Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 51303-51306 [05-17196]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694– 1650 or (800) 424–9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (‘‘BCRA’’), Pub. L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81 (March 27, 2002), amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq., by requiring State, district and local party committees (‘‘State party committees’’) to pay the salaries and wages of employees who spend more than 25 percent of their compensated time per month on activities in connection with a Federal election entirely with Federal funds.1 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(iv) and 441i(b)(1). However, BCRA is silent on what type of funds State party committees must use to pay the salaries and wages of employees who spend some, but not more than 25 percent, of their compensated time per month on activities in connection with a Federal election. The Commission promulgated 11 CFR 106.7(c)(1) and (d)(1)(i), and 300.33(c)(2) to address salaries and wages for both types of employees. Under these rules, State party committees may pay the salaries or wages of employees who spend 25 percent or less of their compensated time each month on these activities entirely with funds that comply with State law. Id. In Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004), aff’d, No. 04–5352, 2005 WL 1653053 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2005) (‘‘Shays’’), the District Court invalidated section 300.33(c)(2) because it is inconsistent with BCRA. See Shays, 337 F. Supp. 2d at 114; see also Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984). Although the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s invalidation of the rule, its basis differed from the District Court’s. The Court of Appeals found the Commission’s justification for the rule did not satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Shays, No. 04–5352, slip op. at 62, 2005 WL 1653053 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2005). Before the Court of Appeals decision was issued, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing State party committee payment of certain wages and salaries. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on State, District, and Local Party Committee Payment of Certain Salaries and Wages, 70 FR 23072 (May 4, 2005). The NPRM offered several proposals as to the proportion of Federal funds that must be used to pay the salaries and wages of State party committee employees who spends 25 percent or less of their compensated time in a month on activities in connection with a Federal election. The comment period for the NPRM ended on June 3, 2005, and a hearing was held on August 4, 2005. Written comments and a transcript of the hearing can be found at https://www.fec.gov/law/ law_rulemakings.shtml#party_salaries. Witnesses at the hearing suggested that the Commission seek additional information that may assist the Commission in its decisionmaking. The Commission is reopening the comment period to allow all interested persons to submit information or comments that may be useful in this rulemaking in light of the Court of Appeals opinion. Dated: August 24, 2005. Michael E. Toner, Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. 05–17156 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [CA–311–0487; FRL–7962–9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter (PM–10) emissions from fugitive dust sources. We are proposing to approve amendments to local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 29, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at https:// www.regulations.gov. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations: California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726 Copies of the rules may also be available via the Internet at https:// www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4116, irwin.karen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. Background to Today’s Proposal III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules. D. Public comment and final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What Rules Did the State Submit? Table 1 lists the individual rules addressed by this proposed rule with the dates that they were adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The rules that are the subject of this action are collectively referred to as ‘‘Regulation VIII’’. 1 ‘‘Federal funds’’ are funds that are subject to the contribution limitations, source prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. 11 CFR 300.2(g). VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:15 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 51303 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1 51304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES Rule No. Rule title 8011 .................................................... 8021 .................................................... General Requirements .................................................................................... Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities. Bulk Materials ................................................................................................. Carryout and Trackout .................................................................................... Open Areas ..................................................................................................... Paved and Unpaved Roads ........................................................................... Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas ..................................................... Agricultural Sources ........................................................................................ 8031 8041 8051 8061 8071 8081 .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... On March 23, 2005, these rule submittals were found complete by operation of law in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules? We approved versions of Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061, 8071 and 8081 into the SIP on February 26, 2003. 68 FR 8830. The SIP-approved versions of these rules were adopted by SJVUAPCD on November 15, 2001 and CARB submitted them to us on December 6, 2001. C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions? The submitted revisions are necessary to fulfill Regulation VIII commitments in the SIP-approved 2003 PM–10 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley. The TSD has more information about these rule revisions. II. Background to Today’s Proposal On November 15, 1990, amendments to the CAA were enacted. Pub. Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, PM–10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,1 were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). Under section 189(a) of the CAA, moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas must implement by December 10, 1993 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for PM–10. On February 8, 1993, EPA reclassified five moderate nonattainment areas, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, to serious nonattainment pursuant to section 188(b)(58 FR 3334). Section 189(b) requires serious nonattainment areas to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) by 1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the SJVUAPCD. VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:15 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 Adopted February 8, 1997, four years after reclassification.2 In response to section 110(a) and Part D of the Act, local California air pollution control districts adopted and the State of California submitted many PM–10 rules to EPA for incorporation into the California SIP on July 23, 1996, including a series of fugitive dust rules (‘‘Regulation VIII’’) adopted by SJVUAPCD. On March 8, 2000, EPA took final action on the 1996 version of Regulation VIII, issuing a limited approval and limited disapproval with an effective date of April 7, 2000. 65 FR 12118. EPA noted that it was ‘‘finalizing the limited approval of these rules in order to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the limited disapproval because of the remaining deficiencies.’’ Id. at 12119/1.3 Among the deficiencies identified by EPA were ‘‘lack of appropriate standards and/or test methods that would ensure a level of control consistent with RACM or BACM * * *.’’ Id. As a result of the disapproval, EPA explained that the emissions offset sanction would apply 18 months after April 7, 2000, and the highway funding sanction six months later, unless the Air District cured the deficiencies. Id. at 12118/2–3. In addition, EPA explained that it would be required to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if those deficiencies were not corrected within 24 months. SJVUAPCD adopted revised Regulation VIII rules on November 15, 2001, which CARB submitted to EPA on December 6, 2001. SJVUAPCD intended that the new rules would both remedy 2 Because the statutory RACM and BACM implementation deadlines have passed, RACM and BACM must be implemented ‘‘as soon as possible.’’ Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this requirement to be ‘‘as soon as practicable.’’ 55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 1990). States are required to develop RACM and BACM that address both the annual and 24-hour PM–10 standards. Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 308– 311 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 The number following the slash (‘‘/’’) in this citation refers to the column on the Federal Register page. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Submitted 08/19/04 08/19/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 08/19/04 08/19/04 08/19/04 08/19/04 09/16/04 09/16/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 09/23/04 the RACM deficiencies identified by EPA in its March 8, 2000 action, and fulfill BACM requirements under the CAA. EPA found that new provisions in Regulation VIII ‘‘significantly strengthened’’ the rules by tightening standards, covering more activities, and adding more requirements to control dust-producing activities. 67 FR 15346– 47 (4/1/02). On February 26, 2003, EPA issued a final rulemaking (Final Rule) (68 FR 8830) that conditionally approved the November 15, 2001 version of Regulation VIII with respect to RACM and issued a limited approval and limited disapproval of Regulation VIII with respect to BACM. Thus, the November 15, 2001 version of Regulation VIII was added to the SIP, yet a sanctions clock for the BACM deficiency began with the effective date of the Final Rule, March 28, 2003. Id. at 8833/3. We found that the submittal did not adequately fulfill the CAA section 189(b) requirement for a BACM demonstration, specifically identifying thresholds of source coverage within the rules (e.g., minimum size of sources subject to rule requirements) for which an adequate BACM demonstration was outstanding. On August 19, 2003, CARB submitted the ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and Smaller’’. CARB submitted Amendments to this plan on December 30, 2003.4 Among other demonstrations, the Plan included a demonstration that RACM and BACM will be expeditiously implemented for all significant sources of PM–10. The Plan’s RACM and BACM demonstration included fugitive dust sources subject to Regulation VIII and contained several specific commitments to upgrade Regulation VIII to a BACM level of control by September 2004. On 4 The Amendments to the 2003 PM–10 Plan supersede some portions of the 2003 PM–10 Plan and also add to it. References hereafter to the ‘‘SJV 2003 PM–10 Plan’’ or ‘‘the Plan’’ mean the 2003 Plan submitted on August 19, 2003, as amended by the December 30, 2003 submittal. E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules May 26, 2004, EPA approved the SJV 2003 PM–10 Plan, including the RACM and BACM demonstration for Regulation VIII sources, as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B).5 69 FR 30006. Approval of this demonstration terminated all Regulation VIII sanction, FIP, and rule disapproval implications of our February 26, 2003 action. Id. at 30035/1. III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). These rules have been evaluated for enforceability pursuant to the ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). We have also reviewed the submitted rules to determine whether the BACM commitments in the SJV 2003 PM–10 Plan have been adopted into Regulation VIII for purposes of fulfilling the SIPapproved Plan commitments.6 Since we have already approved the Plan’s BACM demonstration for Regulation VIII sources, we are only evaluating these rules under CAA section 189(b) to the extent that requirements adopted in August and September, 2004, differ from the BACM commitments contained in the Plan. EPA’s RACM guidance can be found in the General Preamble. EPA’s BACM guidance can be found in the Addendum. 5 As we explained in our proposed approval of the Plan, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires implementation of RACM for moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas and that a serious area PM–10 plan must also provide for the implementation of RACM to the extent that the RACM requirement has not been satisfied in the area’s moderate area plan as was the case here. We further explained that we do not normally conduct a separate evaluation to determine if a serious area plan’s measures meet the RACM as well as BACM requirements as interpreted by us in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). This is because in our serious area guidance—Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994) (Addendum)—we interpret the BACM requirement as generally subsuming the RACM requirement (i.e., if we determine that the measures are indeed the ‘‘best available,’’ we have necessarily concluded that they are ‘‘reasonably available’’). 69 FR at 5417/footnote 11. Accordingly, in our evaluation and proposed approval of Regulation VIII below, references to BACM are intended to include RACM. 6 EPA’s determination that the Plan satisfies CAA section 189(b) requirements for BACM was, in part, based upon SJVUAPCD’s commitments to adopt specific requirements for fugitive dust sources subject to Regulation VIII. VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:15 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria? We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. In comparing the relevant rule requirements to the SJV 2003 PM– 10 Plan’s Regulation VIII BACM commitments, we found only minor differences for which reasoned justification exists. Therefore, we believe that these rules fulfill the Plan’s Regulation VIII BACM commitments and that minor modifications SJVUAPCD adopted into Regulation VIII requirements also satisfy BACM. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA’s current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules. D. Public Comment and Final Action Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant requirements as discussed above, we are proposing to fully approve them under CAA section 110(k)(3) as meeting CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(B). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. With respect to CAA sections 189(a) and 189(b), we are only evaluating comments to the extent that newly adopted requirements in Regulation VIII differ from the RACM/BACM commitments contained in the PM–10 Plan that EPA has already approved. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 51305 substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1 51306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 5, 2005. Keith Takata, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 05–17196 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [OAR–2002–0083; FRL–7962–2] RIN 2060–AM76 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing. The proposed amendments would add a new compliance option, revise emission limitations, reduce the frequency of repeat performance tests for certain emissions units, add corrective action requirements, and clarify certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2005. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by September 19, 2005, a public hearing will be held approximately 30 days following publication of this action in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2002– 0083, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: https:// www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002– 0083 and mulrine.phil@epa.gov. • Fax: (202) 566–1741 and (919) 541– 5450. • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR–2002–0083, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR–2002–0083, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B–102, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the contact person for the proposed action listed below see(FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0083. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.epa.gov/ edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically NAIC code1 Category Industry ........................................................ 331111 Federal government .................................... State/local/tribal government ....................... .................. .................. 1 North captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR–2002–0083, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals Group (C439–02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541– 5289, fax number (919) 541–5450, email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected by the NESHAP include: Examples of regulated entities Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops. Not affected. Not affected. American Industry Classification System. VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:15 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51303-51306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-311-0487; FRL-7962-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate
matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust sources. We are proposing
to approve amendments to local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to
steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's
technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region
IX office during normal business hours by appointment.
You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by
appointment at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E.
Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726

Copies of the rules may also be available via the Internet at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is
not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule
that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4116, irwin.karen@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. Background to Today's Proposal
III. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
D. Public comment and final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the individual rules addressed by this proposed rule
with the dates that they were adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and submitted to EPA by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). The rules that are the subject
of this action are collectively referred to as ``Regulation VIII''.

[[Page 51304]]

Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8011.......................................... General Requirements.................. 08/19/04 09/23/04
8021.......................................... Construction, Demolition, Excavation, 08/19/04 09/23/04
Extraction, and Other Earthmoving
Activities.
8031.......................................... Bulk Materials........................ 08/19/04 09/23/04
8041.......................................... Carryout and Trackout................. 08/19/04 09/23/04
8051.......................................... Open Areas............................ 08/19/04 09/23/04
8061.......................................... Paved and Unpaved Roads............... 08/19/04 09/23/04
8071.......................................... Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic 09/16/04 09/23/04
Areas.
8081.......................................... Agricultural Sources.................. 09/16/04 09/23/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 23, 2005, these rule submittals were found complete by
operation of law in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of the Act and 40
CFR part 51, appendix V.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

We approved versions of Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061,
8071 and 8081 into the SIP on February 26, 2003. 68 FR 8830. The SIP-
approved versions of these rules were adopted by SJVUAPCD on November
15, 2001 and CARB submitted them to us on December 6, 2001.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

The submitted revisions are necessary to fulfill Regulation VIII
commitments in the SIP-approved 2003 PM-10 Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley. The TSD has more information about these rule revisions.

II. Background to Today's Proposal

On November 15, 1990, amendments to the CAA were enacted. Pub. Law
101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. On the date
of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, PM-10 areas meeting the
qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act, including the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin,\1\ were designated nonattainment by operation
of law and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). Under
section 189(a) of the CAA, moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
implement by December 10, 1993 Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) for PM-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is under the jurisdiction
of the SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 8, 1993, EPA reclassified five moderate nonattainment
areas, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, to serious
nonattainment pursuant to section 188(b)(58 FR 3334). Section 189(b)
requires serious nonattainment areas to implement Best Available
Control Measures (BACM) by February 8, 1997, four years after
reclassification.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Because the statutory RACM and BACM implementation deadlines
have passed, RACM and BACM must be implemented ``as soon as
possible.'' Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA
has interpreted this requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.''
55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 1990). States are required to
develop RACM and BACM that address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10
standards. Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 308-311 (9th Cir. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to section 110(a) and Part D of the Act, local
California air pollution control districts adopted and the State of
California submitted many PM-10 rules to EPA for incorporation into the
California SIP on July 23, 1996, including a series of fugitive dust
rules (``Regulation VIII'') adopted by SJVUAPCD.
On March 8, 2000, EPA took final action on the 1996 version of
Regulation VIII, issuing a limited approval and limited disapproval
with an effective date of April 7, 2000. 65 FR 12118. EPA noted that it
was ``finalizing the limited approval of these rules in order to
strengthen the SIP and finalizing the limited disapproval because of
the remaining deficiencies.'' Id. at 12119/1.\3\ Among the deficiencies
identified by EPA were ``lack of appropriate standards and/or test
methods that would ensure a level of control consistent with RACM or
BACM * * *.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The number following the slash (``/'') in this citation
refers to the column on the Federal Register page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of the disapproval, EPA explained that the emissions
offset sanction would apply 18 months after April 7, 2000, and the
highway funding sanction six months later, unless the Air District
cured the deficiencies. Id. at 12118/2-3. In addition, EPA explained
that it would be required to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) if those deficiencies were not corrected within 24 months.
SJVUAPCD adopted revised Regulation VIII rules on November 15,
2001, which CARB submitted to EPA on December 6, 2001. SJVUAPCD
intended that the new rules would both remedy the RACM deficiencies
identified by EPA in its March 8, 2000 action, and fulfill BACM
requirements under the CAA. EPA found that new provisions in Regulation
VIII ``significantly strengthened'' the rules by tightening standards,
covering more activities, and adding more requirements to control dust-
producing activities. 67 FR 15346-47 (4/1/02).
On February 26, 2003, EPA issued a final rulemaking (Final Rule)
(68 FR 8830) that conditionally approved the November 15, 2001 version
of Regulation VIII with respect to RACM and issued a limited approval
and limited disapproval of Regulation VIII with respect to BACM. Thus,
the November 15, 2001 version of Regulation VIII was added to the SIP,
yet a sanctions clock for the BACM deficiency began with the effective
date of the Final Rule, March 28, 2003. Id. at 8833/3. We found that
the submittal did not adequately fulfill the CAA section 189(b)
requirement for a BACM demonstration, specifically identifying
thresholds of source coverage within the rules (e.g., minimum size of
sources subject to rule requirements) for which an adequate BACM
demonstration was outstanding.
On August 19, 2003, CARB submitted the ``2003 PM10 Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter
10 Microns and Smaller''. CARB submitted Amendments to this plan on
December 30, 2003.\4\ Among other demonstrations, the Plan included a
demonstration that RACM and BACM will be expeditiously implemented for
all significant sources of PM-10. The Plan's RACM and BACM
demonstration included fugitive dust sources subject to Regulation VIII
and contained several specific commitments to upgrade Regulation VIII
to a BACM level of control by September 2004. On

[[Page 51305]]

May 26, 2004, EPA approved the SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan, including the RACM
and BACM demonstration for Regulation VIII sources, as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B).\5\ 69 FR
30006. Approval of this demonstration terminated all Regulation VIII
sanction, FIP, and rule disapproval implications of our February 26,
2003 action. Id. at 30035/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The Amendments to the 2003 PM-10 Plan supersede some
portions of the 2003 PM-10 Plan and also add to it. References
hereafter to the ``SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan'' or ``the Plan'' mean the
2003 Plan submitted on August 19, 2003, as amended by the December
30, 2003 submittal.
\5\ As we explained in our proposed approval of the Plan, CAA
section 189(a)(1)(C) requires implementation of RACM for moderate
PM-10 nonattainment areas and that a serious area PM-10 plan must
also provide for the implementation of RACM to the extent that the
RACM requirement has not been satisfied in the area's moderate area
plan as was the case here. We further explained that we do not
normally conduct a separate evaluation to determine if a serious
area plan's measures meet the RACM as well as BACM requirements as
interpreted by us in the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540
(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). This is because in our serious
area guidance--Addendum to the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
59 FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994) (Addendum)--we interpret the
BACM requirement as generally subsuming the RACM requirement (i.e.,
if we determine that the measures are indeed the ``best available,''
we have necessarily concluded that they are ``reasonably
available''). 69 FR at 5417/footnote 11. Accordingly, in our
evaluation and proposed approval of Regulation VIII below,
references to BACM are intended to include RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). These rules have been evaluated for enforceability pursuant to
the ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
We have also reviewed the submitted rules to determine whether the
BACM commitments in the SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan have been adopted into
Regulation VIII for purposes of fulfilling the SIP-approved Plan
commitments.\6\ Since we have already approved the Plan's BACM
demonstration for Regulation VIII sources, we are only evaluating these
rules under CAA section 189(b) to the extent that requirements adopted
in August and September, 2004, differ from the BACM commitments
contained in the Plan. EPA's RACM guidance can be found in the General
Preamble. EPA's BACM guidance can be found in the Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ EPA's determination that the Plan satisfies CAA section
189(b) requirements for BACM was, in part, based upon SJVUAPCD's
commitments to adopt specific requirements for fugitive dust sources
subject to Regulation VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. In comparing the
relevant rule requirements to the SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan's Regulation VIII
BACM commitments, we found only minor differences for which reasoned
justification exists. Therefore, we believe that these rules fulfill
the Plan's Regulation VIII BACM commitments and that minor
modifications SJVUAPCD adopted into Regulation VIII requirements also
satisfy BACM. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements as discussed above, we are proposing to fully approve them
under CAA section 110(k)(3) as meeting CAA sections 189(a)(1)(C) and
(b)(1)(B). We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for
the next 30 days. With respect to CAA sections 189(a) and 189(b), we
are only evaluating comments to the extent that newly adopted
requirements in Regulation VIII differ from the RACM/BACM commitments
contained in the PM-10 Plan that EPA has already approved. Unless we
receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend
to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules
into the federally enforceable SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

[[Page 51306]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping
requirements.

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

Dated: August 5, 2005.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-17196 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.