Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, 60934-60937 [E6-17233]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60934
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PART 1915—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT
1. The authority citation for part 1915
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941);
secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71
(36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48
FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR
111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR
65008) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.
2. Amend § 1915.5 to revise
paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (vi) through (x), and
(xiii) through (xviii) and by removing
paragraph (d)(4)(xix) to read as follows:
§ 1915.5
Incorporation by reference.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) NFPA 1981–2002 Standard on
Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus for Fire and Emergency
Services, IBR approved for
§ 1915.505(e)(3)(v).
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) NFPA 10–2002 Standard for
Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR
approved for §§ 1915.507(b)(1) and
(b)(2).
(vii) NFPA 14–2003 Standard for the
Installation of Standpipe and Hose
Systems, IBR approved for
§§ 1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1).
(viii) NFPA 72–2002 National Fire
Alarm Code, IBR approved for
§ 1915.507(c)(6).
(ix) NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR
approved for § 1915.507(d)(2).
(x) NFPA 750–2003 Standard on
Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, IBR
approved for § 1915.507(d)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(xiii) NFPA 11–2005 Standard for
Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion
Foam, IBR approved for
§ 1915.507(d)(3).
(xiv) NFPA 17–2002, Standard for Dry
Chemical Extinguishing Systems, IBR
approved for § 1915.507(d)(4).
(xv) NFPA 12–2005, Standard on
Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems,
IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5).
(xvi) NFPA 12A–2004, Standard on
Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems,
IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5).
(xvii) NFPA 2001–2004, Standard on
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for
§ 1915.507(d)(5).
(xviii) NFPA 1403–2002, Standard on
Live Fire Training Evolutions, IBR
approved for § 1915.508(d)(8).
3. Amend § 1915.505 to revise
paragraph (e)(3)(v), to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
06:09 Oct 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
§ 1915.505
Fire response.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) Provide only SCBA that meet the
requirements of NFPA 1981–2002
Standard on Open-Circuit SelfContained Breathing Apparatus for Fire
and Emergency Services (incorporated
by reference, see § 1915.5); and
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 1915.507 to revise
paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(6), (d)(1),
(d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 1915.507
system.
Land-side fire protection
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) The employer must select, install,
inspect, maintain, and test all portable
fire extinguishers according to NFPA
10–2002 Standard for Portable Fire
Extinguishers (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5).
(2) The employer is permitted to use
Class II or Class III hose systems, in
accordance with NFPA 10–2002
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5), as portable fire extinguishers
if the employer selects, installs,
inspects, maintains, and tests those
systems according to the specific
recommendations in NFPA 14–2003
Standard for the Installation of
Standpipe and Hose Systems
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5).
(c) * * *
(6) Select, install, inspect, maintain,
and test all automatic fire detection
systems and emergency alarms
according to NFPA 72–2002 National
Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5)
(d) * * *
(1) Standpipe and hose systems
according to NFPA 14–2003 Standard
for the Installation of Standpipe and
Hose Systems (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5);
(2) Automatic sprinkler systems
according to NFPA 25–2002 Standard
for the Inspection, Testing, and
Maintenance of Water-based Fire
Protection Systems, (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5), and either (i)
NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5), or (ii) NFPA 750–2003
Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection
Systems (incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5);
(3) Fixed extinguishing systems that
use water or foam as the extinguishing
agent according to NFPA 15–2001
Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for Fire Protection (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5) and either NFPA
11–2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-,
and High-Expansion Foam
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5);
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Fixed extinguishing systems using
gas as the extinguishing agent according
to NFPA 12–2005 Standard on Carbon
Dioxide Extinguishing Systems
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5); NFPA 12A–2004 Standard on
Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems
(incorporated by reference, see
§ 1915.5); and NFPA 2001–2004
Standard on Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by
reference, see § 1915.5).
[FR Doc. E6–17125 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0729; FRL–8231–4]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air
Quality Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the Pinal County Air
Quality Control District (PCAQCD)
portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern particulate matter
(PM–10) emissions from fugitive dust.
We are proposing action on local rules
that regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
November 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0729, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), 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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
60935
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action 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
location (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.
Table of Contents
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A. What rules did the State submit?
´˜
Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by local air agencies and
submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
PCAQCD
PCAQCD
PCAQCD
PCAQCD
Rule #
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
Rule title
4–2–020
4–2–030
4–2–040
4–2–050
On June 4, 1996, the submittals of
rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, and 4–2–040
were found to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA
review. On April 24, 1999, the submittal
of rule 4–2–050 was found to meet the
completeness criteria.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
There are no previous versions of
Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, 4–2–040, or 4–
2–050 in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules?
Particulate matter (PM–10) harms
human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
PM–10 emissions. Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–
030, 4–2–040, and 4–2–050 establish
requirements that help control PM–10
emissions from fugitive dust. EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about these rules.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA), must require reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) in moderate PM–10
VerDate Aug<31>2005
06:09 Oct 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
Adopted
General [Fugitive Dust] .............................................................
Definitions [Fugitive Dust] .........................................................
Standards [Fugitive Dust] ..........................................................
Monitoring and Records [Fugitive Dust] ...................................
nonattaiment areas (see section 189(a)),
must require best available control
measures (BACM), including best
available control technology (BACT) in
serious PM–10 nonattaiment areas (see
section 189(b)), and must not relax
existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). A portion of PCAQCD
is designated attainment, a portion is
designated moderate nonattainment,
and a portion is designated serious
nonattainment for PM–10.
The following guidance documents
were used for reference:
1. Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40
CFR part 51.
2. PM–10 Guideline Document (EPA–
452/R–93–008).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
These rules improve the SIP by
establishing more stringent emission
limits. These rules are largely consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP
relaxations. Rule provisions which do
not meet the evaluation criteria are
summarized below and discussed
further in the TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6/29/93
6/29/93
6/29/93
5/14/97
Submitted
11/27/95.
11/27/95.
11/27/95.
10/07/98.
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
These provisions conflict with section
110 and part D of the Act and prevent
full approval of the SIP revision.
1. Rule 4–2–020, Section B specifies
that Article 4 ‘‘shall not be construed so
as to prevent normal farm cultural
practices which cause fugitive dust.’’
Normal farm cultural practice is defined
in Rule 4–2–030, Definition 2, as ‘‘all
activities * * * conducted on any
facility for the production of crops,
livestock, poultry, livestock products or
poultry products.’’ As written, Rule 4–
2–020, Section B effectively exempts
agricultural activities from the fugitive
dust rules without justification.
2. Rule 4–2–030, Definition 3, defines
‘‘reasonable precaution’’ in highly
general terms. The term ‘‘reasonable
precaution’’ is then used in every
section of Rule 4–2–040, to define what
actions must be taken to mitigate
fugitive dust emissions from relevant
activities. This general requirement is
not sufficiently clear or enforceable.
3. Rule 4–2–050 does not contain
recordkeeping provisions. The absence
of these provisions makes the all of the
submitted rules difficult to enforce.
D. Proposed Action and Public
Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing
a limited approval of the submitted
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
60936
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rules to improve the SIP. If finalized,
this action would incorporate the
submitted rules into the SIP, including
those provisions identified as deficient.
This approval is limited because EPA is
simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rules under section
110(k)(3). If this disapproval is
finalized, sanctions will be imposed
under section 179 of the Act unless EPA
approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18
months. These sanctions would be
imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A
final disapproval would also trigger the
federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c). Note
that the submitted rules have been
adopted by the PCAQCD, and EPA’s
final limited disapproval will not
prevent the local agency from enforcing
them.
We will accept comments from the
public on the proposed limited approval
and limited disapproval for the next 30
days.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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.)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
06:09 Oct 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval
action proposed does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
merely approves 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. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, 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.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate
environmental health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Dated: September 14, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6–17233 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
06:09 Oct 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R01–OAR–2006–0226; FRL–8231–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Maine; Redesignation of the
Portland, ME and the Hancock, Knox,
Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to
Attainment for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve:
A request to redesignate two 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment areas
to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS; and a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision containing a separate
10-year maintenance plan for each area.
The two areas are the Portland, Maine
8-hour ozone nonattainment area and
the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo
Counties (Midcoast), Maine 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. EPA is also
providing information on the status of
its transportation conformity adequacy
determination for the new motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year
2016 that are contained in the 10-year
8-hour ozone maintenance plans for
each area. EPA is proposing to approve
MVEBs for both areas.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 16,
2006.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2006–OAR–0226 by one of
the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918–0047.
4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification
Number EPA–R01–OAR–2006–OAR–
0226’’, Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code
CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114–2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60937
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2006–
OAR–0226. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received 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 information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
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
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.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Air Quality Planning
Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114–2023. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60934-60937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-17233]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0729; FRL-8231-4]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County
Air Quality Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD)
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust. We are
proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0729, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), 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
[[Page 60935]]
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 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 location (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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3956, Donez.Francisco@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD............................... 4-2-020 General [Fugitive Dust]..... 6/29/93 11/27/95.
PCAQCD............................... 4-2-030 Definitions [Fugitive Dust]. 6/29/93 11/27/95.
PCAQCD............................... 4-2-040 Standards [Fugitive Dust]... 6/29/93 11/27/95.
PCAQCD............................... 4-2-050 Monitoring and Records 5/14/97 10/07/98.
[Fugitive Dust].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 1996, the submittals of rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, and 4-2-
040 were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On April 24,
1999, the submittal of rule 4-2-050 was found to meet the completeness
criteria.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
There are no previous versions of Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040,
or 4-2-050 in the SIP.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
Particulate matter (PM-10) harms human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control PM-10 emissions. Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050
establish requirements that help control PM-10 emissions from fugitive
dust. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA), must require reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control technology (RACT) in moderate
PM-10 nonattaiment areas (see section 189(a)), must require best
available control measures (BACM), including best available control
technology (BACT) in serious PM-10 nonattaiment areas (see section
189(b)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l)
and 193). A portion of PCAQCD is designated attainment, a portion is
designated moderate nonattainment, and a portion is designated serious
nonattainment for PM-10.
The following guidance documents were used for reference:
1. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
2. PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
These rules improve the SIP by establishing more stringent emission
limits. These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule
provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized
below and discussed further in the TSD.
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act
and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
1. Rule 4-2-020, Section B specifies that Article 4 ``shall not be
construed so as to prevent normal farm cultural practices which cause
fugitive dust.'' Normal farm cultural practice is defined in Rule 4-2-
030, Definition 2, as ``all activities * * * conducted on any facility
for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products or
poultry products.'' As written, Rule 4-2-020, Section B effectively
exempts agricultural activities from the fugitive dust rules without
justification.
2. Rule 4-2-030, Definition 3, defines ``reasonable precaution'' in
highly general terms. The term ``reasonable precaution'' is then used
in every section of Rule 4-2-040, to define what actions must be taken
to mitigate fugitive dust emissions from relevant activities. This
general requirement is not sufficiently clear or enforceable.
3. Rule 4-2-050 does not contain recordkeeping provisions. The
absence of these provisions makes the all of the submitted rules
difficult to enforce.
D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted
[[Page 60936]]
rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate
the submitted rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified
as deficient. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously
proposing a limited disapproval of the rules under section 110(k)(3).
If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under
section 179 of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions
that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions
would be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would
also trigger the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under
section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the
PCAQCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval will not prevent the local
agency from enforcing them.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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.)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
merely approves 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. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
[[Page 60937]]
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
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: September 14, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E6-17233 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
