

[Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 223)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 65285-65287]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no07-22]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0621; FRL-8497-4]

 
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter 
(PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources and cement manufacturing 
plants. We are proposing to approve local rules to 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 December 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0621, 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: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or 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 Rule
    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 we are proposing to approve with the dates 
that they were adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD............................             403  Fugitive Dust...............        06/03/05        10/20/05
SCAQMD............................            1156  Further Reductions of               11/04/05        12/29/06
                                                     Particulate Emissions from
                                                     Cement Manufacturing
                                                     Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65286]]

    On November 22, 2005 and February 14, 2007, respectively, EPA found 
Rules 403 and 1156 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, 
Appendix V. The state must meet these criteria before formal EPA review 
can begin.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    EPA has reviewed, approved, and incorporated into the SIP a prior 
version of Rule 403 (see 70 FR 69081, November 14, 2005). California 
has not submitted any subsequent versions of Rule 403. Regarding Rule 
1156, California has not submitted a prior version for incorporation 
into the SIP.

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.
    SCAQMD Rule 403 is designed to limit the emissions of fugitive dust 
or PM from a variety of activities and sources such as construction 
sites, bulk material hauling, unpaved parking lots, and disturbed soil 
in open areas and vacant lots. The rule's provisions include a visible 
emissions property line standard, requirements to implement Best 
Available Control Measures (BACM), upwind/downwind PM10 concentration 
standards, prevention of material track-out onto paved public roads, 
and special control requirements for large operations (sources greater 
than 50 acres or with more than 5,000 cubic yards of daily earth-
movement). The June 3, 2005 amendments to Rule 403 added BACMs for 
confined animal feed operations (CAFO) to the rule and amended 
requirements for weed abatement activities. The new CAFO BACMs apply to 
manure and feedstock handling, disturbed surfaces, unpaved roads, and 
equipment parking areas (see the Staff Report Table 1, page 8). The 
amended requirements for weed abatement activities allow for discing 
weeds without applying water where the authorized agency determines 
that watering is not feasible and other effective control measures are 
used to minimize fugitive emissions and stabilize disturbed soils. 
Discing activities that meet these requirements are exempt from Rule 
403.
    SCAQMD Rule 1156 is designed to limit PM from cement manufacturing 
facilities. Rule 1156 establishes requirements and control measures for 
the following: (1) Visible emissions; (2) material loading, unloading, 
and transferring; (3) material crushing, screening, grinding, blending, 
drying, mixing, packaging, and other related operations; (4) kilns and 
clinker coolers; (5) material storage; (6) air pollution control device 
performance standards; (7) internal roadways and vehicle use areas; 
and, (8) material track-out. The rule also has provisions for 
monitoring and determining compliance, recordkeeping, and exemptions 
from the rule.
    EPA's technical support documents (TSD) have 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)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM nonattainment area 
classified as serious (see 40 CFR part 81), so both of these rules must 
implement BACM/BACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific 
enforceability and RACM/RACT or BACM/BACT 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, BACM, and SIP relaxations. Each rule 
is discussed below.
    Under Rule 403, the weed abatement amendments provide added control 
measures for weed abatement activities that are allowed an exemption 
because it is infeasible to water prior to discing or mowing. Those 
weed abatement operations that do not use water are subject to 
disturbed open area stabilization requirements and the rule's fence-
line opacity requirement. Also, any added PM emissions that may occur 
as a result of the exemptions are offset within the SIP by the reduced 
PM emissions generated by the new CAFO requirements. Consequently, we 
find that the revisions to Rule 403 do not relax the SIP or interfere 
with any applicable requirements of the Act.
    Rule 1156 is a new rule that strengthens the SIP by requiring 
additional BACM and MSMs for cement manufacturing facilities. As such, 
it will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 
requirements of the Act. Therefore, approval of this rule is consistent 
with CAA 110(l). Because this rule does not modify any control 
requirements in effect prior to November 15, 1990, section 193 of the 
Act does not apply to our action.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation of these rules.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD for Rule 403 describes additional rule revisions that do 
not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time 
the SCAQMD modifies the rule.

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

[[Page 65287]]

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 that causes us to reconsider this proposed approval 
action, 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 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 (Pub. L. 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 approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard.
    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: November 2, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-22658 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
