Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0277-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2010-04-16T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 19921-19923]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-18]                         

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

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: http://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 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: 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