This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

41357 

Vol. 74, No. 157 

Monday, August 17, 2009 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0521; FRL–8946–1] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan; Pinal County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Pinal County portion of 

the Arizona State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

construction, earthmoving, and related 

activities, and commercial and 

residential unpaved parking 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 

September 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0521, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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 http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://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 

http://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: 

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4111, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. 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 Pinal County and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

Pinal County ............................. 2–8–302 Performance Standards—Hayden PM10 Non-attainment Area 01/07/09 06/12/09 

4–2–020 Fugitive Dust—General ............................................................. 12/04/02 06/12/09 

4–2–030 Fugitive Dust—Definitions ......................................................... 12/04/02 06/12/09 

4–4 PM–10 Non-attainment Area Rules; Dustproofing and Stabilization for Commercial Unpaved Parking, Drive and 

Working Yards.

06/03/09 06/12/09 

4–5 PM–10 Non-attainment Area Rules; Stabilization for Residential Parking and Drives.06/03/09 06/12/09 

4–7 Construction Sites in Non-Attainment Areas—Fugitive Dust ... 06/03/09 06/12/09 

4–9 Test Methods ............................................................................ 06/03/09 06/12/09 

On July 15, 2009, EPA found these 

rule submittals were complete according 

to completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 

51 Appendix V. These criteria must be 

met before formal EPA review can 

begin. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

these rules in the SIP. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
41358 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

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. Each of the submitted 

rules are discussed below. 

Rules 4–2–020 and 4–2–030 are 

sections of Pinal County Code Chapter 

4, Article 2—Fugitive Dust providing a 

general statement of article applicability 

within Section 020 and a set of 

definitions for the article within Section 

030. 

Rule 2–8–302 is a rule designed to 

limit the emissions of fugitive dust or 

particulate matter from construction, 

roadway building, use and maintenance, 

and bulk material handling, storage, and 

transport by subjecting these activities 

to a twenty percent opacity restriction. 

Rule 4–4 is a rule designed to limit 

the emissions of fugitive dust or 

particulate matter from commercially 

operated unpaved parking lots, drive 

ways, and working yards. Rule 4–4 

provisions include a 20% opacity and 

0% visible emissions property line 

standard, silt content and silt loading 

stabilization standards and 

requirements for clean-up of material 

track-out onto paved public roads. The 

rule also includes requirements for 

recordkeeping of dust stabilization 

efforts. 

Rule 4–5 is a rule designed to limit 

the emissions of fugitive dust or 

particulate matter from residential 

unpaved parking lots and drive ways. 

Rule 4–5 provisions include surface 

stabilization requirements and control 

measures and requirements for clean-up 

of material track-out onto paved public 

roads. 

Rule 4–7 is a rule designed to limit 

the emissions of fugitive dust or 

particulate matter from development 

activity related to earthmoving and 

construction sites such as bulk material 

hauling, unpaved parking lots, vehicle 

track-out, and disturbed soil in open 

areas. Rule 4–7 provisions include a 

twenty percent opacity and zero percent 

visible emissions property line 

standard, requirements to implement 

Best Available Control Measures 

(BACM) for material track-out onto 

paved public roads, bulk material 

handling and movement, unpaved 

roadways and unpaved parking areas on 

a site. The rule also includes provisions 

for a dust control permit program, dust 

control plan requirements, and related 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Rule 4–9 contains the test methods for 

determining compliance with the 

opacity and soil stabilization 

requirements of Rules 4–7, 4–4, and 4– 

5. 

Rules 4–7, 4–4, and 4–5 apply to the 

Apache Junction portion of Pinal 

County within the Phoenix PM 

Nonattainment Area (NAA), referred to 

in the rule as T1N R8E (Township 1 

North, Range 8 East). The rules do not 

apply to the remaining portion of Pinal 

County. These rules are part of the Pinal 

County contribution to the Phoenix 

serious area PM–10 attainment plan 

control strategy. 

Rule 2–8–302 applies to the Hayden 

planning area PM–10 non-attainment 

area portion of Pinal County defined in 

40 CFR 81.303 (See also 72 FR 14422, 

March 28, 2007). It is neither applicable 

to the Apache Junction serious PM–10 

non-attainment area, nor the remainder 

of Pinal County. 

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 

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)). As mentioned earlier, Pinal 

County regulates two PM nonattainment 

areas: The Hayden Area, classified as 

moderate; and, the Apache Junction 

area, classified as serious (see 40 CFR 

part 81). Consequently, Rule 2–8–302 

must implement RACM, while Rules 4– 

7, 4–4, and 4–5 must implement BACM. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability and RACM or BACM 

requirements consistently include the 

following: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘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. 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘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). 

5. ‘‘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). 

6. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ 

EPA 452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

7. ‘‘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 

regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, 

and SIP relaxations. 

On August 1, 2007, EPA gave a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval to rules amending the SIP 

for Pinal County (see 72 Federal 

Register (FR) 41896). For further 

discussion, please see our October 17, 

2006 proposal of this action at 71 FR 

60934. In this rulemaking, we identified 

the deficiencies listed below. 

(1) As written, Rule 4–2–020, Section 

B effectively exempts agricultural 

activities from the fugitive dust rules 

without justification. 

(2) Rule 4–2–030, Definition 3, 

defines ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ in 

highly general terms. The term 

‘‘reasonable precaution’’ is then used in 

every section of Rule 4–2–040, to define 

what actions must be taken to mitigate 

fugitive dust emissions from relevant 

activities. This general requirement is 

not sufficiently clear or enforceable. 

(3) Rule 4–2–050 does not contain 

recordkeeping provisions. The absence 

of recordkeeping provisions makes the 

all of the submitted rules difficult to 

enforce. 

Our final action on August 1, 2007 

started sanctions clocks as required by 

Section 179 of the CAA. The first 

sanctions clock expired on March 1, 

2009 and the offset sanctions have been 

in effect. 

Pinal County’s submittal of 4–2–020 

and 4–2–030 is intended to address and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 157 / Monday, August 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41359 

correct the exemption of agricultural 

activities from fugitive dust rules. In 

these submittals, the exemption for 

agricultural activities at subsection 4–2– 

020.B, along with the definition of 

‘‘normal farm cultural practice’’ at 

subsection 4–2–030.2, were deleted; 

thus, correcting this deficiency. After 

the 12/02/02 adoption of this 

amendment, the Pinal County 

Governing Board amended its list of SIP 

measures (Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 

105—SIP List) on 01/07/09 to reflect its 

12/02/02 action and has submitted this 

list to EPA. 

Pinal County’s submittal of Rules 2– 

8–302, 4–4, 4–5, 4–7, and 4–9 is 

intended to address and correct the Rule 

4–2–030 ‘‘reasonable precautions’’ and 

Rule 4–2–050 recordkeeping 

deficiencies in our limited disapproval. 

Should EPA complete a final approval 

action on the submitted rules, we will 

find that Pinal County has corrected the 

deficiencies described above. 

Consequently, sanctions will be 

terminated and our Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) obligation 

will be removed. 

Today, we are also publishing an 

interim final determination with this 

proposal that will stay sanctions during 

the public comment period and while 

we review any public comments we 

may receive. 

The TSDs have more information on 

our evaluation. Because correcting the 

4–2–020 and 4–2–030 deficiencies only 

involved removing the agricultural 

activities exemption, we have not 

provided a TSD discussing this 

amendment to Rules 4–2–020 and 4–2– 

030. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSD for Rule 4–7 describes 

additional rule revisions that do not 

affect EPA’s current action but are 

recommended for the next time Pinal 

County modifies Rule 4–7 and 4–9. Rule 

4–9 contains an editorial error that 

should be corrected as soon as 

practicable. 

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 and 

remove all sanctions and FIP obligations 

associated with our August 1, 2007 

limited disapproval. 

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: July 31, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19651 Filed 8–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161; FRL–8945–6] 

RIN 2060–A081 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program; Notice of 

Availability of Expert Peer Review 

Record 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) announces 

the availability of documents pertaining 

to the expert peer review record 

completed on the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program (RFS2) Lifecycle 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis. On 

May 5, 2009, EPA announced proposed 

revisions to the National Renewable 

Fuel Standard program (commonly 

known as the RFS program) as required 

by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA 

established new renewable fuel 

categories and eligibility requirements, 

including setting the first ever 

mandatory GHG reduction thresholds 

for the various categories of renewable 

fuels. EISA also defined the term 

lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. As part of proposed revisions 

to the RFS program and in accordance 

with the EISA definition of GHG 

emissions, EPA examined the GHG 

impacts associated with different types 

of renewable fuels. Several new pieces 

of analysis were developed to support 

this lifecycle assessment. EPA decided 

to initiate an independent peer review 

to help respond to stakeholder concerns 

and to ensure that the Agency makes 

decisions based on the best science 

available. The Agency, in accordance 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1