![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona-- Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Salt River Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39251-39259]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jy06-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0526; FRL-8192-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Salt River Area Plan for Attainment
of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 39252]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
provisions of the Revised PM-10 State Implementation Plan for the Salt
River Area submitted by the State of Arizona to EPA in October and
November 2005. These submittals include adopted rules and commitments
that address particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust
sources. EPA is proposing to approve these submittals as meeting the
best available control measure (BACM) requirements of CAA section
189(b)(1)(B) and the most stringent measure requirement (MSM) of
section 188(e) or as strengthening the state implementation plan (SIP).
We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 11, 2006. Comments should be
addressed to the contact listed below.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: irwin.karen@epa.gov
3. Mail or deliver: Karen Irwin (AIR-2), 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 on-line 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 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, including the EPA
technical support document (TSD) and other relevant material, 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 locations (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.
Copies of the state implementation plan (SIP) materials are also
available for inspection at the addresses listed below:
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85007.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 1001 N. Central Ave., Suite
200, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Office of Air Planning
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (415) 947-4116, e-mail:
irwin.karen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Submittals
for the Salt River Area
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
A. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent
Measures (MSM)
B. General SIP Requirements
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures and Commitments
A. Summary
B. Rules 316 and 325
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related Submittals
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
3. Conclusion
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels Commitment
E. Municipality, County, and State Paved Road Re-Entrained Dust
Commitments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today's Proposal
A. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Submittals for
the Salt River Area
The Salt River area, located in metropolitan Phoenix, is a 32-
square mile subarea of the Metropolitan Phoenix (Maricopa County)
serious PM-10 nonattainment area. ADEQ has submitted multiple PM-10
plans for the Salt River area, beginning with a January 27, 2004
submittal and followed by August 2, 2004 and August 29, 2005
submittals. An October 7, 2005 submittal, Revised PM-10 State
Implementation Plan for the Salt River Area, and a supplemental
November 29, 2005 submittal, Revised PM-10 State Implementation Plan
for the Salt River Area Additional Submittals, supersede the previous
three submittals and contain the measures that are the subject of this
proposed rule. Included with the October 7, 2005 plan submittal are
attachments, a technical support document (TSD), and appendices to both
the plan and TSD. Hereafter, we refer to the October 2005 submittal as
``Salt River plan'' and the TSD as ``Salt River TSD''. We refer to the
November 2005 submittal as ``Salt River plan supplement.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For additional background on the Salt River portion of the
Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area, see 67 FR 19148 (April 18, 2002)
and 67 FR 44369 (July 2, 2002). On July 25, 2002, EPA approved
multiple documents submitted to EPA by Arizona for the Phoenix area
as meeting the CAA requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment
areas for the 24-hour and annual PM-10 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Among these documents is the ``Revised Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan
for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area,'' February
2000 (MAG plan), that includes the BACM demonstrations for all
significant source categories (except agriculture) for both the 24-
hour and annual PM-10 standards and the State's request and
supporting documentation, including the most stringent measure (MSM)
analysis (except for agriculture) for an attainment date extension
to 2006 for both standards. EPA's July 25, 2002 final action
included approval of these elements of the MAG plan. See EPA's
proposed and final approval actions at 65 FR 19964 (April 13, 2000),
66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001) and 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While measures contained in the Salt River plan address monitored
exceedences of EPA's 24-hour PM-10 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) \2\ that occurred in that area, they apply to the
entire Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area. This is because the Salt River
monitors were sited to be representative of air quality at other sites
in the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area with similar emissions sources.
See 62 FR 31025, 31030 (June 6, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PM-10 24-hour standard is 150 [mu]g/m3. 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39253]]
The following rules, requirements and resolutions have been
submitted as part of the Salt River plan or the Salt River plan
supplement.\3\ We are proposing to approve them into the Arizona SIP
pursuant to the listed CAA sections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule/measure/commitment Relevant CAA section(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD Rule 316 ``Nonmetallic Mineral 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
Processing'', adopted June 8, 2005.
MCAQD Rule 325 ``Brick and Structural 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing'',
adopted August 10, 2005.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 189(b) and 188(e) for
(MCAQD) Rule 310 ``Fugitive Dust'', subsections 304.5 and 502.
adopted April 7, 2004. 110(a) for other subsections.
MCAQD Rule 310.01 ``Fugitive Dust From 110(a).
Open Areas, Vacant Lots, Unpaved
Parking Lots, and Unpaved Roadways'',
adopted February 17, 2005.
MCAQD Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test 189(b), and 188(e) for
Methods'', adopted April 7, 2004. subsection 3.3.2. 110(a) for
other subsections.
MCAQD Appendix F ``Soil Designations'', 189(b) and 188(e).
adopted April 7, 2004.
MCAQD ``Application for Dust Control 189(b) and 188(e) for Section
Permit'', adopted July 1, 2005. 2, subsections 10 and 11, and
Section 3, subsection I.
110(a) for other subsections.
MCAQD ``Guidance for Application for 189(b) and 188(e) for Section
Dust Control Permit'', adopted July 1, 2, subsection 13, and Section
2005. 3. 110(a) for other
subsections.
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C- 189(b) for enforcement resource
85-05-005-0-00, adopted January 19, provisions of Measures 1
2005. through 4. 110(a) for other
provisions, including Measure
5.
City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114, 110(a).
adopted June 16, 2004.
Resolutions from 18 municipalities and 110(a).
the Arizona Department of
Transportation, adopted on various
dates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We approved versions of MCAQD Rules 310, 310.01 and Appendix C into
the SIP on July 25, 2002 and MCAQD Rule 316 on January 4, 2001. 67 FR
48717 and 66 FR 730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) Rule 310.01,
``Application for Dust Control Permit,'' and ``Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit'' can be found in the Salt River
plan supplement while the remaining rules and commitments can be
found in Appendix B of the Salt River plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Completeness of the SIP Submittal
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires us to determine if a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of its receipt. This completeness
review allows us to quickly determine if the submittal includes all the
necessary items and information we need to take action on it. We make
completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
We have reviewed the October 7, 2005 and November 29, 2005
submittals from Arizona and affirmatively determined that they satisfy
our completeness criteria and that they are thereby complete for the
purposes of section 110(k)(1) of the Act. We notified the State of our
completeness determination by a letter to ADEQ dated December 8, 2005.
II. Applicable CAA Requirements
A. Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and Most Stringent Measures (MSM)
CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires serious area PM-10 plans to
provide for the implementation of BACM, including Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), within four years of reclassification to
serious. For the Phoenix area this date was June 10, 2000.\4\ Since
that date has passed, BACM must now be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable. See Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990); 55 FR
41204, 41210 (October 1, 1990); and 63 FR 28898, 28900 (May 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Phoenix area's reclassification to serious was effective
on June 10, 1996. 61 FR 21372 (May 10, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have issued a General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992), and Addendum to the General Preamble
(Addendum), 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), describing our preliminary
views on how we intend to review SIPs submitted to meet the Clean Air
Act's requirements for PM-10 plans. The General Preamble mainly
addresses the requirements for moderate areas and the Addendum, the
requirements for serious areas.
In the Addendum, we explain that BACM is required for all source
categories in serious areas unless the state adequately demonstrates
that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the PM-10 standards. We have established a presumption
that a ``significant'' source category is one that contributes 5 [mu]g/
m3 or more of PM-10 to a location of 24-hour violation.
Addendum at 42011. We have defined BACM to be, among other things, the
maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source
category which is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering
energy, economic, environmental impacts and other costs. BACT applies
to stationary sources and is a subset of BACM. Addendum at 42009.
We have outlined in our guidance a multi-step process for
identifying BACM/BACT. Addendum at 42010-42014. The steps are:
1. Develop a detailed emissions inventory of PM-10 sources and
source categories,
2. Model to evaluate the impact on PM-10 concentrations over the
standards of the various sources and source categories to determine
which are significant,
3. Identify potential BACM for significant source categories and
evaluate their reasonableness, considering technological feasibility,
costs, and energy and environmental impacts and,
4. Provide for the implementation of the BACM or provide a reasoned
justification for rejecting any potential BACM. When the process is
complete, the individual measures should then be converted into a
legally enforceable vehicle (e.g., a regulation or permit). CAA
sections 172(6) and 110(a)(2)(A).
Under CAA section 188(e), the State is required to demonstrate to
our satisfaction that its serious area plan includes the most stringent
measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or
are achieved in practice in any state and can be feasibly implemented
in the area. The section 188(e) requirement for MSM is similar to the
requirement for BACM and we have therefore defined a ``most stringent
[[Page 39254]]
measure'' level of control as the maximum degree of emission reduction
that has been required or achieved from a source or source category in
other SIPs or in practice in other states and can be feasibly
implemented in the area. Given this similarity between the BACM and MSM
requirements, we believe that determining MSM should follow a process
similar to determining BACM, but with one additional step, to compare
the potentially most stringent measure against the measures already
adopted in the area to determine if the existing measures are most
stringent. See, e.g., 66 FR 50252, 50257 and 50282-50284 (October 2, 2001).
B. General SIP Requirements
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a))
and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193).\5\ The EPA guidance and policy document we used to help evaluate
enforceability is ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and
Other Rule Deficiencies'', U.S. EPA Region IX, August 21, 2001 (the
Little Bluebook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 110(l) prohibits us from approving a revision to
the applicable implementation plan if that revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement of the Act. CAA section 193
prohibits us under certain circumstances from approving a revision
to the applicable implementation plan unless the modification
insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Evaluation of Adopted Measures and Commitments
A. Summary
The measures in the Salt River plan consist of: (1) Rules adopted
by MCAQD for various fugitive dust sources; (2) MCAQD commitments
designed to improve source compliance with fugitive dust requirements;
(3) commitments from multiple municipalities, Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT), and the State addressing paved
road re-entrained dust; (4) a City of Phoenix commitment addressing
alluvial channels; and (5) MCAQD application and guidance documents for
Rule 310 dust control plans.
B. Rules 316 and 325
ADEQ identifies industrial sources as significant contributors to
PM-10 24-hour exceedences at the Salt River monitors.\6\ Industrial-
related emissions fall into three categories: (1) Stationary point
(stack) sources; (2) stationary process sources (e.g., aggregate
screens and crushers); and (3) area sources, e.g., unpaved roads, open
storage piles, and trackout onto paved roads. Given ADEQ's finding that
industrial sources contribute significantly to 24-hour PM-10
exceedences, CAA sections 189(b) and 188(e) apply and BACM and MSM
demonstrations are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on an emissions inventory and modeling for the Salt
River area, ADEQ estimates that industrial sources contributed
approximately 26 percent to 2002 average low-wind day exceedences
(with a highest contribution of 60 [mu]g/m3 at a single
monitor) and 16 percent to 2002 exceedences on days with wind speeds
over 15 miles per hour (with a highest contribution of 58 [mu]g/
m3 at a single monitor). Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1,
and Salt River TSD, Table 6-8. This estimate excludes industrial
source trackout which is quantified in the paved road re-entrained
dust source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ found that the vast majority of industrial source PM-10
emissions are generated by nonmetallic mineral processing sources. The
SIP-approved version of MCAQD Rule 316 contains requirements for
stationary stack and process sources at nonmetallic mineral processing
plants and rock product plants.\7\ With regard to other industrial
sources in the Salt River area, ADEQ evaluated permitted industrial
stack sources for compliance with BACM/BACT and MSM and found that
control measures on all facilities met these requirements except brick
and structural clay product manufacturing facilities.\8\ Thus, MCAQD
adopted Rule 325 based on ADEQ's recommendation that BACM/BACT and MSM
must be met for these sources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA approved a version of Rule 316 adopted on April 21,
1999. 66 FR 730 (January 4, 2001). We were not required to evaluate
the rule for BACT because the sources to which it applied were not
deemed significant at the time. We did, however, determine that the
rule met the CAA requirements for Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT). See 65 FR 42649, 42651 (July 11, 2000).
\8\ Salt River plan, pg. 70.
\9\ Rule 325 only applies to stationary sources, as opposed to
area sources. Area sources located at facilities subject to Rule 325
are subject to Rule 310 fugitive dust requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ first identified candidate BACM/BACT and MSM for Rule 316 and
Rule 325 sources by researching controls in several areas, including
PM-10 nonattainment areas in California, Nevada, Texas, Florida, and
Oklahoma.\10\ ADEQ then conducted a technical and economic feasibility
analysis with specific estimates of control efficiency and cost for
each type of emissions point or control measure.\11\ For the MSM
comparison, ADEQ developed a series of tables that benchmark the most
stringent controls in other areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Salt River plan, Appendix C.
\11\ Salt River plan, Chapter 4, section 4.3.4.
\12\ Ibid., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its analysis, ADEQ recommended specific augmentations to
Rule 316 for purposes of meeting BACM/BACT and MSM requirements. In
addition, through its rulemaking process for Rule 316,\13\ MCAQD
identified additional MSM for nonmetallic mineral processing facilities
in South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1157,
``PM-10 Emissions from Aggregate and Related Operations,'' adopted on
January 7, 2005. Finally, ADEQ recommended enhanced enforcement of Rule
316 but did not specify how it was to be achieved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid., Appendix B, Revision to Maricopa County Rule 316
Nonmetallic Mineral and Processing, Appendix 2, ``Notice of Final
Rulemaking, Maricopa County Air Pollution Regulations, Regulation
III, Rule 316--Nonmetallic Mineral Processing''.
\14\ Salt River plan, pgs. 56 and 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In revising Rule 316, MCAQD expanded the rule's coverage to include
area sources \15\ and incorporated additional control measures based on
ADEQ's recommendations as well as requirements contained in SCAQMD Rule
1157. As adopted on June 8, 2005, the rule includes the following
requirements for nonmetallic mineral processing sources: Opacity
standards ranging from 7% to 20% for various nonmetallic mineral
processes; venting of stack emissions to a properly sized fabric filter
baghouse and compliance with 7% opacity; enclosure on the sides of all
shaker screens; and a permanently mounted watering system for crushing
and screening inlets and outlets. Additional specific controls and
performance standards apply to asphaltic concrete plants and concrete
plants and/or bagging operations. With respect to area sources located
at nonmetallic mineral processing facilities, Rule 316 requires
specific work practice and performance standards for unpaved roads,
unpaved parking/staging areas, open storage piles and active material
handling, trackout onto paved public access roads,
[[Page 39255]]
cleaning of internal paved roads, and bulk material hauling/transporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Historically, Rule 316 has contained only emission
limitations and not fugitive dust control measures specific to area
sources located at nonmetallic mineral processing plants and rock
processing plants. Facilities subject to Rule 316 have been required
to comply with fugitive dust control measures in Rule 310. MCAQD
revisions to Rule 316 include control measures specific to fugitive
dust sources at these facilities. Sources subject to specific
control measures in Rule 316 are no longer subject to Rule 310 while
sources not subject to specific Rule 316 control measures are still
subject to Rule 310. EPA approved Rule 310, which covers certain
industrial area sources, as meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM
requirements. 67 FR 48718, 48739. However, new information in the
Salt River plan demonstrates a relatively large contribution of
industrial area sources to Salt River PM-10 exceedences which
warrants an updated BACM/BACT and MSM demonstration for all such sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As adopted on August 10, 2005, new Rule 325 includes the following
requirements for brick and structural clay product manufacturing
sources: A 20% opacity standard; a limit of 0.42 lbs of particulate
matter per ton of fired product from existing tunnel kilns with a
capacity of > 1 ton per hour throughput and new or reconstructed tunnel
kilns with a capacity of < 10 tons per hour throughput; and a limit of
0.12 lbs of particulate matter per ton of fired product from new or
reconstructed tunnel kilns with a capacity of >= 10 tons per hour
throughput.
We have evaluated Rule 316 and Rule 325 requirements to determine
whether they represent BACM/BACT and MSM. As part of this evaluation,
we considered ADEQ's BACM/BACT and MSM analysis and associated
recommended control measures, along with reasoned justifications for
measures not recommended.\16\ We compared ADEQ's recommended measures
against the actual measures adopted into Rule 316 and Rule 325. In
addition, we compared Rule 316 requirements to those adopted in SCAQMD
Rule 1157 and compared Rule 325 requirements to EPA's New Source
Performance Standards for clay manufacturing kilns.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Op. Cit., Tables 4.3.4.7 through 4.3.4.13 and accompanying text.
\17\ 40 CFR 63.8555(a), subpart KKKKK, table 1 and 40 CFR
63.8405(a), subpart JJJJ, table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to BACM/BACT, we found that Rule 316 and Rule 325 meet
BACT requirements for stationary sources. We also found that the Rule
316 requirements satisfy BACM for area sources and are equally or more
stringent relative to the Rule 310 requirements we have approved as
BACM. With respect to MSM, we found that Rule 316 and Rule 325 measures
are equally or more stringent relative to similar adopted requirements
in rules applicable in other PM-10 nonattainment areas. We also found
Rule 316 and Rule 325 requirements to be consistent with our
enforceability criteria.
As noted above, the CAA requires BACM/BACT to be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable. Most of the requirements in Rule 316 were
effective as of the June 8, 2005 adoption date and all of the
requirements are currently applicable. With respect to Rule 325,
compliance with the rule is not required until December 31, 2006. MCAQD
provided adequate justification for this implementation date based on
substantial annualized capital investment costs required of facilities
subject to the rule for the purchase of necessary emissions control
equipment.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
The basic elements of MCAQD's enforcement program include permit
review, facility inspections, source testing of equipment, and review
of records and activities. MCAQD's enforcement options include orders
of abatement, civil actions for injunctive relief or civil penalties,
and class 1 misdemeanor citations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ibid., Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-
00, Measures 2 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing ADEQ's recommendation for enhanced Rule 316
enforcement, MCAQD committed to increase the inspection frequency for
Rule 316 sources from once every two years to four times per year
beginning on July 1, 2005.\19\ We consider enforcement resources to be
part of the CAA section 189(b) requirement that serious area PM-10
plans include provisions to assure the implementation of BACM. MCAQD
conducted a workload analysis for the increased Rule 316 inspection
frequency based on the number of permitted sources in fiscal year 2004
and determined that one additional inspector and an additional
supervisor are needed.\20\ This would increase the number of MCAQD
inspectors dedicated to non-Title V and general permitted stationary
sources, which includes Rule 316 and Rule 325 sources, from seven to
eight. In evaluating the level of enforcement resources dedicated to
Rule 316 and Rule 325, we consider the number of MCAQD permits
associated with facilities subject to these rules. MCAQD issued 107
permits for Rule 316 sources in 2004. Rule 325 applies to two brick and
clay structural facilities and one tunnel kiln.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Salt River TSD, Appendix D, Maricopa County Board
Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00, Measure 2.
\20\ ``Workload Analysis for Rule 316 Permitted Sources'' is
included in the docket associated with this proposed rule. This
analysis specifies that the four annual inspections will consist of
one full inspection and three partial inspections. A partial
inspection involves checking compliance with fugitive dust controls but
not necessarily process equipment unless an obvious problem is observed.
\21\ Salt River plan, Appendix B, Notice of Final Rulemaking,
Rule 325, August 10, 2005, pg. 3450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Conclusion
In evaluating MCAQD Rules 316 and 325, we have found that they meet
the BACM/BACT and MSM requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and
188(e), respectively, and that MCAQD enforcement resources are adequate
to provide for the implementation of BACM. We have also found these
rules to be consistent with our policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations. Because we believe that Rule 316
and Rule 325 fulfill all relevant requirements, we propose to approve
them and the Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00 \22\
under CAA section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). Our detailed analysis of Rule 316 and Rule 325
requirements can be found in the TSD associated with this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Measures 2 and 4 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution
are relevant to Rule 316 and Rule 325 sources, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Rules 310 and 310.01 and Related Submittals
ADEQ identifies construction sources, vacant lots, and
miscellaneous disturbed areas as significant contributors to PM-10 24-
hour exceedences at the Salt River monitors.\23\ Rule 310 applies to
dust generating operations including construction/earthmoving and
demolition sites. Rule 310.01 applies to vacant lots and miscellaneous
disturbed areas, among other sources, which are not subject to Rule
310. Performance standards and test methods for opacity and surface
stabilization for Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 sources are found in
Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test Methods'' of MCAQD Regulation III. Rule
310 also requires construction site owners/operators to develop dust
control plans subject to MCAQD approval. MCAQD's ``Application for Dust
Control Permit'' and ``Guidance for Application for Dust Control
Permit'' provide supplemental information on MCAQD's implementation of
the Rule 310 dust control plan requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Based on an emissions inventory and modeling for the Salt
River area, ADEQ estimates that construction sources contributed 5.8
percent to 2002 average low-wind day exceedences and 4.4 percent to
2002 exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour
(with a highest contribution of 18 [mu]g/m3 at a single
monitor). These estimates exclude construction-related trackout
which is quantified in the paved road re-entrained dust source
category. ADEQ estimates that vacant lots and miscellaneous
disturbed areas contributed approximately 26 percent to 2002
exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a
highest contribution of 52 [mu]g/m3 at a single monitor).
Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1, and Salt River TSD, Table 6-8.
\24\ On July 25, 2002, we approved Rule 310, Rule 310.01 and
Appendix C ``Fugitive Dust Test Methods'' of MCAQD Regulation III as
meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon assessing the contribution of construction sites, vacant lots,
and miscellaneous disturbed areas to Salt River exceedences, ADEQ
identified a critical need for additional inspectors to enforce Rule
310 and Rule 310.01
[[Page 39256]]
requirements.\25\ EPA last evaluated enforcement resources for Rule 310
and Rule 310.01 sources in 2001.\26\ We agree with ADEQ's assessment
that the continuing significant contribution of these sources to PM-10
exceedences in the Salt River area (and other sites in the Phoenix PM-
10 nonattainment area with similar sources) warrants an updated
evaluation of enforcement resources designed to ensure compliance with
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Salt River plan, pg. 29.
\26\ 66 FR 50252, 50271-50273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ did not identify a need for revisions to the requirements of
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 \27\ beyond fulfilling three MCAQD commitments
associated with EPA's BACM and MSM approval for construction
sources.\28\ These commitments include (1) adding a modified opacity
standard/test method to Appendix C tailored to non-process fugitive
dust sources that create intermittent plumes; (2) incorporating
additional requirements for dust suppression practices/equipment into
dust control plans and/or Rule 310; \29\ and (3) revising and
distributing the sample daily recordkeeping logs for Rule 310 sources
to be consistent with rule revisions and to provide sufficient detail
documenting dust control measure implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ One exception is that ADEQ recommended wind breaks as an
additional control measure for Rule 310.01 in conjunction with
existing measures requiring surface stabilization. We consider this
optional but not necessary to meet BACM because the rule relies on
surface stabilization standards to demonstrate compliance and the
emissions reduction potential of wind breaks is less certain. Also,
wind breaks are not economically feasible in all circumstances.
\28\ 66 FR 50252, 50256-50257. The commitments are contained in
the MAG plan approved by EPA. See footnote 1.
\29\ MCAQD also committed to raise awareness of on-site
supervisors of dust control plans through contact during inspections
and a revised training curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rule Revisions and New Rule
In addressing the BACM and MSM commitments for construction sources
in the MAG plan, MCAQD adopted Appendix F of Regulation III on April 7,
2004, revised subsection 3.3.2 of Appendix C of Regulation III and
subsections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310 on April 7, 2004, and revised the
Application for Dust Control Permit and the Guidance for Application
for Dust Control Permit on July 1, 2005. We have evaluated these
submittals for consistency with the BACM and MSM commitments we
approved in the MAG plan and our general requirements in CAA section 110.
MCAQD also strengthened and clarified certain requirements in Rule
310 and Appendix C (adopted on April 7, 2004) and in Rule 310.01
(adopted on February 17, 2005). We have evaluated these revisions for
consistency with our general requirements in CAA section 110.
Specific MCAQD revisions intended to fulfill the three MAG plan
commitments are as follows: In order to meet the commitment concerning
Appendix C, MCAQD adopted an opacity test method into Appendix C that
is tailored to address intermittent plumes from non-process fugitive
dust sources at construction sites.\30\ With respect to the commitment
to incorporate additional dust suppression practices/equipment into
dust control plans and/or Rule 310, MCAQD: (a) Adopted Appendix F which
classifies soils into four types based on their PM-10 emissions
potential and contains a map delineating the locations in the Phoenix
PM-10 nonattainment area of these soil types; (b) revised Rule 310,
subsection 304.5, to require that dust control plans disclose which of
the four designated soil types described in Appendix F (or as measured
at a particular site) is naturally present at or will be imported to
the dust generating operation; and (c) added minimum criteria in the
Application for Dust Control Permit and Guidance for Application for
Dust Control Permit for the amount of water that needs to be available
(i.e., water supply in conjunction with water application system) for
sites with soils classified in Appendix F as ``moderate'' or
``severe''.\31\ These criteria apply to individual permits subject to
review and approval by MCAQD.\32\ Finally, to meet the commitment
concerning recordkeeping requirements, MCAQD revised subsection 502 of
Rule 310 to include examples of dust suppression activities for which
recordkeeping is required. MCAQD also revised its sample daily
recordkeeping logs which are available on MCAQD's Web site to provide
various formats for documenting application of measures for specific
types of dust generating sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Appendix C, section 3.3.2.
\31\ The criteria apply where water is not combined with a
chemical or organic dust suppressant.
\32\ We also note that MCAQD addressed its commitment to raise
awareness of on-site supervisors of dust control plans by providing
an online construction guide and instructing its inspectors to
review dust control plans with construction site personnel upon
initial and subsequent inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other MCAQD revisions to Rule 310, Rule 310.01, and Appendix C
consist of strengthenings and clarifications of existing SIP-approved
requirements.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See EPA's TSD associated with this proposed action, section D.3.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our detailed evaluation of these submittals can be found in the TSD
associated with this proposed rule.
2. Enforcement Resources and Methods
With respect to enforcement resources dedicated to inspecting
sources subject to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01, MCAQD conducted a 2005/06
workload analysis of its earthmoving and vacant lot programs and also
created an inspection priority plan for Rule 310.01 sources.\34\
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00,\35\ adopted on
January 19, 2005, commits MCAQD to increase the number of inspectors
dedicated to Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 enforcement, along with other
measures designed to improve source compliance. Specifically, the
Maricopa County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00 commitments include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Salt River plan, Appendix F, Enclosures 1 and 2.
\35\ Salt River plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Hire ten additional inspectors to enforce MCAQD Rule 310.01 by
August 2005; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As of April 2006, MCAQD had hired all ten of the Rule
310.01 inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Develop and submit to EPA by March 2005 an inspection priority
plan for vacant lots/open areas and unpaved parking lots in the PM-10
nonattainment area; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ MCAQD developed an inspection priority plan that is
included in the Salt River plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Conduct inspections on all vacant lots/open areas, including
alluvial channels,\38\ in the Salt River area by October 2006 with
periodic follow-up inspections;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Alluvial channels in the Salt River area consist of a dry
riverbed subject to Rule 310.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Hire an additional twelve inspectors, four supervisors, and
three support staff by June 2005 to work proactively and directly on
compliance and enforcement of the Rule 310 earthmoving fugitive dust
program; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ As of October 2005, MCAQD had hired all twelve of the
additional Rule 310 inspectors, the four supervisors, and two of the
support staff. MCAQD expects to hire the third support staff shortly. The
support staff position does not affect field enforcement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Complete a user fee analysis and have new fees considered by
the Board of Supervisors in January 2005 to be effective no later than
July 1, 2005, to permanently fund the nineteen Rule 310 positions.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ This commitment has been met through MCAQD's adoption of a
revised Rule 280 ``Fees'' on May 18, 2005, with an effective date of
July 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the adequacy of these commitments, we compare them to
[[Page 39257]]
enforcement provisions in the currently applicable Phoenix PM-10
SIP.\41\ The MAG plan provides for eight fugitive dust inspectors to
implement MCAQD's fugitive dust rules. Because the January 2005
Maricopa County Board Resolution provides for an additional twenty-two
inspectors to implement MCAQD's fugitive dust rules, this represents a
significant increase in personnel resources. The number of additional
inspectors needed is based on MCAQD's projected fiscal year 2005/06
workload analysis for its earthmoving and vacant lot programs which
accounts for the number of vacant parcels in the Phoenix area and the
number of Rule 310 permits, which have increased since 2000.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ MAG plan, Commitments for Implementation, Volume Four,
Maricopa County, Fourth Submittal, Exhibit A, Revised Measure 6 of
Resolution No. C 88-00-017-6-A2128, adopted December 15, 1999.
\42\ MCAQD was responsible for the issuance of 2,500 earthmoving
permits in 2000 (Salt River plan, pg. 29), which have increased to
4,548 permits projected for fiscal year 2005/06 according to MCAQD's
workload analysis. The workload analysis staffing conclusions are
based on accommodating 9,152 inspections per year of Rule 310
sources and 4,587 inspections per year of Rule 310.01 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD's inspection priority plan for vacant lots/open areas and
unpaved parking lots provides for identification of these sources
through complaint investigations, field observations, soil maps, the
Maricopa County Assessor Geographic Information Systems Web site, and/
or aerial photographs. The plan provides for site inspections to be
prioritized based on complaint investigations, location within the Salt
River area, soil texture potential for wind erosion, size (lots in
excess of 10 acres), location within the PM-10 nonattainment area, and
location in proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., schools).\43\ The
inspection priority plan also provides for an inspection rotation/re-
inspection electronic database to rate the dust generating potential of
vacant lots/open areas based on criteria such as lot size and
compliance history to assist in the scheduling and prioritizing of sites
for re-inspection. The inspection priority plan is currently in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ We note that lots less than ten acres or that are otherwise
not prioritized in MCAQD's inspection priority plan are still
subject to proactive inspections. However these lots will receive a
lower priority than those meeting the plan's criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MAG plan does not contain specific criteria for prioritizing
vacant lot/open area and unpaved parking lot inspections. Thus, the
MCAQD inspection priority plan for these sources would strengthen the SIP.
We described the basic elements of MCAQD's enforcement program in
section III.B.2 of this proposed rule.
3. Conclusion
We have found that the January 2005 Maricopa County Board
Resolution enforcement resource commitments for Rule 310 and Rule
310.01 adequately provide for the implementation of the BACM
requirements in those rules by substantially increasing the number of
inspectors and associated personnel for enforcing fugitive dust
requirements. We have found that other enforcement-related commitments
would strengthen the SIP.
We have reviewed the MCAQD submittals that address the three
commitments in the approved MAG plan for construction sources \44\ and
have found that they are consistent with the BACM and MSM requirements
of CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e), respectively, and also are
consistent with our policy and guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations. Finally, we have determined that other revisions to
Rule 310 and Rule 310.01 and would strengthen the SIP and are
consistent with our policy and guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP relaxations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ These include revisions to Rule 310 (subsections 304.5 and
502), Appendix C, Application for Dust Control Permit, Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit, and the newly submitted Appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose to approve Rule 310, Rule 310.01, Maricopa
County Board Resolution No. C-85-05-005-0-00,\45\ Appendix C, Appendix
F, ``Application for Dust Control Permit'', and ``Guidance for
Application for Dust Control Permit'' under CAA section 110(k)(3). We
propose to approve sections 304.5 and 502 of Rule 310, section 3.3.2 of
Appendix C, Appendix F, and the enforcement resource provisions of
Measures 1 and 3 of Resolution C-85-05-005-0-00 as meeting the BACM and
MSM requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to
approve Section 2, subsections 10 and 11, and Section 3, subsection I
of the Application for Dust Control Permit as meeting the BACM and MSM
requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to approve
Section 2, subsection 13, and Section 3 of the Guidance for Application
for Dust Control Permit as meeting the BACM and MSM requirements of
sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e). We propose to approve all other
revisions to these rules, Resolution, Application for Dust Control Permit
and Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit as SIP strengthenings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Measures 1 and 3 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution
are relevant to Rule 310.01 and Rule 310 sources, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. City of Phoenix Alluvial Channels Commitment
The Salt River area contains dry river channels comprised of
alluvial soils. ADEQ assessed the PM-10 impact of alluvial channels in
the Salt River area, and found that they contribute significantly to
wind-driven exceedences.\46\ In assessing the wind erosion potential of
alluvial channel soils, ADEQ found that some soils have particularly
high-emitting potential relative to average vacant land soils. The City
of Phoenix owns a substantial amount of alluvial channel land in the
Salt River area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates that alluvial
channels contributed approximately 15 percent to 2002 average
exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour (with a
highest contribution of 80 [mu]g/m3 at a single monitor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alluvial channels are subject to MCAQD Rule 310.01 requirements.
ADEQ's recommended approach to addressing alluvial channels throughout
the nonattainment area is the same as that for vacant lots/open areas
and miscellaneous disturbed surfaces, which is increasing enforcement
of Rule 310.01 requirements through the hiring of additional MCAQD
inspectors.\47\ We have addressed this measure in section III.C.2 of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Salt River plan, pgs. 32 and 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ notes that one of the most effective control methods that can
be applied to alluvial channels is establishing barriers to prevent
vehicle trespass in combination with stabilization of soils. In order
to maximize compliance with Rule 310.01 requirements on its alluvial
channel land, the City of Phoenix adopted Resolution No. 20114 on June
16, 2004, which outlines a plan for dust control measures on alluvial
channels in the Salt River area.\48\ Specifically, the City of Phoenix
committed to ``develop and implement a program to control vehicle
trespass on City-owned vacant land to address particulate emissions and
criminal activity. These lands may include dry river beds, washes, and
other open areas where significant trespass occurs. Measures to reduce
trespass may include signs, increased police enforcement, such as
barriers, fences, berms or other measures. Measures may include
stabilization of disturbed soils where feasible.'' The City of Phoenix
budgeted $200,000 in fiscal year 2005/06 to implement this measure. The
Salt River plan contains a 2004 milestone progress report which
[[Page 39258]]
specifies City of Phoenix actions to prevent trespass and stabilize
soils on City-owned alluvial channel lands.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Ibid., Appendix D, City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114,
Measure 04-DC-3.
\49\ Salt River plan, Appendix E, Table 3. Concentrated
enforcement efforts on alluvial channels in the Salt River area from
July through November 2004 resulted in fifty-five citations and 220
warnings. Vehicle trespass dropped to zero to two vehicles in
December and pedestrian trespassers dropped from forty-five to eight
per weekend. Thirty ``no trespass'' signs were installed and
maintained. Three-hundred and thirty tons of trash and over 2,000
tires were removed by contractors from the upper riverbank and a
thick layer of mulch was applied to twelve acres. Contractors have
secured 1,800 feet of fences and berms to prevent trespass along
Broadway Road since July 2004. The City treated the entire length of
berm on its property with polymer stabilizer. One-thousand, one-
hundred feet of guardrail on West side of 35th Avenue have been
installed. Installation of concrete barriers at all four corners of
the 51st Avenue bridge began in January 2005. Rains in January 2005
formed a crust in the alluvial channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we believe the City of Phoenix Resolution No. 20114,
Measure 04-DC-3, strengthens the SIP and is consistent with our policy
and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations, we propose
to approve it under CAA section 110(k)(3) as a SIP strengthening.
E. Municipality, County, and State Paved Road Re-Entrained Dust Commitments
ADEQ identifies paved road re-entrained dust as a significant
contributor to PM-10 24-hour exceedences at the Salt River
monitors.\50\ In evaluating sources responsible for paved road dust
emissions in the Salt River area, ADEQ found the most significant
sources of dust loading on paved roads to be from windblown emissions,
soil trackout, and emissions from earthmoving and other dust generating
processes in areas of high industrial, construction, and agricultural
activity.\51\ In order to address the largest sources of the problem,
ADEQ recommended enhanced enforcement of Rule 310 and Rule 316 and the
adoption of specific Rule 316 requirements for control of trackout.\52\
We have addressed these recommendations in sections III.B.2 and C.2 of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Salt River plan, Table 4.2.1. ADEQ estimates that paved
road re-entrained dust contributed approximately 64 percent to 2002
average low-wind day exceedences (with a highest concentration of 74
[mu]g/m3 at a single monitor) and 13.5 percent to 2002
average exceedences on days with wind speeds over 15 miles per hour
(with a highest concentration of 43 [mu]g/m3 at a single monitor).
\51\ Salt River plan, pg. 72.
\52\ Ibid., pg. 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ also recommended enhanced street sweeping with PM-10 efficient
sweepers of paved road segments that typically experience a high level
of soil and dust deposition,\53\ e.g., in locations with high
industrial, construction, and agricultural activity.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Ibid., pg. 79.
\54\ EPA approved a variety of paved road re-entrained dust
measures on July 25, 2002 as meeting the CAA's BACM and MSM
requirements, including city, County, and State resolutions
addressing street sweeping. The SIP-approved MAG plan does not
contain measures for targeted street sweeping, using PM-10 efficient
street sweepers, on road segments identified as having particularly
high emissions potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen municipalities in the Phoenix PM-10 nonattainment area,
Maricopa County Department of Transportation and the Arizona Department
of Transportation adopted resolutions \55\ in 2004 and 2005 that
address the purchase/use of additional PM-10 efficient street sweepers
and more frequent, targeted street sweeping. These resolutions largely
reflect a model protocol developed by MAG containing the following four
elements: Targeting ``high dust'' arterials and collectors and
increasing sweeping frequencies with PM-10 efficient sweepers;
describing how the protocol constitutes an enhancement or improvement
over previously adopted commitments contained in the MAG plan;
addressing trackout associated with facilities and activities regulated
by Maricopa County by notifying the County when rule violations are
observed, and; providing for annual reevaluation of the protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Salt River plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example of specific measures resulting from adopted municipal
resolutions, the City of Phoenix developed a protocol to comply with
its adopted Resolution No. 20114, Measure 04-DC-1. The protocol
specifies that street sweeping schedules will increase from the current
14-day sweeping cycle to a 7-day cycle in a targeted area, defined as
bounded by Van Buren Street, Baseline Road, 10th Street, and 59th
Avenue in the Salt River area.\56\ Also, the City reports that its
entire fleet of street sweepers are now PM-10 efficient.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``City of Phoenix 2004 Protocol & Implementation Plan For
Paved Streets With Potential for Dust Emissions'', Salt River plan,
Appendix D.
\57\ Ibid., pg. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the City of Phoenix included $330,000 in its 2004/05
budget for the purchase of two street sweepers \58\ and provides for
street improvements (i.e., curb and gutter) on approximately 0.8 mile
of 43rd Avenue between Lower Buckeye Road and the Salt River.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Salt River plan, Appendix D, City of Phoenix Resolution No.
20114, Measure 04-DC-1.
\59\ Ibid., Measure 04-DC-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCDOT adopted the following street sweeping protocol: \60\
(a) Identify and target arterial and collector ``high dust'' roads
through routine field supervisor roadway inspections and sweep such
roads at least three times per month.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Salt River plan, Appendix D, Maricopa County Resolution No.
C-85-05-005-0-00, Measure 5.
\61\ The protocol indicates that this sweeping frequency is
double the previous frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Sweep all targeted roads with certified PM-10 efficient street
sweepers by February 2, 2005.
(c) Have all MCDOT field inspectors and supervisors report trackout
associated with facilities and activities regulated by Maricopa County
to MCAQD when rule violations are observed.
(d) Re-evaluate the protocol annually to ascertain its
effectiveness, update the list of roads swept with increased frequency,
and submit this list to MCAQD annually.
Because we believe the municipal, County,\62\ and State resolutions
strengthen the SIP and are consistent with our policy and guidance
regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations, we propose to approve
them under CAA section 110(k)(3) as SIP strengthenings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Measure 5 of the Maricopa County Board Resolution contains
the relevant street sweeping commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. 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).
[[Page 39259]]
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 (59 FR 22951, 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 30, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06-6111 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P