Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Air Quality Department and Maricopa County, 57612-57615 [E9-26861]
Download as PDF
57612
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and other hazardous material) when other
environmental laws and regulations will be
satisfied prior to the of demolition, removal
and disposal.
A.4(f) Relocations and realignments of
employees and/or residents from one
geographic area to another that: Fall below
the thresholds for reportable actions and do
not involve related activities such as
construction, renovation, or demolition
activities that would otherwise require an EA
or an EIS to impellent. This includes
reorganization and reassignments with no
changes in employee and/or resident status,
and routine administrative reorganizations
and consolidations.
Appendix B to Part 200—The Action
Requiring an Environmental
Assessment
The following actions are not considered to
be major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment and, therefore, require an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) nor
are considered a categorical exclusion as
defined in these regulations and would
require the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA):
B.1 Construction on previously disturbed
property where there is the potential for an
increase in traffic and people.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Appendix C to Part 200—Actions
Requiring Environmental Impact
Statement
The following actions are considered to be
major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment, and
therefore must be the subjects of EIS, as
indicates may have significant environmental
effects:
C.1 Acquisition of space by Federal
construction or lease construction, or
expansion or improvement of an existing
facility, where one or more of the following
applies:
C.1(a) The structure and/or proposed use
are not substantially consistent with local
planning and zoning or any applicable State
or Federal requirements.
C.1(b) The proposed use will substantially
increase the number of motor vehicles at the
facility.
C.1(c) The site and scale of construction
are not consistent with those of existing
adjacent or nearby buildings.
C.1(d) There is evidence of current or
potential environmental controversy.
C.2 Space acquisition programs projected
for a substantial geographical area (e.g., a
metropolitan area) for a 3-to-5-year period or
greater (Note: a Programmatic EIS is often
appropriate here, from which subsequent
EISs and EAs can be tiered).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
Dated: October 28, 2009.
Timothy Cox,
Chief Operating Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–26376 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8250–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0042; FRL–8902–6]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Maricopa County
Air Quality Department and Maricopa
County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the
Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern PM–10
emissions from open outdoor fires and
indoor fireplaces at commercial and
institutional establishments, primary
and secondary MCAQD ambient air
quality standards, and residential
woodburning devices. We are approving
local rules under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on January
8, 2010 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
December 9, 2009. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2009–0042, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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:
Alfred Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4118, petersen.alfred@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 are the purposes of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA recommendation to further improve
a rule.
E. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are
approving with the dates that the rules
were amended by the local air agencies
and submitted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ).
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
57613
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Revised or
adopted
Local agency
Ordinance or rule No.
Rule title
MCAQD ......................
Rule 314 ....................
MCAQD ......................
Rule 510 ....................
Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial and Institutional Establishments.
Air Quality Standards ......................................................................
MC .............................
Ordinance P–26 ........
Residential Woodburning Restriction Ordinance ............................
On January 11, 2009, the submittal of
MCAQD Rule 314 and MC Ordinance P–
26 was determined by operation of law
to meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review. On
December 6, 2007, the submittal of
MCAQD Rule 510 was determined by
operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
There is no previous version of MC
Ordinance P–26 submitted or in the SIP.
A version of MCAQD Rule 314 was
approved into the SIP on May 8, 2007
(72 FR 25973). Obsolete versions of the
SIP Rules 50, 51, 52, and 53 were
approved into the SIP on July 27, 1972
(37 FR 15081) and should be removed
from the SIP.
A version of MCAQD Rule 510 on
which we have not acted, was adopted
on July 13, 1988 and submitted on
January 4, 1990. While we can act only
on the most recent version, we have
considered the contents of the previous
submittal.
C. What are the purposes of the
submitted rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which
harm human health and the
environment. These rules were
developed as part of local air districts’
programs to control these pollutants.
The purposes of revisions to MCAQD
Rule 314 are as follows:
• 314.202: Area A is defined
(generally the highly-populated area of
Maricopa County (MC)).
• 314.302.1: A list of fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods in MC,
but allowed from May 1 through
September 30 in Area A, is revised.
• 314.302.2: A list of fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods in MC
and also prohibited from May 1 to
September 30 in Area A is revised.
• 314.303.1: A list of fires allowed
any time of the year in MC or Area A
is revised.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
• 314.303.2: A list of fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods in MC is
revised.
• 314.303.3: A list of fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods in MC
and also prohibited from May 1 through
September 30 in Area A is revised.
Woodburning chimineas and fire pits
are added to the applicability of the
rule.
• 314.302.1 and 314.302.2: A list of
fires that require burn permits from the
MCAQD is revised. A list of other fires
prohibited during restricted-burn
periods, but that may be set after a
person verifies with the MCAQD that a
restricted-burn period is not in effect, is
revised.
• 314.304: Air curtain destructor
burning requires a Title V permit from
the ADEQ and a site-specific burn plan.
Procedures for the air curtain destructor
in Rule 314.appendix are revised.
• 314.306: The burning is prohibited
in indoor fireplaces at commercial and
institutional establishments during a
restricted-burn period, except for
gaseous fuels.
The purposes of MCAQD Rule 510 are
as follows:
• The rule establishes maximum
limiting levels of ambient air pollutants
for protection of human health and
public welfare.
• The rule requires public
notification on ambient air quality
through an Annual Air Quality
Monitoring Report and a Daily Air
Quality Index Report.
The purposes of revisions to MC
Ordinance P–16 are as follows:
• P–26.(overall): Various definitions
are added or revised. Civil penalties are
added for failure to curtail burning as
required on restricted burn days.
• P–26.1.B: Barbecue devices and
mesquite grills are removed from the
applicability of the ordinance.
• P–26.2.G: The moisture content of
appropriate fuels is reduced to 20%
from 30%.
• P–26.2: Standards for curtailment of
burning are added for PM–2.5 and
ozone in addition to the existing
standard for PM–10. The National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Submitted
03/12/08
Revised
11/01/06
Adopted
03/26/08
Revised
07/10/08
06/07/07
07/10/08
particulate matter are added for the new
PM–2.5 standard in addition to the
existing standard for PM–10. The
requirement that County Buildings
Codes supersede the requirements of
Ordinance P–26 is added.
• P–26.3.A: Restricted-burn periods
declarations are expanded to every day
of the year.
• P–26.3.B: There is added the
prohibition to operate outdoor fire pits,
woodburning chimineas, or similar
outdoor devices during a restricted-burn
period such that there are visible smoke
emissions. Such devices must be
installed per the manufacturer’s
instructions and operated with
manufacturer’s recommended fuel.
• P–26.3.C: There is clarified that
during a restricted-burn period, a person
may operate a residential woodburning
device if exempted by the Control
Officer or if it meets the standards of
MCAQD Rule 318 and there is no visible
smoke emission. There is added that
during a restricted-burn period, a person
may operate a residential woodburning
device, outdoor fire pit, chiminea, or
similar outdoor fire if operated
exclusively with natural gas or propane.
• P–26.3.D: The possibility of
exceeding the ozone standard is added
as a criterion for declaring a restrictedburn period.
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) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). SIP rules in serious PM–10
nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources best available control
measures (BACM), including best
available control technology (BACT)
(see section 189(b)). MCAQD regulates a
serious PM–10 nonattainment area (see
40 CFR part 81), so MCAQD Rule 314
must fulfill the requirements of BACM/
BACT. MCAQD Rule 510 is an
administrative rule with no specific
BACM/BACT requirements.
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
57614
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
• PM–10 Guideline Document (EPA–
452/R–93–008).
• Technical Information Document
for Residential Wood Combustion Best
Available Control Measures, (EPA–450/
2–92–002).
• Minimum BACM/RACM Control
Measures for Residential Wood
Combustion Rules, EPA Region IX
(September 16, 2008).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe that MC Rules 314 and
510 and MC Ordinance P–26 are
consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability,
BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations and
should be given full approval. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA recommendation to further
improve a rule
The TSD describes an additional rule
revision that does not affect EPA’s
current action but is recommended for
the next time the local agency modifies
MCAQD Rule 510.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
D. Public comment and final action
Because EPA believes that submitted
MCAQD Rules 314 and 510 and MC
Ordinance P–26 fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully
approve them as described in section
110(k)(3) of the CAA. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we
receive convincing new information
during the comment period, we intend
to publish a final approval action that
will incorporate these rules into the
federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if
that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this 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 approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This 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
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. This 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 rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by January 8, 2010.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: March 12, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Editorial Note: This document was
received by the Office of the Federal Register
on November 3, 2009.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(140)(i)(B) and
(141) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(140) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality
Department.
(1) Rule 510, ‘‘Air Quality Standards,’’
excluding Appendix G to the Maricopa
County Air Pollution Control
Regulations, adopted on July 13, 1988
and revised on November 1, 2006.
*
*
*
*
*
(141) The following amended rules
were submitted on July 10, 2008, by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Maricopa County.
(1) Ordinance P–26, ‘‘Residential
Woodburning Restriction Ordinance,’’
adopted on October 5, 1994 and revised
on March 26, 2008.
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality
Department.
(1) Rule 314, ‘‘Open Outdoor Fires
and Indoor Fireplaces at Commercial
and Institutional Establishments,’’
adopted on July 13, 1988 and revised on
March 12, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–26861 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[FWS–R9–MB–2009–0003]
[91200–1231–9BPP–L2]
[RIN 1018–AW46]
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of
Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer Shot
Alloys as Nontoxic for Hunting
Waterfowl and Coots
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Interior.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
ACTION: Final rule; correcting
amendment.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2009, we, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
published a final rule approving
tungsten-iron-fluoropolymer (TIF) shot
for hunting waterfowl and coots. The
information provided in that rule
regarding appropriate field testing
devices for this type of nontoxic shot
contained an error. We now correct that
error.
DATES: This rule takes effect on
November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George T. Allen, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 703-358-1825).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 20, 2009, we published a
final rule with an immediate effective
date to approve tungsten-ironfluoropolymer (TIF) shot for hunting
waterfowl and coots (74 FR 53665). Our
changes to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j)
indicated that a magnet or a Hot Shot®
device was suitable for testing
shotshells loaded with TIF in the field.
However, a regular magnet is not
sufficient for testing the TIF alloys of
the highest sectional densities.
We amend our table of approved
nontoxic shot types at 50 CFR 20.21(j)
to clarify that either a rare earth magnet
(or a set of small rare earth magnets) or
a Hot Shot® device is needed for testing
TIF shot in the field. We do so by
inserting the words ‘‘rare earth’’ at the
appropriate place in the table.
This information appears in the last
column of the table under the heading
‘‘Field testing device’’. The data in this
column is strictly informational, not
regulatory. Because the nontoxic shot
regulations are used by both waterfowl
hunters and law enforcement officers,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57615
we include information on suitable
testing devices as a useful addition to
the table.
Administrative Procedure Act
We find good cause to waive notice
and comment on this correction,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), and
the 30–day delay in effective date
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Notice and
comment are unnecessary because this
rule merely corrects a nonregulatory
portion of the regulations. The
substance of the regulations remains
unchanged. Therefore, this correction is
being published as a final regulation
and is effective as shown under DATES.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we amend part 20,
subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
■
PART 20—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 20
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40
Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub.
L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16
U.S.C. 703.
2. Amend § 20.21(j) by adding the
words ‘‘Rare Earth’’ in front of the word
‘‘Magnet’’ in the last column and last
row of the table.
■
Dated: November 4, 2009
Sara Prigan,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9–26912 Filed 11–06–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S
E:\FR\FM\09NOR1.SGM
09NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57612-57615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26861]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0042; FRL-8902-6]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County Air Quality Department and Maricopa County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern PM-10
emissions from open outdoor fires and indoor fireplaces at commercial
and institutional establishments, primary and secondary MCAQD ambient
air quality standards, and residential woodburning devices. We are
approving local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on January 8, 2010 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 9, 2009. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0042, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
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 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: Alfred Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118, petersen.alfred@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 are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule.
E. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that the
rules were amended by the local air agencies and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
[[Page 57613]]
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised or
Local agency Ordinance or rule No. Rule title adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD......................... Rule 314..................... Open Outdoor Fires and 03/12/08 07/10/08
Indoor Fireplaces at Revised
Commercial and
Institutional
Establishments.
MCAQD......................... Rule 510..................... Air Quality Standards.. 11/01/06 06/07/07
Adopted
MC............................ Ordinance P-26............... Residential Woodburning 03/26/08 07/10/08
Restriction Ordinance. Revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 11, 2009, the submittal of MCAQD Rule 314 and MC
Ordinance P-26 was determined by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review. On December 6, 2007, the submittal of MCAQD
Rule 510 was determined by operation of law to meet the completeness
criteria.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
There is no previous version of MC Ordinance P-26 submitted or in
the SIP.
A version of MCAQD Rule 314 was approved into the SIP on May 8,
2007 (72 FR 25973). Obsolete versions of the SIP Rules 50, 51, 52, and
53 were approved into the SIP on July 27, 1972 (37 FR 15081) and should
be removed from the SIP.
A version of MCAQD Rule 510 on which we have not acted, was adopted
on July 13, 1988 and submitted on January 4, 1990. While we can act
only on the most recent version, we have considered the contents of the
previous submittal.
C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air
districts' programs to control these pollutants.
The purposes of revisions to MCAQD Rule 314 are as follows:
314.202: Area A is defined (generally the highly-populated
area of Maricopa County (MC)).
314.302.1: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC, but allowed from May 1 through September 30 in Area
A, is revised.
314.302.2: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC and also prohibited from May 1 to September 30 in
Area A is revised.
314.303.1: A list of fires allowed any time of the year in
MC or Area A is revised.
314.303.2: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC is revised.
314.303.3: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC and also prohibited from May 1 through September 30
in Area A is revised. Woodburning chimineas and fire pits are added to
the applicability of the rule.
314.302.1 and 314.302.2: A list of fires that require burn
permits from the MCAQD is revised. A list of other fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods, but that may be set after a person
verifies with the MCAQD that a restricted-burn period is not in effect,
is revised.
314.304: Air curtain destructor burning requires a Title V
permit from the ADEQ and a site-specific burn plan. Procedures for the
air curtain destructor in Rule 314.appendix are revised.
314.306: The burning is prohibited in indoor fireplaces at
commercial and institutional establishments during a restricted-burn
period, except for gaseous fuels.
The purposes of MCAQD Rule 510 are as follows:
The rule establishes maximum limiting levels of ambient
air pollutants for protection of human health and public welfare.
The rule requires public notification on ambient air
quality through an Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report and a Daily Air
Quality Index Report.
The purposes of revisions to MC Ordinance P-16 are as follows:
P-26.(overall): Various definitions are added or revised.
Civil penalties are added for failure to curtail burning as required on
restricted burn days.
P-26.1.B: Barbecue devices and mesquite grills are removed
from the applicability of the ordinance.
P-26.2.G: The moisture content of appropriate fuels is
reduced to 20% from 30%.
P-26.2: Standards for curtailment of burning are added for
PM-2.5 and ozone in addition to the existing standard for PM-10. The
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter are added
for the new PM-2.5 standard in addition to the existing standard for
PM-10. The requirement that County Buildings Codes supersede the
requirements of Ordinance P-26 is added.
P-26.3.A: Restricted-burn periods declarations are
expanded to every day of the year.
P-26.3.B: There is added the prohibition to operate
outdoor fire pits, woodburning chimineas, or similar outdoor devices
during a restricted-burn period such that there are visible smoke
emissions. Such devices must be installed per the manufacturer's
instructions and operated with manufacturer's recommended fuel.
P-26.3.C: There is clarified that during a restricted-burn
period, a person may operate a residential woodburning device if
exempted by the Control Officer or if it meets the standards of MCAQD
Rule 318 and there is no visible smoke emission. There is added that
during a restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device, outdoor fire pit, chiminea, or similar outdoor fire
if operated exclusively with natural gas or propane.
P-26.3.D: The possibility of exceeding the ozone standard
is added as a criterion for declaring a restricted-burn period.
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) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources best available control measures (BACM), including
best available control technology (BACT) (see section 189(b)). MCAQD
regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
MCAQD Rule 314 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT. MCAQD Rule
510 is an administrative rule with no specific BACM/BACT requirements.
[[Page 57614]]
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).
Technical Information Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Best Available Control Measures, (EPA-450/2-92-002).
Minimum BACM/RACM Control Measures for Residential Wood
Combustion Rules, EPA Region IX (September 16, 2008).
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe that MC Rules 314 and 510 and MC Ordinance P-26 are
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations and should be given full
approval. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule
The TSD describes an additional rule revision that does not affect
EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies MCAQD Rule 510.
D. Public comment and final action
Because EPA believes that submitted MCAQD Rules 314 and 510 and MC
Ordinance P-26 fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to
fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30
days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment
period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This 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 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. This 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 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.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 8, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 12, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on November 3, 2009.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(140)(i)(B) and
(141) to read as follows:
[[Page 57615]]
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(140) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
(1) Rule 510, ``Air Quality Standards,'' excluding Appendix G to
the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, adopted on July
13, 1988 and revised on November 1, 2006.
* * * * *
(141) The following amended rules were submitted on July 10, 2008,
by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Maricopa County.
(1) Ordinance P-26, ``Residential Woodburning Restriction
Ordinance,'' adopted on October 5, 1994 and revised on March 26, 2008.
(B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
(1) Rule 314, ``Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at
Commercial and Institutional Establishments,'' adopted on July 13, 1988
and revised on March 12, 2008.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-26861 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P