SIP 
generally do not achieve emission reductions or are already codified 
elsewhere in the SIP. The removal of these rules would not impact the 
overall stringency of the Arizona SIP, and as a result, the approval of 
this rule action will allow Maricopa to maintain rules in the SIP that 
implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations.\5\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the CAA. As described in our proposed rule and reiterated here, 
approval of these recissions complies with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 
because these SIP revisions would not interfere with any applicable CAA 
requirements, including requirements concerning RFP and attainment of 
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule 
recissions as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as 
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving 
these rule recissions into the Arizona SIP. The rule recissions will 
remove the previously approved Rule 27, Rule 32 sections A (all 
subsections), B, C, D, E, and F; Rule 34 sections A, D.1, E.1, E.3 and 
L (all subsections); Rule 81; and Rule 340 from the SIP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The provisions of Rule 34 were inadvertently omitted from 
our original action converting the Arizona SIP to the tabular 
notebook format on November 23, 2016 (81 FR 85038). We will recodify 
the remaining paragraphs of Rule 34 (consistent with this action's 
rescissions) in a separate rulemaking, and as such, our regulatory 
text will not address any conflicting provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. The EPA is also finalizing deletion of 
rules that were previously incorporated by reference from the 
applicable Arizona SIP. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, 
as discussed in Sections I, II and III of this preamble, the EPA is 
finalizing the incorporation by reference for the rescission of the 
Arizona rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for 
removal from the SIP and will be incorporated by reference in the next 
update to the SIP compilation.\7\ The EPA has made, and will continue 
to make, these documents available through 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 13, 2022. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
Oxides, Volatile organic compounds.


[[Page 42327]]


    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends part 52, chapter 
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona


Sec.  52.120   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.120 in paragraph (c) amend ``Table 4 to Paragraph (c)--
EPA-Approved Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations'' by 
removing the entries for ``Rule 27'', ``Rule 32 (Paragraphs A through F 
only)'', ``Rule 81'', and ``Rule 340''.

[FR Doc. 2022-15026 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>