Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County, 53907-53908 [2010-21959]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Dated: August 12, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–21701 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0521; FRL–9196–2]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Maricopa County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maricopa County
portion of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern particulate matter
(PM) emissions from fugitive dust
sources such as construction sites and
related activities, unpaved roads,
unpaved parking lots, and disturbed
soils on vacant lots. We are approving
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
October 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
SUMMARY:
OAR–2010–0521, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://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
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
53907
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:
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
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 the local air agency,
the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) and submitted by
the Arizona Department of Air Quality
(ADEQ).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
MCAQD ...............................
MCAQD ...............................
310
310.01
MCAQD ...............................
............................
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that
the Rule 310 and 310.01 submittals from
Maricopa County met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V;
these criteria must be met before formal
EPA review begins.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
There are prior versions of Rule 310,
Rule 310.01 and Appendix C in the SIP.
On August 21, 2007, EPA approved and
incorporated within the SIP the April 7,
2004 adopted versions of Rule 310, Rule
310.01, and Appendix C (see 72 FR
46564). Maricopa County submitted,
through the ADEQ, the March 26, 2008
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Sep 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
Rule title
Adopted
Fugitive Dust From Dust-Generating Operations ..........
Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive
Dust.
Appendix C—Fugitive Dust Test Methods .....................
adopted versions of Rule 310, Rule
310.01, and Appendix C to EPA on July
10, 2008. We have not acted on these
versions of the rules. The January 27,
2010 version of Rules 310 and 310.01,
the subject of this proposal, however,
incorporates the 2008 revisions as well
as these latest 2010 amendments.
Consequently, for this proposal, we
reviewed all amendments and the rules
as a whole. In the case of Appendix C,
we reviewed the submitted March 27,
2008 version since there was no
subsequent submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
01/27/10
01/27/10
04/12/10
04/12/10
03/27/08
07/10/08
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. Rule 310 is designed to
limit the emissions of fugitive dust or
particulate matter from activity related
to land-clearing, earthmoving,
construction, demolition, bulk material
hauling, temporary staging areas and
E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM
02SEP1
53908
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules
unpaved parking lots, haul and access
roads, vehicle track-out, and disturbed
soil associated with these activities.
Rule 310.01 is a rule designed to limit
the emissions of fugitive dust or
particulate matter from disturbed
surfaces and vehicle use in open areas
and vacant lots, unpaved roadways and
parking lots, livestock activities,
erosion-caused deposition of bulk
material on paved roadways, and
easements, rights-of-way, and access
roads for utilities.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
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 310 and
Rule 310.01 must implement 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.
15:15 Sep 01, 2010
Jkt 220001
We believe these rules are consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance.
Our Technical Support Documents
(TSD) on each rule has our detailed
review and evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
We have no recommendation at this
time.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
Because EPA believes the submitted
rules fulfill all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve them
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 these rules
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);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 23, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010–21959 Filed 9–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0115; FRL–9195–9]
RIN 2060–AQ23
Method 16C for the Determination of
Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From
Stationary Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This action proposes a
method for measuring total reduced
sulfur (TRS) emissions from stationary
sources. The EPA is making this method
available for general use as requested by
a number of source testing companies
since it has been allowed for use in the
past on a case-by-case basis for kraft
pulp mills and refineries. This proposed
method would offer advantages over
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM
02SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53907-53908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0521; FRL-9196-2]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources
such as construction sites and related activities, unpaved roads,
unpaved parking lots, and disturbed soils on vacant lots. We are
approving 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 October 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0521, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
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 the local air agency, the Maricopa County Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) and submitted by the Arizona Department of
Air Quality (ADEQ).
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD........................... 310 Fugitive Dust From Dust- 01/27/10 04/12/10
Generating Operations.
MCAQD........................... 310.01 Fugitive Dust From Non- 01/27/10 04/12/10
Traditional Sources of
Fugitive Dust.
MCAQD........................... ................ Appendix C--Fugitive 03/27/08 07/10/08
Dust Test Methods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that the Rule 310 and 310.01
submittals from Maricopa County met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51 appendix V; these criteria must be met before formal EPA review
begins.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
There are prior versions of Rule 310, Rule 310.01 and Appendix C in
the SIP. On August 21, 2007, EPA approved and incorporated within the
SIP the April 7, 2004 adopted versions of Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and
Appendix C (see 72 FR 46564). Maricopa County submitted, through the
ADEQ, the March 26, 2008 adopted versions of Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and
Appendix C to EPA on July 10, 2008. We have not acted on these versions
of the rules. The January 27, 2010 version of Rules 310 and 310.01, the
subject of this proposal, however, incorporates the 2008 revisions as
well as these latest 2010 amendments. Consequently, for this proposal,
we reviewed all amendments and the rules as a whole. In the case of
Appendix C, we reviewed the submitted March 27, 2008 version since
there was no subsequent submittal.
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. Rule 310 is designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust
or particulate matter from activity related to land-clearing,
earthmoving, construction, demolition, bulk material hauling, temporary
staging areas and
[[Page 53908]]
unpaved parking lots, haul and access roads, vehicle track-out, and
disturbed soil associated with these activities. Rule 310.01 is a rule
designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust or particulate matter
from disturbed surfaces and vehicle use in open areas and vacant lots,
unpaved roadways and parking lots, livestock activities, erosion-caused
deposition of bulk material on paved roadways, and easements, rights-
of-way, and access roads for utilities.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
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 310 and Rule 310.01 must
implement 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. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance. Our Technical Support Documents (TSD) on each rule has our
detailed review and evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
We have no recommendation at this time.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them 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 these rules 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);
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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 23, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-21959 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P