[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68388-68390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22377]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0007, FRL-7994-7]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Pinal County 
Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Pinal County Air 
Quality Control District (PCAQCD) portion of the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are proposing to approve a local 
rule that addresses opacity standards.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 12, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2005-
AZ-0007, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA 
prefers receiving comments through this electronic public docket and 
comment

[[Page 68389]]

system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e5d5a4b4d454b42004f404a5c4b596e4b5e4f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3e39282e262821632c23293f283a0d283d2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> 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 http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ rmepub/, 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 the 
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and 
eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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://docket.epa.gov/rmepub 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 below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55253021302726303b7b343933273031153025347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65150011001716000b4b040903170001250015044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?
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 we are proposing to approve with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local Agency                   Rule No.             Rule Title             Revised     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAQCD....................................      2-8-300  Performance standards........     05/18/05     09/12/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2005, the rule submittal was found to meet 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 28, 2004 (69 FR 23103), EPA finalized a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of a version of Rule 2-8-300.

C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations 
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, 
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health 
and the environment. This rule was developed as part of the local 
agency's program to control particulate matter.
    The purposes of the rule revisions relative to the SIP rule are as 
follows:
    <bullet> The clarification is added that provisions of the rule 
apply to an ``existing source,'' a ``point source,'' and a ``stationary 
source,'' which are appropriately defined.
    <bullet> The opacity standard is decreased from 40% in all areas to 
(a) 20% in nonattainment or maintenance attainment areas after June 2, 
2005 and (b) 20% in attainment or unclassified areas after April 23, 
2006.
    <bullet> A provision is added to allow submittal of a petition to 
the Control Officer (CO) by September 15, 2005 for an alternative 
opacity standard (AOS), if the source complies with the applicable 
particulate matter (PM) mass rate standard, but cannot comply with the 
20% opacity standard. Requirements for the petition contents are 
listed. If an AOS is approved by the CO, he shall submit the AOS to the 
EPA Administrator for approval as a SIP revision. If an AOS is not 
approved, the source shall comply with the 20% opacity standard or 
submit a compliance plan before April 23, 2006.
    <bullet> A definition of ``process weight rate'' is added to 
clarify its applicability to continuous processes and batch processes.
    The TSD has more information about this rule.

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 
CAA), must require reasonably available control measures (RACM), 
including reasonably available control technology (RACT) in moderate 
PM-10 nonattaiment areas (see section 189(a)), must require best 
available control measures (BACM), including best available control 
technology (BACT) in serious PM-10 nonattaiment areas (see section 
189(b)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) 
and 193). A portion of PCAQCD is designated attainment, a portion is 
designated moderate nonattainment, and a portion is designated serious 
nonattainment for PM-10.
    The following guidance documents were used for reference:
    <bullet> Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    <bullet> PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    The deficiency cited in the previous limited approval/limited 
disapproval action of PCAQCD Rule 2-8-300 is as follows: The 40% 
opacity standard does not meet the requirements of BACM/BACT. Analogous 
generic 20% opacity standards meet the requirements of RACM/RACT in 
other parts of the country, and we believe BACM/BACT in PCAQCD should 
be at least as stringent. See 69 FR 23103 (April 28, 2004).

[[Page 68390]]

    The revision to a 20% opacity standard in the submitted rule 
corrects the cited deficiency for unclassified, attainment, 
maintenance, and moderate nonattainment areas to a level comparable to 
RACM/RACT in other parts of the country. We believe that BACM/BACT, as 
required for the serious nonattainment area in PCAQCD, should be at 
least as stringent as RACM/RACT. We do not have justification for an 
opacity standard more stringent than 20% to fulfill BACM/BACT for 
general PM-10 sources in the serious nonattainment area. Therefore, we 
believe that the 20% opacity standard fulfills RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT 
for the general PM-10 sources to which the rule is applicable, even 
though some specific PM-10 sources might achieve a more stringent 
opacity standard in fulfilling BACM/BACT.
    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and fulfilling the 
requirements of RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT and should be given full 
approval.

C. 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 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 the rule into the federally 
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-22377 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>