Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 170 / Thursday, September 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 53907 

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 

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: 

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 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 

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: 

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-Generating Operations .......... 01/27/10 04/12/10 

MCAQD ............................... 310.01 Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive 

Dust.

01/27/10 04/12/10 

MCAQD ............................... ............................ Appendix C—Fugitive Dust Test Methods ..................... 03/27/08 07/10/08 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
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. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1