Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona-Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Salt River Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard, 39251-39259 [06-6111]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
fireworks before they are distributed,
the costs associated with testing, and
the impact that testing has on both
compliance with the CPSC mandatory
fireworks device regulations and on
injuries.
Comments should be e-mailed to
cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. and should be
captioned ‘‘FIREWORKS ANPR.’’
Comments may also be mailed,
preferably in five copies, to the Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, or
delivered to the same address
(telephone (301) 504–0800). Comments
also may be filed by telefacsimile to
(301) 504–0127. All comments and
submissions should be received no later
than September 11, 2006.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
modifications, as a proposed regulation.
(15 U.S.C. 1262(g)(1)).
3. Reliance on Voluntary Standard.
The Commission is required to consider
voluntary standards in its mandatory
rulemaking. Specifically, the
Commission is required to invite any
person to submit to the Commission a
statement of intention to modify or
develop a voluntary standard to address
a risk of injury together with a
description of a plan to modify or
develop the standard. (15 U.S.C.
1262(f)(6)). If the Commission
determines that compliance with a
standard submitted to it in response to
this invitation is likely to result in the
elimination or adequate reduction of the
risk of injury identified in the notice,
and it is likely that there will be
substantial compliance with such
standard, then the Commission must
terminate the proceeding to promulgate
a regulation and publish a notice in the
Federal Register which includes the
determination of the Commission and
notifies the public that the Commission
will rely on the voluntary standard to
eliminate or reduce the risk of injury.
Before relying upon any voluntary
standard, the Commission must afford
interested parties a reasonable
opportunity to submit written
comments regarding such standard. The
Commission must consider such
comments in making any determination
regarding reliance on the involved
voluntary standard.
4. Corrective Actions Under Section
15 of the FHSA. The Commission has
authority under section 15 of the FHSA,
15 U.S.C. 1274, to pursue corrective
actions on a case-by-case basis if the
Commission determines that a product
constitutes a banned hazardous
substance.
Dated: July 5, 2006.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. E6–10881 Filed 7–11–06; 8:45 am]
G. Request for Information and
Comments
In accordance with section 3(f) of the
FHSA, the Commission solicits:
1. Written comments with respect to
the risk of injury identified by the
Commission.
2. Written comments regarding the
regulatory alternatives being considered
and other possible alternatives for
addressing the risk.
3. Any existing standard or portion of
a standard which could be issued as a
proposed regulation.
4. A statement of intention to modify
or develop a voluntary standard to
address the risk of injury discussed in
this notice, along with a description of
a plan (including a schedule) to do so.
In addition, the Commission is
interested in receiving information
about the testing that is conducted on
SUMMARY: On May 19, 2006, the
Commission issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing amendments to
its regulations adopted in Order Nos.
888 and 889, and to the pro forma open
access transmission tariff, to ensure that
transmission services are provided on a
basis that is just, reasonable and not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
70 FR 32635, June 6, 2006. The reply
comment period is being extended at
the request of the Edison Electric
Institute.
DATES: Reply comments are due
September 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket Nos. RM05–25–000
and RM05–17–000, by one of the
following methods:
• Agency Web site: https://
www.ferc.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments via the eFiling
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Parts 35 and 37
[Docket Nos. RM05–25–000 and RM05–17–
000]
Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service
June 19, 2006.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39251
link found in the Comment Procedures
section of the preamble.
• Mail: Commenters unable to file
comments electronically must mail or
hand deliver an original and 14 copies
of their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to
the Comment Procedures section of the
preamble for additional information on
how to file paper comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Hedberg (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Markets and
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6243.
´
Kathleen Barron (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel—Energy
Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6461.
David Withnell (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel—Energy
Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice Extending Reply Comment
Period
On June 16, 2006, Edison Electric
Institute filed a motion for an extension
of time to file reply comments in
response to the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking issued May 19,
2006 in the above-docketed proceeding.
Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, 115
FERC ¶ 61,211 (2006). Upon
consideration, the date for filing reply
comments in this proceeding is
extended to and including September
20, 2006.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–10724 Filed 7–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0526; FRL–8192–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arizona—
Phoenix PM–10 Nonattainment Area;
Salt River Area Plan for Attainment of
the 24-Hour PM–10 Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
39252
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve
under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provisions of the Revised PM–10 State
Implementation Plan for the Salt River
Area submitted by the State of Arizona
to EPA in October and November 2005.
These submittals include adopted rules
and commitments that address
particulate matter (PM–10) emissions
from fugitive dust sources. EPA is
proposing to approve these submittals
as meeting the best available control
measure (BACM) requirements of CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B) and the most
stringent measure requirement (MSM) of
section 188(e) or as strengthening the
state implementation plan (SIP). We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
August 11, 2006. Comments should be
addressed to the contact listed below.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. E-mail: irwin.karen@epa.gov
3. Mail or deliver: Karen Irwin (AIR–
2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
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.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action, including the EPA technical
support document (TSD) and other
relevant material, is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available
only at the hard copy locations (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may
not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Copies of the state implementation
plan (SIP) materials are also available
for inspection at the addresses listed
below:
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85007.
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department, 1001 N. Central Ave.,
Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Irwin, Office of Air Planning
(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105. (415)
947–4116, e-mail: irwin.karen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today’s Proposal
A. Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) Submittals for the Salt
River Area
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
A. Best Available Control Measures
(BACM) and Most Stringent Measures
(MSM)
B. General SIP Requirements
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures and
Commitments
A. Summary
B. Rules 316 and 325
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related
Submittals
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels
Commitment
E. Municipality, County, and State Paved
Road Re-Entrained Dust Commitments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today’s Proposal
A. Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
Submittals for the Salt River Area
The Salt River area, located in
metropolitan Phoenix, is a 32-square
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mile subarea of the Metropolitan
Phoenix (Maricopa County) serious PM–
10 nonattainment area. ADEQ has
submitted multiple PM–10 plans for the
Salt River area, beginning with a
January 27, 2004 submittal and followed
by August 2, 2004 and August 29, 2005
submittals. An October 7, 2005
submittal, Revised PM–10 State
Implementation Plan for the Salt River
Area, and a supplemental November 29,
2005 submittal, Revised PM–10 State
Implementation Plan for the Salt River
Area Additional Submittals, supersede
the previous three submittals and
contain the measures that are the subject
of this proposed rule. Included with the
October 7, 2005 plan submittal are
attachments, a technical support
document (TSD), and appendices to
both the plan and TSD. Hereafter, we
refer to the October 2005 submittal as
‘‘Salt River plan’’ and the TSD as ‘‘Salt
River TSD’’. We refer to the November
2005 submittal as ‘‘Salt River plan
supplement.’’ 1
While measures contained in the Salt
River plan address monitored
exceedences of EPA’s 24-hour PM–10
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) 2 that occurred in that area,
they apply to the entire Phoenix PM–10
nonattainment area. This is because the
Salt River monitors were sited to be
representative of air quality at other
sites in the Phoenix PM–10
nonattainment area with similar
emissions sources. See 62 FR 31025,
31030 (June 6, 1997).
1 For additional background on the Salt River
portion of the Phoenix PM–10 nonattainment area,
see 67 FR 19148 (April 18, 2002) and 67 FR 44369
(July 2, 2002). On July 25, 2002, EPA approved
multiple documents submitted to EPA by Arizona
for the Phoenix area as meeting the CAA
requirements for serious PM–10 nonattainment
areas for the 24-hour and annual PM–10 national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Among
these documents is the ‘‘Revised Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) 1999 Serious
Area Particulate Plan for PM–10 for the Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area,’’ February 2000 (MAG
plan), that includes the BACM demonstrations for
all significant source categories (except agriculture)
for both the 24-hour and annual PM–10 standards
and the State’s request and supporting
documentation, including the most stringent
measure (MSM) analysis (except for agriculture) for
an attainment date extension to 2006 for both
standards. EPA’s July 25, 2002 final action included
approval of these elements of the MAG plan. See
EPA’s proposed and final approval actions at 65 FR
19964 (April 13, 2000), 66 FR 50252 (October 2,
2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
2 The PM–10 24-hour standard is 150 µg/m3. 40
CFR 50.6.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The following rules, requirements and
resolutions have been submitted as part
of the Salt River plan or the Salt River
plan supplement.3 We are proposing to
Rule/measure/commitment
MCAQD ‘‘Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit’’, adopted
July 1, 2005.
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–00, adopted
January 19, 2005.
City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114, adopted June 16, 2004 .............
Resolutions from 18 municipalities and the Arizona Department of
Transportation, adopted on various dates.
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires us
to determine if a SIP submittal is
complete within 60 days of its receipt.
This completeness review allows us to
quickly determine if the submittal
includes all the necessary items and
information we need to take action on
it. We make completeness
determinations using criteria we have
established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
V.
We have reviewed the October 7, 2005
and November 29, 2005 submittals from
Arizona and affirmatively determined
that they satisfy our completeness
criteria and that they are thereby
complete for the purposes of section
110(k)(1) of the Act. We notified the
State of our completeness determination
by a letter to ADEQ dated December 8,
2005.
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
A. Best Available Control Measures
(BACM) and Most Stringent Measures
(MSM)
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires
serious area PM–10 plans to provide for
the implementation of BACM, including
3 Maricopa County Air Quality Department
(MCAQD) Rule 310.01, ‘‘Application for Dust
Control Permit,’’ and ‘‘Guidance for Application for
Dust Control Permit’’ can be found in the Salt River
plan supplement while the remaining rules and
commitments can be found in Appendix B of the
Salt River plan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
approve them into the Arizona SIP
pursuant to the listed CAA sections.
Relevant CAA section(s)
MCAQD Rule 316 ‘‘Nonmetallic Mineral Processing’’, adopted June 8,
2005.
MCAQD Rule 325 ‘‘Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing’’, adopted August 10, 2005.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) Rule 310 ‘‘Fugitive
Dust’’, adopted April 7, 2004.
MCAQD Rule 310.01 ‘‘Fugitive Dust From Open Areas, Vacant Lots,
Unpaved Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways’’, adopted February
17, 2005.
MCAQD Appendix C ‘‘Fugitive Dust Test Methods’’, adopted April 7,
2004.
MCAQD Appendix F ‘‘Soil Designations’’, adopted April 7, 2004 ...........
MCAQD ‘‘Application for Dust Control Permit’’, adopted July 1, 2005 ....
We approved versions of MCAQD
Rules 310, 310.01 and Appendix C into
the SIP on July 25, 2002 and MCAQD
Rule 316 on January 4, 2001. 67 FR
48717 and 66 FR 730.
39253
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
189(b) and 188(e) for subsections 304.5 and 502. 110(a) for other subsections.
110(a).
189(b), and 188(e) for subsection 3.3.2. 110(a) for other subsections.
189(b) and 188(e).
189(b) and 188(e) for Section 2, subsections 10 and 11, and Section 3,
subsection I. 110(a) for other subsections.
189(b) and 188(e) for Section 2, subsection 13, and Section 3. 110(a)
for other subsections.
189(b) for enforcement resource provisions of Measures 1 through 4.
110(a) for other provisions, including Measure 5.
110(a).
110(a).
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), within four years of
reclassification to serious. For the
Phoenix area this date was June 10,
2000.4 Since that date has passed,
BACM must now be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable. See
Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir.
1990); 55 FR 41204, 41210 (October 1,
1990); and 63 FR 28898, 28900 (May 27,
1998).
We have issued a General Preamble,
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR
18070 (April 28, 1992), and Addendum
to the General Preamble (Addendum),
59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994),
describing our preliminary views on
how we intend to review SIPs submitted
to meet the Clean Air Act’s
requirements for PM–10 plans. The
General Preamble mainly addresses the
requirements for moderate areas and the
Addendum, the requirements for serious
areas.
In the Addendum, we explain that
BACM is required for all source
categories in serious areas unless the
state adequately demonstrates that a
particular source category does not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the PM–10 standards.
We have established a presumption that
a ‘‘significant’’ source category is one
that contributes 5 µg/m3 or more of PM–
10 to a location of 24-hour violation.
Addendum at 42011. We have defined
BACM to be, among other things, the
maximum degree of emission reduction
achievable from a source or source
4 The Phoenix area’s reclassification to serious
was effective on June 10, 1996. 61 FR 21372 (May
10, 1996).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
category which is determined on a caseby-case basis, considering energy,
economic, environmental impacts and
other costs. BACT applies to stationary
sources and is a subset of BACM.
Addendum at 42009.
We have outlined in our guidance a
multi-step process for identifying
BACM/BACT. Addendum at 42010–
42014. The steps are:
1. Develop a detailed emissions
inventory of PM–10 sources and source
categories,
2. Model to evaluate the impact on
PM–10 concentrations over the
standards of the various sources and
source categories to determine which
are significant,
3. Identify potential BACM for
significant source categories and
evaluate their reasonableness,
considering technological feasibility,
costs, and energy and environmental
impacts and,
4. Provide for the implementation of
the BACM or provide a reasoned
justification for rejecting any potential
BACM. When the process is complete,
the individual measures should then be
converted into a legally enforceable
vehicle (e.g., a regulation or permit).
CAA sections 172(6) and 110(a)(2)(A).
Under CAA section 188(e), the State
is required to demonstrate to our
satisfaction that its serious area plan
includes the most stringent measures
that are included in the implementation
plan of any state or are achieved in
practice in any state and can be feasibly
implemented in the area. The section
188(e) requirement for MSM is similar
to the requirement for BACM and we
have therefore defined a ‘‘most stringent
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
39254
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
measure’’ level of control as the
maximum degree of emission reduction
that has been required or achieved from
a source or source category in other SIPs
or in practice in other states and can be
feasibly implemented in the area. Given
this similarity between the BACM and
MSM requirements, we believe that
determining MSM should follow a
process similar to determining BACM,
but with one additional step, to compare
the potentially most stringent measure
against the measures already adopted in
the area to determine if the existing
measures are most stringent. See, e.g.,
66 FR 50252, 50257 and 50282–50284
(October 2, 2001).
B. General SIP Requirements
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see CAA section 110(a))
and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).5 The EPA guidance and policy
document we used to help evaluate
enforceability is ‘‘Guidance Document
for Correcting Common VOC and Other
Rule Deficiencies’’, U.S. EPA Region IX,
August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures
and Commitments
A. Summary
The measures in the Salt River plan
consist of: (1) Rules adopted by MCAQD
for various fugitive dust sources; (2)
MCAQD commitments designed to
improve source compliance with
fugitive dust requirements; (3)
commitments from multiple
municipalities, Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT),
and the State addressing paved road reentrained dust; (4) a City of Phoenix
commitment addressing alluvial
channels; and (5) MCAQD application
and guidance documents for Rule 310
dust control plans.
B. Rules 316 and 325
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
ADEQ identifies industrial sources as
significant contributors to PM–10 24hour exceedences at the Salt River
monitors.6 Industrial-related emissions
5 CAA section 110(l) prohibits us from approving
a revision to the applicable implementation plan if
that revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement of the Act. CAA section 193 prohibits
us under certain circumstances from approving a
revision to the applicable implementation plan
unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emissions reductions.
6 Based on an emissions inventory and modeling
for the Salt River area, ADEQ estimates that
industrial sources contributed approximately 26
percent to 2002 average low-wind day exceedences
(with a highest contribution of 60 µg/m3 at a single
monitor) and 16 percent to 2002 exceedences on
days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with
a highest contribution of 58 µg/m3 at a single
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
fall into three categories: (1) Stationary
point (stack) sources; (2) stationary
process sources (e.g., aggregate screens
and crushers); and (3) area sources, e.g.,
unpaved roads, open storage piles, and
trackout onto paved roads. Given
ADEQ’s finding that industrial sources
contribute significantly to 24-hour PM–
10 exceedences, CAA sections 189(b)
and 188(e) apply and BACM and MSM
demonstrations are required.
ADEQ found that the vast majority of
industrial source PM–10 emissions are
generated by nonmetallic mineral
processing sources. The SIP-approved
version of MCAQD Rule 316 contains
requirements for stationary stack and
process sources at nonmetallic mineral
processing plants and rock product
plants.7 With regard to other industrial
sources in the Salt River area, ADEQ
evaluated permitted industrial stack
sources for compliance with BACM/
BACT and MSM and found that control
measures on all facilities met these
requirements except brick and structural
clay product manufacturing facilities.8
Thus, MCAQD adopted Rule 325 based
on ADEQ’s recommendation that
BACM/BACT and MSM must be met for
these sources.9
ADEQ first identified candidate
BACM/BACT and MSM for Rule 316
and Rule 325 sources by researching
controls in several areas, including PM–
10 nonattainment areas in California,
Nevada, Texas, Florida, and
Oklahoma.10 ADEQ then conducted a
technical and economic feasibility
analysis with specific estimates of
control efficiency and cost for each type
of emissions point or control measure.11
For the MSM comparison, ADEQ
developed a series of tables that
benchmark the most stringent controls
in other areas.12
Based on its analysis, ADEQ
recommended specific augmentations to
Rule 316 for purposes of meeting
BACM/BACT and MSM requirements.
In addition, through its rulemaking
monitor). Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1, and Salt
River TSD, Table 6–8. This estimate excludes
industrial source trackout which is quantified in the
paved road re-entrained dust source category.
7 EPA approved a version of Rule 316 adopted on
April 21, 1999. 66 FR 730 (January 4, 2001). We
were not required to evaluate the rule for BACT
because the sources to which it applied were not
deemed significant at the time. We did, however,
determine that the rule met the CAA requirements
for Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT). See 65 FR 42649, 42651 (July 11, 2000).
8 Salt River plan, pg. 70.
9 Rule 325 only applies to stationary sources, as
opposed to area sources. Area sources located at
facilities subject to Rule 325 are subject to Rule 310
fugitive dust requirements.
10 Salt River plan, Appendix C.
11 Salt River plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.4.
12 Ibid., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.12.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
process for Rule 316,13 MCAQD
identified additional MSM for
nonmetallic mineral processing
facilities in South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
1157, ‘‘PM–10 Emissions from
Aggregate and Related Operations,’’
adopted on January 7, 2005. Finally,
ADEQ recommended enhanced
enforcement of Rule 316 but did not
specify how it was to be achieved.14
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In revising Rule 316, MCAQD
expanded the rule’s coverage to include
area sources 15 and incorporated
additional control measures based on
ADEQ’s recommendations as well as
requirements contained in SCAQMD
Rule 1157. As adopted on June 8, 2005,
the rule includes the following
requirements for nonmetallic mineral
processing sources: Opacity standards
ranging from 7% to 20% for various
nonmetallic mineral processes; venting
of stack emissions to a properly sized
fabric filter baghouse and compliance
with 7% opacity; enclosure on the sides
of all shaker screens; and a permanently
mounted watering system for crushing
and screening inlets and outlets.
Additional specific controls and
performance standards apply to
asphaltic concrete plants and concrete
plants and/or bagging operations. With
respect to area sources located at
nonmetallic mineral processing
facilities, Rule 316 requires specific
work practice and performance
standards for unpaved roads, unpaved
parking/staging areas, open storage piles
and active material handling, trackout
onto paved public access roads,
13 Ibid., Appendix B, Revision to Maricopa
County Rule 316 Nonmetallic Mineral and
Processing, Appendix 2, ‘‘Notice of Final
Rulemaking, Maricopa County Air Pollution
Regulations, Regulation III, Rule 316—Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing’’.
14 Salt River plan, pgs. 56 and 78.
15 Historically, Rule 316 has contained only
emission limitations and not fugitive dust control
measures specific to area sources located at
nonmetallic mineral processing plants and rock
processing plants. Facilities subject to Rule 316
have been required to comply with fugitive dust
control measures in Rule 310. MCAQD revisions to
Rule 316 include control measures specific to
fugitive dust sources at these facilities. Sources
subject to specific control measures in Rule 316 are
no longer subject to Rule 310 while sources not
subject to specific Rule 316 control measures are
still subject to Rule 310. EPA approved Rule 310,
which covers certain industrial area sources, as
meeting the CAA’s BACM and MSM requirements.
67 FR 48718, 48739. However, new information in
the Salt River plan demonstrates a relatively large
contribution of industrial area sources to Salt River
PM–10 exceedences which warrants an updated
BACM/BACT and MSM demonstration for all such
sources.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cleaning of internal paved roads, and
bulk material hauling/transporting.
As adopted on August 10, 2005, new
Rule 325 includes the following
requirements for brick and structural
clay product manufacturing sources: A
20% opacity standard; a limit of 0.42 lbs
of particulate matter per ton of fired
product from existing tunnel kilns with
a capacity of > 1 ton per hour
throughput and new or reconstructed
tunnel kilns with a capacity of < 10 tons
per hour throughput; and a limit of 0.12
lbs of particulate matter per ton of fired
product from new or reconstructed
tunnel kilns with a capacity of ≥ 10 tons
per hour throughput.
We have evaluated Rule 316 and Rule
325 requirements to determine whether
they represent BACM/BACT and MSM.
As part of this evaluation, we
considered ADEQ’s BACM/BACT and
MSM analysis and associated
recommended control measures, along
with reasoned justifications for
measures not recommended.16 We
compared ADEQ’s recommended
measures against the actual measures
adopted into Rule 316 and Rule 325. In
addition, we compared Rule 316
requirements to those adopted in
SCAQMD Rule 1157 and compared Rule
325 requirements to EPA’s New Source
Performance Standards for clay
manufacturing kilns.17
With respect to BACM/BACT, we
found that Rule 316 and Rule 325 meet
BACT requirements for stationary
sources. We also found that the Rule
316 requirements satisfy BACM for area
sources and are equally or more
stringent relative to the Rule 310
requirements we have approved as
BACM. With respect to MSM, we found
that Rule 316 and Rule 325 measures are
equally or more stringent relative to
similar adopted requirements in rules
applicable in other PM–10
nonattainment areas. We also found
Rule 316 and Rule 325 requirements to
be consistent with our enforceability
criteria.
As noted above, the CAA requires
BACM/BACT to be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable. Most of the
requirements in Rule 316 were effective
as of the June 8, 2005 adoption date and
all of the requirements are currently
applicable. With respect to Rule 325,
compliance with the rule is not required
until December 31, 2006. MCAQD
provided adequate justification for this
implementation date based on
substantial annualized capital
16 Op. Cit., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.13 and
accompanying text.
17 40 CFR 63.8555(a), subpart KKKKK, table 1 and
40 CFR 63.8405(a), subpart JJJJ, table 1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
investment costs required of facilities
subject to the rule for the purchase of
necessary emissions control equipment.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
The basic elements of MCAQD’s
enforcement program include permit
review, facility inspections, source
testing of equipment, and review of
records and activities. MCAQD’s
enforcement options include orders of
abatement, civil actions for injunctive
relief or civil penalties, and class 1
misdemeanor citations.18
In addressing ADEQ’s
recommendation for enhanced Rule 316
enforcement, MCAQD committed to
increase the inspection frequency for
Rule 316 sources from once every two
years to four times per year beginning
on July 1, 2005.19 We consider
enforcement resources to be part of the
CAA section 189(b) requirement that
serious area PM–10 plans include
provisions to assure the implementation
of BACM. MCAQD conducted a
workload analysis for the increased Rule
316 inspection frequency based on the
number of permitted sources in fiscal
year 2004 and determined that one
additional inspector and an additional
supervisor are needed.20 This would
increase the number of MCAQD
inspectors dedicated to non-Title V and
general permitted stationary sources,
which includes Rule 316 and Rule 325
sources, from seven to eight. In
evaluating the level of enforcement
resources dedicated to Rule 316 and
Rule 325, we consider the number of
MCAQD permits associated with
facilities subject to these rules. MCAQD
issued 107 permits for Rule 316 sources
in 2004. Rule 325 applies to two brick
and clay structural facilities and one
tunnel kiln.21
3. Conclusion
In evaluating MCAQD Rules 316 and
325, we have found that they meet the
BACM/BACT and MSM requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e),
respectively, and that MCAQD
enforcement resources are adequate to
provide for the implementation of
18 Ibid., Maricopa County Board Resolution No.
C–85–05–005–0–00, Measures 2 and 4.
19 Salt River TSD, Appendix D, Maricopa County
Board Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–00, Measure
2.
20 ‘‘Workload Analysis for Rule 316 Permitted
Sources’’ is included in the docket associated with
this proposed rule. This analysis specifies that the
four annual inspections will consist of one full
inspection and three partial inspections. A partial
inspection involves checking compliance with
fugitive dust controls but not necessarily process
equipment unless an obvious problem is observed.
21 Salt River plan, Appendix B, Notice of Final
Rulemaking, Rule 325, August 10, 2005, pg. 3450.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39255
BACM. We have also found these rules
to be consistent with our policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations. Because we believe that
Rule 316 and Rule 325 fulfill all
relevant requirements, we propose to
approve them and the Maricopa County
Board Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–
00 22 under CAA section 110(k)(3) as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). Our
detailed analysis of Rule 316 and Rule
325 requirements can be found in the
TSD associated with this proposed rule.
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related
Submittals
ADEQ identifies construction sources,
vacant lots, and miscellaneous
disturbed areas as significant
contributors to PM–10 24-hour
exceedences at the Salt River
monitors.23 Rule 310 applies to dust
generating operations including
construction/earthmoving and
demolition sites. Rule 310.01 applies to
vacant lots and miscellaneous disturbed
areas, among other sources, which are
not subject to Rule 310. Performance
standards and test methods for opacity
and surface stabilization for Rule 310
and Rule 310.01 sources are found in
Appendix C ‘‘Fugitive Dust Test
Methods’’ of MCAQD Regulation III.
Rule 310 also requires construction site
owners/operators to develop dust
control plans subject to MCAQD
approval. MCAQD’s ‘‘Application for
Dust Control Permit’’ and ‘‘Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit’’
provide supplemental information on
MCAQD’s implementation of the Rule
310 dust control plan requirements.24
Upon assessing the contribution of
construction sites, vacant lots, and
miscellaneous disturbed areas to Salt
River exceedences, ADEQ identified a
critical need for additional inspectors to
enforce Rule 310 and Rule 310.01
22 Measures 2 and 4 of the Maricopa County
Board Resolution are relevant to Rule 316 and Rule
325 sources, respectively.
23 Based on an emissions inventory and modeling
for the Salt River area, ADEQ estimates that
construction sources contributed 5.8 percent to
2002 average low-wind day exceedences and 4.4
percent to 2002 exceedences on days with wind
speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a highest
contribution of 18 µg/m3 at a single monitor). These
estimates exclude construction-related trackout
which is quantified in the paved road re-entrained
dust source category. ADEQ estimates that vacant
lots and miscellaneous disturbed areas contributed
approximately 26 percent to 2002 exceedences on
days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with
a highest contribution of 52 µg/m3 at a single
monitor). Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1, and Salt
River TSD, Table 6–8.
24 On July 25, 2002, we approved Rule 310, Rule
310.01 and Appendix C ‘‘Fugitive Dust Test
Methods’’ of MCAQD Regulation III as meeting the
CAA’s BACM and MSM requirements.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
39256
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
requirements.25 EPA last evaluated
enforcement resources for Rule 310 and
Rule 310.01 sources in 2001.26 We agree
with ADEQ’s assessment that the
continuing significant contribution of
these sources to PM–10 exceedences in
the Salt River area (and other sites in the
Phoenix PM–10 nonattainment area
with similar sources) warrants an
updated evaluation of enforcement
resources designed to ensure
compliance with Rule 310 and Rule
310.01 requirements.
ADEQ did not identify a need for
revisions to the requirements of Rule
310 and Rule 310.01 27 beyond fulfilling
three MCAQD commitments associated
with EPA’s BACM and MSM approval
for construction sources.28 These
commitments include (1) adding a
modified opacity standard/test method
to Appendix C tailored to non-process
fugitive dust sources that create
intermittent plumes; (2) incorporating
additional requirements for dust
suppression practices/equipment into
dust control plans and/or Rule 310; 29
and (3) revising and distributing the
sample daily recordkeeping logs for
Rule 310 sources to be consistent with
rule revisions and to provide sufficient
detail documenting dust control
measure implementation.
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In addressing the BACM and MSM
commitments for construction sources
in the MAG plan, MCAQD adopted
Appendix F of Regulation III on April 7,
2004, revised subsection 3.3.2 of
Appendix C of Regulation III and
subsections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310
on April 7, 2004, and revised the
Application for Dust Control Permit and
the Guidance for Application for Dust
Control Permit on July 1, 2005. We have
evaluated these submittals for
consistency with the BACM and MSM
commitments we approved in the MAG
plan and our general requirements in
CAA section 110.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
25 Salt
River plan, pg. 29.
26 66 FR 50252, 50271–50273.
27 One exception is that ADEQ recommended
wind breaks as an additional control measure for
Rule 310.01 in conjunction with existing measures
requiring surface stabilization. We consider this
optional but not necessary to meet BACM because
the rule relies on surface stabilization standards to
demonstrate compliance and the emissions
reduction potential of wind breaks is less certain.
Also, wind breaks are not economically feasible in
all circumstances.
28 66 FR 50252, 50256–50257. The commitments
are contained in the MAG plan approved by EPA.
See footnote 1.
29 MCAQD also committed to raise awareness of
on-site supervisors of dust control plans through
contact during inspections and a revised training
curriculum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
MCAQD also strengthened and
clarified certain requirements in Rule
310 and Appendix C (adopted on April
7, 2004) and in Rule 310.01 (adopted on
February 17, 2005). We have evaluated
these revisions for consistency with our
general requirements in CAA section
110.
Specific MCAQD revisions intended
to fulfill the three MAG plan
commitments are as follows: In order to
meet the commitment concerning
Appendix C, MCAQD adopted an
opacity test method into Appendix C
that is tailored to address intermittent
plumes from non-process fugitive dust
sources at construction sites.30 With
respect to the commitment to
incorporate additional dust suppression
practices/equipment into dust control
plans and/or Rule 310, MCAQD: (a)
Adopted Appendix F which classifies
soils into four types based on their PM–
10 emissions potential and contains a
map delineating the locations in the
Phoenix PM–10 nonattainment area of
these soil types; (b) revised Rule 310,
subsection 304.5, to require that dust
control plans disclose which of the four
designated soil types described in
Appendix F (or as measured at a
particular site) is naturally present at or
will be imported to the dust generating
operation; and (c) added minimum
criteria in the Application for Dust
Control Permit and Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit for
the amount of water that needs to be
available (i.e., water supply in
conjunction with water application
system) for sites with soils classified in
Appendix F as ‘‘moderate’’ or
‘‘severe’’.31 These criteria apply to
individual permits subject to review and
approval by MCAQD.32 Finally, to meet
the commitment concerning
recordkeeping requirements, MCAQD
revised subsection 502 of Rule 310 to
include examples of dust suppression
activities for which recordkeeping is
required. MCAQD also revised its
sample daily recordkeeping logs which
are available on MCAQD’s Web site to
provide various formats for
documenting application of measures
for specific types of dust generating
sources.
Other MCAQD revisions to Rule 310,
Rule 310.01, and Appendix C consist of
C, section 3.3.2.
criteria apply where water is not combined
with a chemical or organic dust suppressant.
32 We also note that MCAQD addressed its
commitment to raise awareness of on-site
supervisors of dust control plans by providing an
online construction guide and instructing its
inspectors to review dust control plans with
construction site personnel upon initial and
subsequent inspections.
PO 00000
30 Appendix
31 The
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
strengthenings and clarifications of
existing SIP-approved requirements.33
Our detailed evaluation of these
submittals can be found in the TSD
associated with this proposed rule.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
With respect to enforcement resources
dedicated to inspecting sources subject
to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01, MCAQD
conducted a 2005/06 workload analysis
of its earthmoving and vacant lot
programs and also created an inspection
priority plan for Rule 310.01 sources.34
Maricopa County Board Resolution No.
C–85–05–005–0–00,35 adopted on
January 19, 2005, commits MCAQD to
increase the number of inspectors
dedicated to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01
enforcement, along with other measures
designed to improve source compliance.
Specifically, the Maricopa County Board
Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–00
commitments include:
(a) Hire ten additional inspectors to
enforce MCAQD Rule 310.01 by August
2005; 36
(b) Develop and submit to EPA by
March 2005 an inspection priority plan
for vacant lots/open areas and unpaved
parking lots in the PM–10
nonattainment area; 37
(c) Conduct inspections on all vacant
lots/open areas, including alluvial
channels,38 in the Salt River area by
October 2006 with periodic follow-up
inspections;
(d) Hire an additional twelve
inspectors, four supervisors, and three
support staff by June 2005 to work
proactively and directly on compliance
and enforcement of the Rule 310
earthmoving fugitive dust program; 39
and
(e) Complete a user fee analysis and
have new fees considered by the Board
of Supervisors in January 2005 to be
effective no later than July 1, 2005, to
permanently fund the nineteen Rule 310
positions.40
In reviewing the adequacy of these
commitments, we compare them to
33 See EPA’s TSD associated with this proposed
action, section D.3.b.
34 Salt River plan, Appendix F, Enclosures 1 and
2.
35 Salt River plan, Appendix D.
36 As of April 2006, MCAQD had hired all ten of
the Rule 310.01 inspectors.
37 MCAQD developed an inspection priority plan
that is included in the Salt River plan.
38 Alluvial channels in the Salt River area consist
of a dry riverbed subject to Rule 310.01.
39 As of October 2005, MCAQD had hired all
twelve of the additional Rule 310 inspectors, the
four supervisors, and two of the support staff.
MCAQD expects to hire the third support staff
shortly. The support staff position does not affect
field enforcement efforts.
40 This commitment has been met through
MCAQD’s adoption of a revised Rule 280 ‘‘Fees’’ on
May 18, 2005, with an effective date of July 1, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
enforcement provisions in the currently
applicable Phoenix PM–10 SIP.41 The
MAG plan provides for eight fugitive
dust inspectors to implement MCAQD’s
fugitive dust rules. Because the January
2005 Maricopa County Board Resolution
provides for an additional twenty-two
inspectors to implement MCAQD’s
fugitive dust rules, this represents a
significant increase in personnel
resources. The number of additional
inspectors needed is based on MCAQD’s
projected fiscal year 2005/06 workload
analysis for its earthmoving and vacant
lot programs which accounts for the
number of vacant parcels in the Phoenix
area and the number of Rule 310
permits, which have increased since
2000.42
MCAQD’s inspection priority plan for
vacant lots/open areas and unpaved
parking lots provides for identification
of these sources through complaint
investigations, field observations, soil
maps, the Maricopa County Assessor
Geographic Information Systems Web
site, and/or aerial photographs. The
plan provides for site inspections to be
prioritized based on complaint
investigations, location within the Salt
River area, soil texture potential for
wind erosion, size (lots in excess of 10
acres), location within the PM–10
nonattainment area, and location in
proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g.,
schools).43 The inspection priority plan
also provides for an inspection rotation/
re-inspection electronic database to rate
the dust generating potential of vacant
lots/open areas based on criteria such as
lot size and compliance history to assist
in the scheduling and prioritizing of
sites for re-inspection. The inspection
priority plan is currently in effect.
The MAG plan does not contain
specific criteria for prioritizing vacant
lot/open area and unpaved parking lot
inspections. Thus, the MCAQD
inspection priority plan for these
sources would strengthen the SIP.
We described the basic elements of
MCAQD’s enforcement program in
section III.B.2 of this proposed rule.
41 MAG plan, Commitments for Implementation,
Volume Four, Maricopa County, Fourth Submittal,
Exhibit A, Revised Measure 6 of Resolution No. C
88–00–017–6–A2128, adopted December 15, 1999.
42 MCAQD was responsible for the issuance of
2,500 earthmoving permits in 2000 (Salt River plan,
pg. 29), which have increased to 4,548 permits
projected for fiscal year 2005/06 according to
MCAQD’s workload analysis. The workload
analysis staffing conclusions are based on
accommodating 9,152 inspections per year of Rule
310 sources and 4,587 inspections per year of Rule
310.01 sources.
43 We note that lots less than ten acres or that are
otherwise not prioritized in MCAQD’s inspection
priority plan are still subject to proactive
inspections. However these lots will receive a lower
priority than those meeting the plan’s criteria.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
39257
3. Conclusion
We have found that the January 2005
Maricopa County Board Resolution
enforcement resource commitments for
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 adequately
provide for the implementation of the
BACM requirements in those rules by
substantially increasing the number of
inspectors and associated personnel for
enforcing fugitive dust requirements.
We have found that other enforcementrelated commitments would strengthen
the SIP.
We have reviewed the MCAQD
submittals that address the three
commitments in the approved MAG
plan for construction sources 44 and
have found that they are consistent with
the BACM and MSM requirements of
CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e),
respectively, and also are consistent
with our policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations.
Finally, we have determined that other
revisions to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01
and would strengthen the SIP and are
consistent with our policy and guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations.
Therefore, we propose to approve
Rule 310, Rule 310.01, Maricopa County
Board Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–
00,45 Appendix C, Appendix F,
‘‘Application for Dust Control Permit’’,
and ‘‘Guidance for Application for Dust
Control Permit’’ under CAA section
110(k)(3). We propose to approve
sections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310,
section 3.3.2 of Appendix C, Appendix
F, and the enforcement resource
provisions of Measures 1 and 3 of
Resolution C–85–05–005–0–00 as
meeting the BACM and MSM
requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B)
and 188(e). We propose to approve
Section 2, subsections 10 and 11, and
Section 3, subsection I of the
Application for Dust Control Permit as
meeting the BACM and MSM
requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B)
and 188(e). We propose to approve
Section 2, subsection 13, and Section 3
of the Guidance for Application for Dust
Control Permit as meeting the BACM
and MSM requirements of sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to
approve all other revisions to these
rules, Resolution, Application for Dust
Control Permit and Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit as
SIP strengthenings.
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels
Commitment
The Salt River area contains dry river
channels comprised of alluvial soils.
ADEQ assessed the PM–10 impact of
alluvial channels in the Salt River area,
and found that they contribute
significantly to wind-driven
exceedences.46 In assessing the wind
erosion potential of alluvial channel
soils, ADEQ found that some soils have
particularly high-emitting potential
relative to average vacant land soils. The
City of Phoenix owns a substantial
amount of alluvial channel land in the
Salt River area.
Alluvial channels are subject to
MCAQD Rule 310.01 requirements.
ADEQ’s recommended approach to
addressing alluvial channels throughout
the nonattainment area is the same as
that for vacant lots/open areas and
miscellaneous disturbed surfaces, which
is increasing enforcement of Rule 310.01
requirements through the hiring of
additional MCAQD inspectors.47 We
have addressed this measure in section
III.C.2 of this proposed rule.
ADEQ notes that one of the most
effective control methods that can be
applied to alluvial channels is
establishing barriers to prevent vehicle
trespass in combination with
stabilization of soils. In order to
maximize compliance with Rule 310.01
requirements on its alluvial channel
land, the City of Phoenix adopted
Resolution No. 20114 on June 16, 2004,
which outlines a plan for dust control
measures on alluvial channels in the
Salt River area.48 Specifically, the City
of Phoenix committed to ‘‘develop and
implement a program to control vehicle
trespass on City-owned vacant land to
address particulate emissions and
criminal activity. These lands may
include dry river beds, washes, and
other open areas where significant
trespass occurs. Measures to reduce
trespass may include signs, increased
police enforcement, such as barriers,
fences, berms or other measures.
Measures may include stabilization of
disturbed soils where feasible.’’ The
City of Phoenix budgeted $200,000 in
fiscal year 2005/06 to implement this
measure. The Salt River plan contains a
2004 milestone progress report which
44 These include revisions to Rule 310
(subsections 304.5 and 502), Appendix C,
Application for Dust Control Permit, Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit, and the newly
submitted Appendix F.
45 Measures 1 and 3 of the Maricopa County
Board Resolution are relevant to Rule 310.01 and
Rule 310 sources, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46 Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates
that alluvial channels contributed approximately 15
percent to 2002 average exceedences on days with
wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a highest
contribution of 80 µg/m3 at a single monitor).
47 Salt River plan, pgs. 32 and 41.
48 Ibid., Appendix D, City of Phoenix Resolution
No. 20114, Measure 04–DC–3.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
39258
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
specifies City of Phoenix actions to
prevent trespass and stabilize soils on
City-owned alluvial channel lands.49
Because we believe the City of
Phoenix Resolution No. 20114, Measure
04–DC–3, strengthens the SIP and is
consistent with our policy and guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations, we propose to approve it
under CAA section 110(k)(3) as a SIP
strengthening.
E. Municipality, County, and State
Paved Road Re-Entrained Dust
Commitments
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
ADEQ identifies paved road reentrained dust as a significant
contributor to PM–10 24-hour
exceedences at the Salt River
monitors.50 In evaluating sources
responsible for paved road dust
emissions in the Salt River area, ADEQ
found the most significant sources of
dust loading on paved roads to be from
windblown emissions, soil trackout, and
emissions from earthmoving and other
dust generating processes in areas of
high industrial, construction, and
agricultural activity.51 In order to
address the largest sources of the
problem, ADEQ recommended
enhanced enforcement of Rule 310 and
Rule 316 and the adoption of specific
Rule 316 requirements for control of
trackout.52 We have addressed these
recommendations in sections III.B.2 and
C.2 of this proposed rule.
ADEQ also recommended enhanced
street sweeping with PM–10 efficient
sweepers of paved road segments that
typically experience a high level of soil
49 Salt River plan, Appendix E, Table 3.
Concentrated enforcement efforts on alluvial
channels in the Salt River area from July through
November 2004 resulted in fifty-five citations and
220 warnings. Vehicle trespass dropped to zero to
two vehicles in December and pedestrian
trespassers dropped from forty-five to eight per
weekend. Thirty ‘‘no trespass’’ signs were installed
and maintained. Three-hundred and thirty tons of
trash and over 2,000 tires were removed by
contractors from the upper riverbank and a thick
layer of mulch was applied to twelve acres.
Contractors have secured 1,800 feet of fences and
berms to prevent trespass along Broadway Road
since July 2004. The City treated the entire length
of berm on its property with polymer stabilizer.
One-thousand, one-hundred feet of guardrail on
West side of 35th Avenue have been installed.
Installation of concrete barriers at all four corners
of the 51st Avenue bridge began in January 2005.
Rains in January 2005 formed a crust in the alluvial
channel.
50 Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates
that paved road re-entrained dust contributed
approximately 64 percent to 2002 average low-wind
day exceedences (with a highest concentration of 74
µg/m3 at a single monitor) and 13.5 percent to 2002
average exceedences on days with wind speeds over
15 miles per hour (with a highest concentration of
43 µg/m3 at a single monitor).
51 Salt River plan, pg. 72.
52 Ibid., pg. 78.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
and dust deposition,53 e.g., in locations
with high industrial, construction, and
agricultural activity.54
Eighteen municipalities in the
Phoenix PM–10 nonattainment area,
Maricopa County Department of
Transportation and the Arizona
Department of Transportation adopted
resolutions 55 in 2004 and 2005 that
address the purchase/use of additional
PM–10 efficient street sweepers and
more frequent, targeted street sweeping.
These resolutions largely reflect a model
protocol developed by MAG containing
the following four elements: Targeting
‘‘high dust’’ arterials and collectors and
increasing sweeping frequencies with
PM–10 efficient sweepers; describing
how the protocol constitutes an
enhancement or improvement over
previously adopted commitments
contained in the MAG plan; addressing
trackout associated with facilities and
activities regulated by Maricopa County
by notifying the County when rule
violations are observed, and; providing
for annual reevaluation of the protocol.
As an example of specific measures
resulting from adopted municipal
resolutions, the City of Phoenix
developed a protocol to comply with its
adopted Resolution No. 20114, Measure
04–DC–1. The protocol specifies that
street sweeping schedules will increase
from the current 14-day sweeping cycle
to a 7-day cycle in a targeted area,
defined as bounded by Van Buren
Street, Baseline Road, 10th Street, and
59th Avenue in the Salt River area.56
Also, the City reports that its entire fleet
of street sweepers are now PM–10
efficient.57
In addition, the City of Phoenix
included $330,000 in its 2004/05 budget
for the purchase of two street
sweepers 58 and provides for street
improvements (i.e., curb and gutter) on
approximately 0.8 mile of 43rd Avenue
between Lower Buckeye Road and the
Salt River.59
pg. 79.
approved a variety of paved road reentrained dust measures on July 25, 2002 as
meeting the CAA’s BACM and MSM requirements,
including city, County, and State resolutions
addressing street sweeping. The SIP-approved MAG
plan does not contain measures for targeted street
sweeping, using PM–10 efficient street sweepers, on
road segments identified as having particularly high
emissions potential.
55 Salt River plan, Appendix D.
56 ‘‘City of Phoenix 2004 Protocol &
Implementation Plan For Paved Streets With
Potential for Dust Emissions’’, Salt River plan,
Appendix D.
57 Ibid., pg. 5.
58 Salt River plan, Appendix D, City of Phoenix
Resolution No. 20114, Measure 04–DC–1.
59 Ibid., Measure 04–DC–2.
PO 00000
53 Ibid.,
54 EPA
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MCDOT adopted the following street
sweeping protocol: 60
(a) Identify and target arterial and
collector ‘‘high dust’’ roads through
routine field supervisor roadway
inspections and sweep such roads at
least three times per month.61
(b) Sweep all targeted roads with
certified PM–10 efficient street sweepers
by February 2, 2005.
(c) Have all MCDOT field inspectors
and supervisors report trackout
associated with facilities and activities
regulated by Maricopa County to
MCAQD when rule violations are
observed.
(d) Re-evaluate the protocol annually
to ascertain its effectiveness, update the
list of roads swept with increased
frequency, and submit this list to
MCAQD annually.
Because we believe the municipal,
County,62 and State resolutions
strengthen the SIP and are consistent
with our policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations, we
propose to approve them under CAA
section 110(k)(3) as SIP strengthenings.
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).
60 Salt River plan, Appendix D, Maricopa County
Resolution No. C–85–05–005–0–00, Measure 5.
61 The protocol indicates that this sweeping
frequency is double the previous frequency.
62 Measure 5 of the Maricopa County Board
Resolution contains the relevant street sweeping
commitment.
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 30, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06–6111 Filed 7–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:09 Jul 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0098; FRL–8191–7]
40 CFR Part 52
RIN 2008–AA00
Federal Implementation Plan for the
Billings/Laurel, Montana, Sulfur
Dioxide Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
containing emission limits and
compliance determining methods for
several sources located in Billings and
Laurel, Montana. EPA is proposing a FIP
because of our previous partial and
limited disapprovals of the Billings/
Laurel Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) SIP. The
intended effect of this action is to assure
attainment of the SO2 national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) in the
Billings/Laurel, Montana area. EPA is
taking this action under sections 110
and 307 of the Clean Air Act (Act).
DATES: Comments: Comments on the
proposal must be received on or before
September 11, 2006.
Public Hearing: If requested by July
26, 2006, EPA will hold a public hearing
on August 10, 2006. If a public hearing
is requested, EPA will hold the public
hearing at the following time and
location: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Lewis
and Clark Room, MSU—Billings, 1500
University Drive, Billings, Montana. The
purpose of such a hearing would be for
EPA to receive comments and ask
clarifying questions. The hearing would
not be an opportunity for questioning of
EPA officials or employees. Call the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you would like
to request a hearing, schedule time to
speak at the hearing, or confirm whether
a hearing will occur. If a hearing is held,
speakers will be limited to 10 minutes.
It would be helpful, but it is not
required, if speakers bring a written
copy of their comments to leave with us.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2006–0098, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and
ostrand.laurie@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39259
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.
• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2006–
0098. 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.regulations.gov, 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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘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 https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically 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 the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
E:\FR\FM\12JYP1.SGM
12JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39251-39259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0526; FRL-8192-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Salt River Area Plan for Attainment
of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 39252]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provisions of the Revised PM-10 State Implementation Plan for the Salt
River Area submitted by the State of Arizona to EPA in October and
November 2005. These submittals include adopted rules and commitments
that address particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust
sources. EPA is proposing to approve these submittals as meeting the
best available control measure (BACM) requirements of CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) and the most stringent measure requirement (MSM) of
section 188(e) or as strengthening the state implementation plan (SIP).
We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 11, 2006. Comments should be
addressed to the contact listed below.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. E-mail: irwin.karen@epa.gov
3. Mail or deliver: Karen Irwin (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available on-line at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous
access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action, including the EPA
technical support document (TSD) and other relevant material, is
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy locations (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Copies of the state implementation plan (SIP) materials are also
available for inspection at the addresses listed below:
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85007.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 1001 N. Central Ave., Suite
200, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Office of Air Planning
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (415) 947-4116, e-mail:
irwin.karen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Submittals
for the Salt River Area
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
A. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent
Measures (MSM)
B. General SIP Requirements
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures and Commitments
A. Summary
B. Rules 316 and 325
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related Submittals
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels Commitment
E. Municipality, County, and State Paved Road Re-Entrained Dust
Commitments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Submittals for
the Salt River Area
The Salt River area, located in metropolitan Phoenix, is a 32-
square mile subarea of the Metropolitan Phoenix (Maricopa County)
serious PM-10 nonattainment area. ADEQ has submitted multiple PM-10
plans for the Salt River area, beginning with a January 27, 2004
submittal and followed by August 2, 2004 and August 29, 2005
submittals. An October 7, 2005 submittal, Revised PM-10 State
Implementation Plan for the Salt River Area, and a supplemental
November 29, 2005 submittal, Revised PM-10 State Implementation Plan
for the Salt River Area Additional Submittals, supersede the previous
three submittals and contain the measures that are the subject of this
proposed rule. Included with the October 7, 2005 plan submittal are
attachments, a technical support document (TSD), and appendices to both
the plan and TSD. Hereafter, we refer to the October 2005 submittal as
``Salt River plan'' and the TSD as ``Salt River TSD''. We refer to the
November 2005 submittal as ``Salt River plan supplement.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For additional background on the Salt River portion of the
Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area, see 67 FR 19148 (April 18, 2002)
and 67 FR 44369 (July 2, 2002). On July 25, 2002, EPA approved
multiple documents submitted to EPA by Arizona for the Phoenix area
as meeting the CAA requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment
areas for the 24-hour and annual PM-10 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Among these documents is the ``Revised Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan
for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,'' February
2000 (MAG plan), that includes the BACM demonstrations for all
significant source categories (except agriculture) for both the 24-
hour and annual PM-10 standards and the State's request and
supporting documentation, including the most stringent measure (MSM)
analysis (except for agriculture) for an attainment date extension
to 2006 for both standards. EPA's July 25, 2002 final action
included approval of these elements of the MAG plan. See EPA's
proposed and final approval actions at 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000),
66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While measures contained in the Salt River plan address monitored
exceedences of EPA's 24-hour PM-10 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) \2\ that occurred in that area, they apply to the
entire Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area. This is because the Salt River
monitors were sited to be representative of air quality at other sites
in the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area with similar emissions sources.
See 62 FR 31025, 31030 (June 6, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PM-10 24-hour standard is 150 [mu]g/m3. 40
CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39253]]
The following rules, requirements and resolutions have been
submitted as part of the Salt River plan or the Salt River plan
supplement.\3\ We are proposing to approve them into the Arizona SIP
pursuant to the listed CAA sections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule/measure/commitment Relevant CAA section(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD Rule 316 ``Nonmetallic Mineral 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
Processing'', adopted June 8, 2005.
MCAQD Rule 325 ``Brick and Structural 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing'',
adopted August 10, 2005.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 189(b) and 188(e) for
(MCAQD) Rule 310 ``Fugitive Dust'', subsections 304.5 and 502.
adopted April 7, 2004. 110(a) for other subsections.
MCAQD Rule 310.01 ``Fugitive Dust From 110(a).
Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved
Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways'',
adopted February 17, 2005.
MCAQD Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test 189(b), and 188(e) for
Methods'', adopted April 7, 2004. subsection 3.3.2. 110(a) for
other subsections.
MCAQD Appendix F ``Soil Designations'', 189(b) and 188(e).
adopted April 7, 2004.
MCAQD ``Application for Dust Control 189(b) and 188(e) for Section
Permit'', adopted July 1, 2005. 2, subsections 10 and 11, and
Section 3, subsection I.
110(a) for other subsections.
MCAQD ``Guidance for Application for 189(b) and 188(e) for Section
Dust Control Permit'', adopted July 1, 2, subsection 13, and Section
2005. 3. 110(a) for other
subsections.
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C- 189(b) for enforcement resource
85-05-005-0-00, adopted January 19, provisions of Measures 1
2005. through 4. 110(a) for other
provisions, including Measure
5.
City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114, 110(a).
adopted June 16, 2004.
Resolutions from 18 municipalities and 110(a).
the Arizona Department of
Transportation, adopted on various
dates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We approved versions of MCAQD Rules 310, 310.01 and Appendix C into
the SIP on July 25, 2002 and MCAQD Rule 316 on January 4, 2001. 67 FR
48717 and 66 FR 730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) Rule 310.01,
``Application for Dust Control Permit,'' and ``Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit'' can be found in the Salt River
plan supplement while the remaining rules and commitments can be
found in Appendix B of the Salt River plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires us to determine if a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of its receipt. This completeness
review allows us to quickly determine if the submittal includes all the
necessary items and information we need to take action on it. We make
completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
We have reviewed the October 7, 2005 and November 29, 2005
submittals from Arizona and affirmatively determined that they satisfy
our completeness criteria and that they are thereby complete for the
purposes of section 110(k)(1) of the Act. We notified the State of our
completeness determination by a letter to ADEQ dated December 8, 2005.
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
A. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures
(MSM)
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires serious area PM-10 plans to
provide for the implementation of BACM, including Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), within four years of reclassification to
serious. For the Phoenix area this date was June 10, 2000.\4\ Since
that date has passed, BACM must now be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable. See Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990); 55 FR
41204, 41210 (October 1, 1990); and 63 FR 28898, 28900 (May 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Phoenix area's reclassification to serious was effective
on June 10, 1996. 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have issued a General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992), and Addendum to the General Preamble
(Addendum), 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), describing our preliminary
views on how we intend to review SIPs submitted to meet the Clean Air
Act's requirements for PM-10 plans. The General Preamble mainly
addresses the requirements for moderate areas and the Addendum, the
requirements for serious areas.
In the Addendum, we explain that BACM is required for all source
categories in serious areas unless the state adequately demonstrates
that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the PM-10 standards. We have established a presumption
that a ``significant'' source category is one that contributes 5 [mu]g/
m3 or more of PM-10 to a location of 24-hour violation.
Addendum at 42011. We have defined BACM to be, among other things, the
maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source
category which is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering
energy, economic, environmental impacts and other costs. BACT applies
to stationary sources and is a subset of BACM. Addendum at 42009.
We have outlined in our guidance a multi-step process for
identifying BACM/BACT. Addendum at 42010-42014. The steps are:
1. Develop a detailed emissions inventory of PM-10 sources and
source categories,
2. Model to evaluate the impact on PM-10 concentrations over the
standards of the various sources and source categories to determine
which are significant,
3. Identify potential BACM for significant source categories and
evaluate their reasonableness, considering technological feasibility,
costs, and energy and environmental impacts and,
4. Provide for the implementation of the BACM or provide a reasoned
justification for rejecting any potential BACM. When the process is
complete, the individual measures should then be converted into a
legally enforceable vehicle (e.g., a regulation or permit). CAA
sections 172(6) and 110(a)(2)(A).
Under CAA section 188(e), the State is required to demonstrate to
our satisfaction that its serious area plan includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or
are achieved in practice in any state and can be feasibly implemented
in the area. The section 188(e) requirement for MSM is similar to the
requirement for BACM and we have therefore defined a ``most stringent
[[Page 39254]]
measure'' level of control as the maximum degree of emission reduction
that has been required or achieved from a source or source category in
other SIPs or in practice in other states and can be feasibly
implemented in the area. Given this similarity between the BACM and MSM
requirements, we believe that determining MSM should follow a process
similar to determining BACM, but with one additional step, to compare
the potentially most stringent measure against the measures already
adopted in the area to determine if the existing measures are most
stringent. See, e.g., 66 FR 50252, 50257 and 50282-50284 (October 2,
2001).
B. General SIP Requirements
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a))
and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).\5\ The EPA guidance and policy document we used to help evaluate
enforceability is ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and
Other Rule Deficiencies'', U.S. EPA Region IX, August 21, 2001 (the
Little Bluebook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits us from approving a revision to
the applicable implementation plan if that revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement of the Act. CAA section 193
prohibits us under certain circumstances from approving a revision
to the applicable implementation plan unless the modification
insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures and Commitments
A. Summary
The measures in the Salt River plan consist of: (1) Rules adopted
by MCAQD for various fugitive dust sources; (2) MCAQD commitments
designed to improve source compliance with fugitive dust requirements;
(3) commitments from multiple municipalities, Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT), and the State addressing paved
road re-entrained dust; (4) a City of Phoenix commitment addressing
alluvial channels; and (5) MCAQD application and guidance documents for
Rule 310 dust control plans.
B. Rules 316 and 325
ADEQ identifies industrial sources as significant contributors to
PM-10 24-hour exceedences at the Salt River monitors.\6\ Industrial-
related emissions fall into three categories: (1) Stationary point
(stack) sources; (2) stationary process sources (e.g., aggregate
screens and crushers); and (3) area sources, e.g., unpaved roads, open
storage piles, and trackout onto paved roads. Given ADEQ's finding that
industrial sources contribute significantly to 24-hour PM-10
exceedences, CAA sections 189(b) and 188(e) apply and BACM and MSM
demonstrations are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on an emissions inventory and modeling for the Salt
River area, ADEQ estimates that industrial sources contributed
approximately 26 percent to 2002 average low-wind day exceedences
(with a highest contribution of 60 [mu]g/m3 at a single
monitor) and 16 percent to 2002 exceedences on days with wind speeds
over 15 miles per hour (with a highest contribution of 58 [mu]g/
m3 at a single monitor). Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1,
and Salt River TSD, Table 6-8. This estimate excludes industrial
source trackout which is quantified in the paved road re-entrained
dust source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ found that the vast majority of industrial source PM-10
emissions are generated by nonmetallic mineral processing sources. The
SIP-approved version of MCAQD Rule 316 contains requirements for
stationary stack and process sources at nonmetallic mineral processing
plants and rock product plants.\7\ With regard to other industrial
sources in the Salt River area, ADEQ evaluated permitted industrial
stack sources for compliance with BACM/BACT and MSM and found that
control measures on all facilities met these requirements except brick
and structural clay product manufacturing facilities.\8\ Thus, MCAQD
adopted Rule 325 based on ADEQ's recommendation that BACM/BACT and MSM
must be met for these sources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approved a version of Rule 316 adopted on April 21,
1999. 66 FR 730 (January 4, 2001). We were not required to evaluate
the rule for BACT because the sources to which it applied were not
deemed significant at the time. We did, however, determine that the
rule met the CAA requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT). See 65 FR 42649, 42651 (July 11, 2000).
\8\ Salt River plan, pg. 70.
\9\ Rule 325 only applies to stationary sources, as opposed to
area sources. Area sources located at facilities subject to Rule 325
are subject to Rule 310 fugitive dust requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ first identified candidate BACM/BACT and MSM for Rule 316 and
Rule 325 sources by researching controls in several areas, including
PM-10 nonattainment areas in California, Nevada, Texas, Florida, and
Oklahoma.\10\ ADEQ then conducted a technical and economic feasibility
analysis with specific estimates of control efficiency and cost for
each type of emissions point or control measure.\11\ For the MSM
comparison, ADEQ developed a series of tables that benchmark the most
stringent controls in other areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Salt River plan, Appendix C.
\11\ Salt River plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.4.
\12\ Ibid., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its analysis, ADEQ recommended specific augmentations to
Rule 316 for purposes of meeting BACM/BACT and MSM requirements. In
addition, through its rulemaking process for Rule 316,\13\ MCAQD
identified additional MSM for nonmetallic mineral processing facilities
in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1157,
``PM-10 Emissions from Aggregate and Related Operations,'' adopted on
January 7, 2005. Finally, ADEQ recommended enhanced enforcement of Rule
316 but did not specify how it was to be achieved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid., Appendix B, Revision to Maricopa County Rule 316
Nonmetallic Mineral and Processing, Appendix 2, ``Notice of Final
Rulemaking, Maricopa County Air Pollution Regulations, Regulation
III, Rule 316--Nonmetallic Mineral Processing''.
\14\ Salt River plan, pgs. 56 and 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In revising Rule 316, MCAQD expanded the rule's coverage to include
area sources \15\ and incorporated additional control measures based on
ADEQ's recommendations as well as requirements contained in SCAQMD Rule
1157. As adopted on June 8, 2005, the rule includes the following
requirements for nonmetallic mineral processing sources: Opacity
standards ranging from 7% to 20% for various nonmetallic mineral
processes; venting of stack emissions to a properly sized fabric filter
baghouse and compliance with 7% opacity; enclosure on the sides of all
shaker screens; and a permanently mounted watering system for crushing
and screening inlets and outlets. Additional specific controls and
performance standards apply to asphaltic concrete plants and concrete
plants and/or bagging operations. With respect to area sources located
at nonmetallic mineral processing facilities, Rule 316 requires
specific work practice and performance standards for unpaved roads,
unpaved parking/staging areas, open storage piles and active material
handling, trackout onto paved public access roads,
[[Page 39255]]
cleaning of internal paved roads, and bulk material hauling/
transporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Historically, Rule 316 has contained only emission
limitations and not fugitive dust control measures specific to area
sources located at nonmetallic mineral processing plants and rock
processing plants. Facilities subject to Rule 316 have been required
to comply with fugitive dust control measures in Rule 310. MCAQD
revisions to Rule 316 include control measures specific to fugitive
dust sources at these facilities. Sources subject to specific
control measures in Rule 316 are no longer subject to Rule 310 while
sources not subject to specific Rule 316 control measures are still
subject to Rule 310. EPA approved Rule 310, which covers certain
industrial area sources, as meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM
requirements. 67 FR 48718, 48739. However, new information in the
Salt River plan demonstrates a relatively large contribution of
industrial area sources to Salt River PM-10 exceedences which
warrants an updated BACM/BACT and MSM demonstration for all such
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As adopted on August 10, 2005, new Rule 325 includes the following
requirements for brick and structural clay product manufacturing
sources: A 20% opacity standard; a limit of 0.42 lbs of particulate
matter per ton of fired product from existing tunnel kilns with a
capacity of > 1 ton per hour throughput and new or reconstructed tunnel
kilns with a capacity of < 10 tons per hour throughput; and a limit of
0.12 lbs of particulate matter per ton of fired product from new or
reconstructed tunnel kilns with a capacity of >= 10 tons per hour
throughput.
We have evaluated Rule 316 and Rule 325 requirements to determine
whether they represent BACM/BACT and MSM. As part of this evaluation,
we considered ADEQ's BACM/BACT and MSM analysis and associated
recommended control measures, along with reasoned justifications for
measures not recommended.\16\ We compared ADEQ's recommended measures
against the actual measures adopted into Rule 316 and Rule 325. In
addition, we compared Rule 316 requirements to those adopted in SCAQMD
Rule 1157 and compared Rule 325 requirements to EPA's New Source
Performance Standards for clay manufacturing kilns.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Op. Cit., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.13 and accompanying
text.
\17\ 40 CFR 63.8555(a), subpart KKKKK, table 1 and 40 CFR
63.8405(a), subpart JJJJ, table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to BACM/BACT, we found that Rule 316 and Rule 325 meet
BACT requirements for stationary sources. We also found that the Rule
316 requirements satisfy BACM for area sources and are equally or more
stringent relative to the Rule 310 requirements we have approved as
BACM. With respect to MSM, we found that Rule 316 and Rule 325 measures
are equally or more stringent relative to similar adopted requirements
in rules applicable in other PM-10 nonattainment areas. We also found
Rule 316 and Rule 325 requirements to be consistent with our
enforceability criteria.
As noted above, the CAA requires BACM/BACT to be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable. Most of the requirements in Rule 316 were
effective as of the June 8, 2005 adoption date and all of the
requirements are currently applicable. With respect to Rule 325,
compliance with the rule is not required until December 31, 2006. MCAQD
provided adequate justification for this implementation date based on
substantial annualized capital investment costs required of facilities
subject to the rule for the purchase of necessary emissions control
equipment.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
The basic elements of MCAQD's enforcement program include permit
review, facility inspections, source testing of equipment, and review
of records and activities. MCAQD's enforcement options include orders
of abatement, civil actions for injunctive relief or civil penalties,
and class 1 misdemeanor citations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ibid., Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-
00, Measures 2 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing ADEQ's recommendation for enhanced Rule 316
enforcement, MCAQD committed to increase the inspection frequency for
Rule 316 sources from once every two years to four times per year
beginning on July 1, 2005.\19\ We consider enforcement resources to be
part of the CAA section 189(b) requirement that serious area PM-10
plans include provisions to assure the implementation of BACM. MCAQD
conducted a workload analysis for the increased Rule 316 inspection
frequency based on the number of permitted sources in fiscal year 2004
and determined that one additional inspector and an additional
supervisor are needed.\20\ This would increase the number of MCAQD
inspectors dedicated to non-Title V and general permitted stationary
sources, which includes Rule 316 and Rule 325 sources, from seven to
eight. In evaluating the level of enforcement resources dedicated to
Rule 316 and Rule 325, we consider the number of MCAQD permits
associated with facilities subject to these rules. MCAQD issued 107
permits for Rule 316 sources in 2004. Rule 325 applies to two brick and
clay structural facilities and one tunnel kiln.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Salt River TSD, Appendix D, Maricopa County Board
Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00, Measure 2.
\20\ ``Workload Analysis for Rule 316 Permitted Sources'' is
included in the docket associated with this proposed rule. This
analysis specifies that the four annual inspections will consist of
one full inspection and three partial inspections. A partial
inspection involves checking compliance with fugitive dust controls
but not necessarily process equipment unless an obvious problem is
observed.
\21\ Salt River plan, Appendix B, Notice of Final Rulemaking,
Rule 325, August 10, 2005, pg. 3450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Conclusion
In evaluating MCAQD Rules 316 and 325, we have found that they meet
the BACM/BACT and MSM requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and
188(e), respectively, and that MCAQD enforcement resources are adequate
to provide for the implementation of BACM. We have also found these
rules to be consistent with our policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations. Because we believe that Rule 316
and Rule 325 fulfill all relevant requirements, we propose to approve
them and the Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00 \22\
under CAA section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). Our detailed analysis of Rule 316 and Rule 325
requirements can be found in the TSD associated with this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Measures 2 and 4 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution
are relevant to Rule 316 and Rule 325 sources, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related Submittals
ADEQ identifies construction sources, vacant lots, and
miscellaneous disturbed areas as significant contributors to PM-10 24-
hour exceedences at the Salt River monitors.\23\ Rule 310 applies to
dust generating operations including construction/earthmoving and
demolition sites. Rule 310.01 applies to vacant lots and miscellaneous
disturbed areas, among other sources, which are not subject to Rule
310. Performance standards and test methods for opacity and surface
stabilization for Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 sources are found in
Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test Methods'' of MCAQD Regulation III. Rule
310 also requires construction site owners/operators to develop dust
control plans subject to MCAQD approval. MCAQD's ``Application for Dust
Control Permit'' and ``Guidance for Application for Dust Control
Permit'' provide supplemental information on MCAQD's implementation of
the Rule 310 dust control plan requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Based on an emissions inventory and modeling for the Salt
River area, ADEQ estimates that construction sources contributed 5.8
percent to 2002 average low-wind day exceedences and 4.4 percent to
2002 exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour
(with a highest contribution of 18 [mu]g/m3 at a single
monitor). These estimates exclude construction-related trackout
which is quantified in the paved road re-entrained dust source
category. ADEQ estimates that vacant lots and miscellaneous
disturbed areas contributed approximately 26 percent to 2002
exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a
highest contribution of 52 [mu]g/m3 at a single monitor).
Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1, and Salt River TSD, Table 6-8.
\24\ On July 25, 2002, we approved Rule 310, Rule 310.01 and
Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test Methods'' of MCAQD Regulation III as
meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon assessing the contribution of construction sites, vacant lots,
and miscellaneous disturbed areas to Salt River exceedences, ADEQ
identified a critical need for additional inspectors to enforce Rule
310 and Rule 310.01
[[Page 39256]]
requirements.\25\ EPA last evaluated enforcement resources for Rule 310
and Rule 310.01 sources in 2001.\26\ We agree with ADEQ's assessment
that the continuing significant contribution of these sources to PM-10
exceedences in the Salt River area (and other sites in the Phoenix PM-
10 nonattainment area with similar sources) warrants an updated
evaluation of enforcement resources designed to ensure compliance with
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Salt River plan, pg. 29.
\26\ 66 FR 50252, 50271-50273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ did not identify a need for revisions to the requirements of
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 \27\ beyond fulfilling three MCAQD commitments
associated with EPA's BACM and MSM approval for construction
sources.\28\ These commitments include (1) adding a modified opacity
standard/test method to Appendix C tailored to non-process fugitive
dust sources that create intermittent plumes; (2) incorporating
additional requirements for dust suppression practices/equipment into
dust control plans and/or Rule 310; \29\ and (3) revising and
distributing the sample daily recordkeeping logs for Rule 310 sources
to be consistent with rule revisions and to provide sufficient detail
documenting dust control measure implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ One exception is that ADEQ recommended wind breaks as an
additional control measure for Rule 310.01 in conjunction with
existing measures requiring surface stabilization. We consider this
optional but not necessary to meet BACM because the rule relies on
surface stabilization standards to demonstrate compliance and the
emissions reduction potential of wind breaks is less certain. Also,
wind breaks are not economically feasible in all circumstances.
\28\ 66 FR 50252, 50256-50257. The commitments are contained in
the MAG plan approved by EPA. See footnote 1.
\29\ MCAQD also committed to raise awareness of on-site
supervisors of dust control plans through contact during inspections
and a revised training curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In addressing the BACM and MSM commitments for construction sources
in the MAG plan, MCAQD adopted Appendix F of Regulation III on April 7,
2004, revised subsection 3.3.2 of Appendix C of Regulation III and
subsections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310 on April 7, 2004, and revised the
Application for Dust Control Permit and the Guidance for Application
for Dust Control Permit on July 1, 2005. We have evaluated these
submittals for consistency with the BACM and MSM commitments we
approved in the MAG plan and our general requirements in CAA section
110.
MCAQD also strengthened and clarified certain requirements in Rule
310 and Appendix C (adopted on April 7, 2004) and in Rule 310.01
(adopted on February 17, 2005). We have evaluated these revisions for
consistency with our general requirements in CAA section 110.
Specific MCAQD revisions intended to fulfill the three MAG plan
commitments are as follows: In order to meet the commitment concerning
Appendix C, MCAQD adopted an opacity test method into Appendix C that
is tailored to address intermittent plumes from non-process fugitive
dust sources at construction sites.\30\ With respect to the commitment
to incorporate additional dust suppression practices/equipment into
dust control plans and/or Rule 310, MCAQD: (a) Adopted Appendix F which
classifies soils into four types based on their PM-10 emissions
potential and contains a map delineating the locations in the Phoenix
PM-10 nonattainment area of these soil types; (b) revised Rule 310,
subsection 304.5, to require that dust control plans disclose which of
the four designated soil types described in Appendix F (or as measured
at a particular site) is naturally present at or will be imported to
the dust generating operation; and (c) added minimum criteria in the
Application for Dust Control Permit and Guidance for Application for
Dust Control Permit for the amount of water that needs to be available
(i.e., water supply in conjunction with water application system) for
sites with soils classified in Appendix F as ``moderate'' or
``severe''.\31\ These criteria apply to individual permits subject to
review and approval by MCAQD.\32\ Finally, to meet the commitment
concerning recordkeeping requirements, MCAQD revised subsection 502 of
Rule 310 to include examples of dust suppression activities for which
recordkeeping is required. MCAQD also revised its sample daily
recordkeeping logs which are available on MCAQD's Web site to provide
various formats for documenting application of measures for specific
types of dust generating sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Appendix C, section 3.3.2.
\31\ The criteria apply where water is not combined with a
chemical or organic dust suppressant.
\32\ We also note that MCAQD addressed its commitment to raise
awareness of on-site supervisors of dust control plans by providing
an online construction guide and instructing its inspectors to
review dust control plans with construction site personnel upon
initial and subsequent inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other MCAQD revisions to Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Appendix C
consist of strengthenings and clarifications of existing SIP-approved
requirements.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See EPA's TSD associated with this proposed action, section
D.3.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our detailed evaluation of these submittals can be found in the TSD
associated with this proposed rule.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
With respect to enforcement resources dedicated to inspecting
sources subject to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01, MCAQD conducted a 2005/06
workload analysis of its earthmoving and vacant lot programs and also
created an inspection priority plan for Rule 310.01 sources.\34\
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00,\35\ adopted on
January 19, 2005, commits MCAQD to increase the number of inspectors
dedicated to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 enforcement, along with other
measures designed to improve source compliance. Specifically, the
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00 commitments
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Salt River plan, Appendix F, Enclosures 1 and 2.
\35\ Salt River plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Hire ten additional inspectors to enforce MCAQD Rule 310.01 by
August 2005; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As of April 2006, MCAQD had hired all ten of the Rule
310.01 inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Develop and submit to EPA by March 2005 an inspection priority
plan for vacant lots/open areas and unpaved parking lots in the PM-10
nonattainment area; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ MCAQD developed an inspection priority plan that is
included in the Salt River plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Conduct inspections on all vacant lots/open areas, including
alluvial channels,\38\ in the Salt River area by October 2006 with
periodic follow-up inspections;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Alluvial channels in the Salt River area consist of a dry
riverbed subject to Rule 310.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Hire an additional twelve inspectors, four supervisors, and
three support staff by June 2005 to work proactively and directly on
compliance and enforcement of the Rule 310 earthmoving fugitive dust
program; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ As of October 2005, MCAQD had hired all twelve of the
additional Rule 310 inspectors, the four supervisors, and two of the
support staff. MCAQD expects to hire the third support staff
shortly. The support staff position does not affect field
enforcement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Complete a user fee analysis and have new fees considered by
the Board of Supervisors in January 2005 to be effective no later than
July 1, 2005, to permanently fund the nineteen Rule 310 positions.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ This commitment has been met through MCAQD's adoption of a
revised Rule 280 ``Fees'' on May 18, 2005, with an effective date of
July 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the adequacy of these commitments, we compare them to
[[Page 39257]]
enforcement provisions in the currently applicable Phoenix PM-10
SIP.\41\ The MAG plan provides for eight fugitive dust inspectors to
implement MCAQD's fugitive dust rules. Because the January 2005
Maricopa County Board Resolution provides for an additional twenty-two
inspectors to implement MCAQD's fugitive dust rules, this represents a
significant increase in personnel resources. The number of additional
inspectors needed is based on MCAQD's projected fiscal year 2005/06
workload analysis for its earthmoving and vacant lot programs which
accounts for the number of vacant parcels in the Phoenix area and the
number of Rule 310 permits, which have increased since 2000.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ MAG plan, Commitments for Implementation, Volume Four,
Maricopa County, Fourth Submittal, Exhibit A, Revised Measure 6 of
Resolution No. C 88-00-017-6-A2128, adopted December 15, 1999.
\42\ MCAQD was responsible for the issuance of 2,500 earthmoving
permits in 2000 (Salt River plan, pg. 29), which have increased to
4,548 permits projected for fiscal year 2005/06 according to MCAQD's
workload analysis. The workload analysis staffing conclusions are
based on accommodating 9,152 inspections per year of Rule 310
sources and 4,587 inspections per year of Rule 310.01 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD's inspection priority plan for vacant lots/open areas and
unpaved parking lots provides for identification of these sources
through complaint investigations, field observations, soil maps, the
Maricopa County Assessor Geographic Information Systems Web site, and/
or aerial photographs. The plan provides for site inspections to be
prioritized based on complaint investigations, location within the Salt
River area, soil texture potential for wind erosion, size (lots in
excess of 10 acres), location within the PM-10 nonattainment area, and
location in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., schools).\43\ The
inspection priority plan also provides for an inspection rotation/re-
inspection electronic database to rate the dust generating potential of
vacant lots/open areas based on criteria such as lot size and
compliance history to assist in the scheduling and prioritizing of
sites for re-inspection. The inspection priority plan is currently in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ We note that lots less than ten acres or that are otherwise
not prioritized in MCAQD's inspection priority plan are still
subject to proactive inspections. However these lots will receive a
lower priority than those meeting the plan's criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MAG plan does not contain specific criteria for prioritizing
vacant lot/open area and unpaved parking lot inspections. Thus, the
MCAQD inspection priority plan for these sources would strengthen the
SIP.
We described the basic elements of MCAQD's enforcement program in
section III.B.2 of this proposed rule.
3. Conclusion
We have found that the January 2005 Maricopa County Board
Resolution enforcement resource commitments for Rule 310 and Rule
310.01 adequately provide for the implementation of the BACM
requirements in those rules by substantially increasing the number of
inspectors and associated personnel for enforcing fugitive dust
requirements. We have found that other enforcement-related commitments
would strengthen the SIP.
We have reviewed the MCAQD submittals that address the three
commitments in the approved MAG plan for construction sources \44\ and
have found that they are consistent with the BACM and MSM requirements
of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e), respectively, and also are
consistent with our policy and guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations. Finally, we have determined that other revisions to
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 and would strengthen the SIP and are
consistent with our policy and guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ These include revisions to Rule 310 (subsections 304.5 and
502), Appendix C, Application for Dust Control Permit, Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit, and the newly submitted
Appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose to approve Rule 310, Rule 310.01, Maricopa
County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00,\45\ Appendix C, Appendix
F, ``Application for Dust Control Permit'', and ``Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit'' under CAA section 110(k)(3). We
propose to approve sections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310, section 3.3.2 of
Appendix C, Appendix F, and the enforcement resource provisions of
Measures 1 and 3 of Resolution C-85-05-005-0-00 as meeting the BACM and
MSM requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to
approve Section 2, subsections 10 and 11, and Section 3, subsection I
of the Application for Dust Control Permit as meeting the BACM and MSM
requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to approve
Section 2, subsection 13, and Section 3 of the Guidance for Application
for Dust Control Permit as meeting the BACM and MSM requirements of
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to approve all other
revisions to these rules, Resolution, Application for Dust Control
Permit and Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit as SIP
strengthenings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Measures 1 and 3 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution
are relevant to Rule 310.01 and Rule 310 sources, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels Commitment
The Salt River area contains dry river channels comprised of
alluvial soils. ADEQ assessed the PM-10 impact of alluvial channels in
the Salt River area, and found that they contribute significantly to
wind-driven exceedences.\46\ In assessing the wind erosion potential of
alluvial channel soils, ADEQ found that some soils have particularly
high-emitting potential relative to average vacant land soils. The City
of Phoenix owns a substantial amount of alluvial channel land in the
Salt River area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates that alluvial
channels contributed approximately 15 percent to 2002 average
exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a
highest contribution of 80 [mu]g/m3 at a single monitor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alluvial channels are subject to MCAQD Rule 310.01 requirements.
ADEQ's recommended approach to addressing alluvial channels throughout
the nonattainment area is the same as that for vacant lots/open areas
and miscellaneous disturbed surfaces, which is increasing enforcement
of Rule 310.01 requirements through the hiring of additional MCAQD
inspectors.\47\ We have addressed this measure in section III.C.2 of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Salt River plan, pgs. 32 and 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ notes that one of the most effective control methods that can
be applied to alluvial channels is establishing barriers to prevent
vehicle trespass in combination with stabilization of soils. In order
to maximize compliance with Rule 310.01 requirements on its alluvial
channel land, the City of Phoenix adopted Resolution No. 20114 on June
16, 2004, which outlines a plan for dust control measures on alluvial
channels in the Salt River area.\48\ Specifically, the City of Phoenix
committed to ``develop and implement a program to control vehicle
trespass on City-owned vacant land to address particulate emissions and
criminal activity. These lands may include dry river beds, washes, and
other open areas where significant trespass occurs. Measures to reduce
trespass may include signs, increased police enforcement, such as
barriers, fences, berms or other measures. Measures may include
stabilization of disturbed soils where feasible.'' The City of Phoenix
budgeted $200,000 in fiscal year 2005/06 to implement this measure. The
Salt River plan contains a 2004 milestone progress report which
[[Page 39258]]
specifies City of Phoenix actions to prevent trespass and stabilize
soils on City-owned alluvial channel lands.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Ibid., Appendix D, City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114,
Measure 04-DC-3.
\49\ Salt River plan, Appendix E, Table 3. Concentrated
enforcement efforts on alluvial channels in the Salt River area from
July through November 2004 resulted in fifty-five citations and 220
warnings. Vehicle trespass dropped to zero to two vehicles in
December and pedestrian trespassers dropped from forty-five to eight
per weekend. Thirty ``no trespass'' signs were installed and
maintained. Three-hundred and thirty tons of trash and over 2,000
tires were removed by contractors from the upper riverbank and a
thick layer of mulch was applied to twelve acres. Contractors have
secured 1,800 feet of fences and berms to prevent trespass along
Broadway Road since July 2004. The City treated the entire length of
berm on its property with polymer stabilizer. One-thousand, one-
hundred feet of guardrail on West side of 35th Avenue have been
installed. Installation of concrete barriers at all four corners of
the 51st Avenue bridge began in January 2005. Rains in January 2005
formed a crust in the alluvial channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we believe the City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114,
Measure 04-DC-3, strengthens the SIP and is consistent with our policy
and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations, we propose
to approve it under CAA section 110(k)(3) as a SIP strengthening.
E. Municipality, County, and State Paved Road Re-Entrained Dust
Commitments
ADEQ identifies paved road re-entrained dust as a significant
contributor to PM-10 24-hour exceedences at the Salt River
monitors.\50\ In evaluating sources responsible for paved road dust
emissions in the Salt River area, ADEQ found the most significant
sources of dust loading on paved roads to be from windblown emissions,
soil trackout, and emissions from earthmoving and other dust generating
processes in areas of high industrial, construction, and agricultural
activity.\51\ In order to address the largest sources of the problem,
ADEQ recommended enhanced enforcement of Rule 310 and Rule 316 and the
adoption of specific Rule 316 requirements for control of trackout.\52\
We have addressed these recommendations in sections III.B.2 and C.2 of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates that paved
road re-entrained dust contributed approximately 64 percent to 2002
average low-wind day exceedences (with a highest concentration of 74
[mu]g/m3 at a single monitor) and 13.5 percent to 2002
average exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour
(with a highest concentration of 43 [mu]g/m3 at a single
monitor).
\51\ Salt River plan, pg. 72.
\52\ Ibid., pg. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ also recommended enhanced street sweeping with PM-10 efficient
sweepers of paved road segments that typically experience a high level
of soil and dust deposition,\53\ e.g., in locations with high
industrial, construction, and agricultural activity.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Ibid., pg. 79.
\54\ EPA approved a variety of paved road re-entrained dust
measures on July 25, 2002 as meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM
requirements, including city, County, and State resolutions
addressing street sweeping. The SIP-approved MAG plan does not
contain measures for targeted street sweeping, using PM-10 efficient
street sweepers, on road segments identified as having particularly
high emissions potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen municipalities in the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area,
Maricopa County Department of Transportation and the Arizona Department
of Transportation adopted resolutions \55\ in 2004 and 2005 that
address the purchase/use of additional PM-10 efficient street sweepers
and more frequent, targeted street sweeping. These resolutions largely
reflect a model protocol developed by MAG containing the following four
elements: Targeting ``high dust'' arterials and collectors and
increasing sweeping frequencies with PM-10 efficient sweepers;
describing how the protocol constitutes an enhancement or improvement
over previously adopted commitments contained in the MAG plan;
addressing trackout associated with facilities and activities regulated
by Maricopa County by notifying the County when rule violations are
observed, and; providing for annual reevaluation of the protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Salt River plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example of specific measures resulting from adopted municipal
resolutions, the City of Phoenix developed a protocol to comply with
its adopted Resolution No. 20114, Measure 04-DC-1. The protocol
specifies that street sweeping schedules will increase from the current
14-day sweeping cycle to a 7-day cycle in a targeted area, defined as
bounded by Van Buren Street, Baseline Road, 10th Street, and 59th
Avenue in the Salt River area.\56\ Also, the City reports that its
entire fleet of street sweepers are now PM-10 efficient.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``City of Phoenix 2004 Protocol & Implementation Plan For
Paved Streets With Potential for Dust Emissions'', Salt River plan,
Appendix D.
\57\ Ibid., pg. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the City of Phoenix included $330,000 in its 2004/05
budget for the purchase of two street sweepers \58\ and provides for
street improvements (i.e., curb and gutter) on approximately 0.8 mile
of 43rd Avenue between Lower Buckeye Road and the Salt River.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Salt River plan, Appendix D, City of Phoenix Resolution No.
20114, Measure 04-DC-1.
\59\ Ibid., Measure 04-DC-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCDOT adopted the following street sweeping protocol: \60\
(a) Identify and target arterial and collector ``high dust'' roads
through routine field supervisor roadway inspections and sweep such
roads at least three times per month.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Salt River plan, Appendix D, Maricopa County Resolution No.
C-85-05-005-0-00, Measure 5.
\61\ The protocol indicates that this sweeping frequency is
double the previous frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Sweep all targeted roads with certified PM-10 efficient street
sweepers by February 2, 2005.
(c) Have all MCDOT field inspectors and supervisors report trackout
associated with facilities and activities regulated by Maricopa County
to MCAQD when rule violations are observed.
(d) Re-evaluate the protocol annually to ascertain its
effectiveness, update the list of roads swept with increased frequency,
and submit this list to MCAQD annually.
Because we believe the municipal, County,\62\ and State resolutions
strengthen the SIP and are consistent with our policy and guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations, we propose to approve
them under CAA section 110(k)(3) as SIP strengthenings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Measure 5 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution contains
the relevant street sweeping commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
[[Page 39259]]
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.).
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: June 30, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06-6111 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
