Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, 19921-19923 [2010-8764]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
two State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Wyoming on September 11, 2008.
Wyoming has revised its Air Quality
Standards and Regulations, specifically
Chapter 1, Section 5, Unavoidable
equipment malfunction, and Chapter 1,
Section 6, Credible evidence. EPA is
taking this action under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act. In the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
SIP revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the preamble to
the direct final rule. If EPA receives no
adverse comments, EPA will not take
further action on this proposed rule. If
EPA receives adverse comments, EPA
will withdraw the direct final rule and
it will not take effect. EPA will address
all public comments in a subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule.
EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time. 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.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2009–0052, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules Section of this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Federal Register for detailed instruction
on how to submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. 303–312–6142,
dolan.kathy@epa.gov.
See the
information provided in the Direct Final
action of the same title which is located
in the Rules and Regulations Section of
this Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Carol L. Campbell,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator,
Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010–8404 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0277; FRL–9137–9]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
opacity standards related to multiple
pollutants, including particulate matter
(PM) emissions from several different
types of sources, ranging from fugitive
dust to diesel generators. We are
approving a local rule that regulates
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
May 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number [EPA–R09–
OAR–2010–0277], by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19921
change and may be made available
online at https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
https://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 email 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
https://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:
Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revision?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
19922
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Rule
number
Local agency
Rule title
MCAQD ...................................................
300
On March 13, 2009, EPA determined
this rule met the completeness criteria
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.
implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate PM
nonattainment areas, and Best Available
Control Measures (BACM), including
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), in serious PM nonattainment
areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and
189(b)(1)). The MCAQD regulates a PM
nonattainment area classified as serious
(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 300 must
implement RACM and BACM.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability and
RACM or BACM requirements
consistently include the following:
1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;
Clarification to Appendix D of
November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of
availability published in the May 25,
1988 Federal Register.
2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas,
and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10
Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA
452/R–93–008, April 1993.
6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background
Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control
Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004,
September 1992.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
On April 12, 1982, EPA approved a
previous version of Rule 300 (Rule 30)
into the SIP. Please see 47 FR 15579.
The MCAQD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved version on July 13, 1988
and ADEQ submitted them to us on
January 4, 1990. However, EPA did not
take action on this submittal. MCAQD
also revised Rule 300 on August 5, 1994
and February 7, 2001, but did not
submit these versions to EPA. While we
can act on only the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed
materials provided with previous
submittals.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
PM contributes to effects that are
harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and
damage to vegetation and ecosystems.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
States to submit regulations that control
PM emissions.
MCAQD Rule 300 is designed to limit
the emissions of particulate matter or
other pollutants such as oxides of
nitrogen from a variety of activities and
sources using a 20% opacity standard.
These sources may include construction
sites, unpaved roads, disturbed soil in
open areas, and power plants. MCAQD
amended Rule 300 to change the opacity
limit from 40% to 20% and change the
procedure for determining compliance
with the 20% opacity limitation from
‘‘averaging to aggregating.’’ The rule was
also renumbered from Rule 30 to Rule
300, reformatted, and 4 exceptions were
added. EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) has more information
about this submitted rule and its
revisions.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
Visible Emissions ...................................................................
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with
the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM,
and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
PO 00000
Amended
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
03/12/08
Submitted
07/10/08
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes several rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rule, but that are not currently the basis
for disapproval of the rule.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted
rule fulfills all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve it as
described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
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 this into the
federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
19923
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010–8764 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0237; FRL–9138–5]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX),
particulate matter (PM), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions from the
permanent curtailment of burning rice
straw. We are approving a local rule that
regulates 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
May 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2010–0237, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments 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
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
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
https://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: Lily
Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114,
wong.lily@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the dates that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
YSAQMD ................................................
3.21
On April 20, 2009, EPA determined
that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule
3.21 met the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Adopted
Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits ................................
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/10/08
Submitted
03/17/09
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
There are no previous versions of
Rule 3.21 in the SIP.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 73 (Friday, April 16, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19921-19923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0277; FRL-9137-9]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern opacity standards
related to multiple pollutants, including particulate matter (PM)
emissions from several different types of sources, ranging from
fugitive dust to diesel generators. We are approving a local rule that
regulates 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 May 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0277], by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments 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 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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://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 https://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: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
[[Page 19922]]
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency number Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD...................................... 300 Visible Emissions............. 03/12/08 07/10/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2009, EPA determined this rule met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
On April 12, 1982, EPA approved a previous version of Rule 300
(Rule 30) into the SIP. Please see 47 FR 15579. The MCAQD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on July 13, 1988 and ADEQ
submitted them to us on January 4, 1990. However, EPA did not take
action on this submittal. MCAQD also revised Rule 300 on August 5, 1994
and February 7, 2001, but did not submit these versions to EPA. While
we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have
reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions.
MCAQD Rule 300 is designed to limit the emissions of particulate
matter or other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen from a variety of
activities and sources using a 20% opacity standard. These sources may
include construction sites, unpaved roads, disturbed soil in open
areas, and power plants. MCAQD amended Rule 300 to change the opacity
limit from 40% to 20% and change the procedure for determining
compliance with the 20% opacity limitation from ``averaging to
aggregating.'' The rule was also renumbered from Rule 30 to Rule 300,
reformatted, and 4 exceptions were added. EPA's technical support
document (TSD) has more information about this submitted rule and its
revisions.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The MCAQD regulates a PM nonattainment area
classified as serious (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 300 must implement
RACM and BACM.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements consistently include the
following:
1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, and SIP relaxations. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes several rule revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the rule, but that are not
currently the basis for disapproval of the rule.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 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 this into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
[[Page 19923]]
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-8764 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
