![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[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 (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 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