[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8008-8013]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3513]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0120; FRL-9116-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
(ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern coarse particulate matter (PM10)
emissions from sources of fugitive dust such as construction sites,
unpaved roads, and disturbed soils in open and agricultural areas. We
are proposing action on local rules that 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 March 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0120, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What Are the Rules' Deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency, ICAPCD, and submitted
by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).

The seven rules listed below constitute ICAPCD's Regulation VIII--
Fugitive Dust Rules.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rule
              Local agency                 No.              Rule title                Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.................................      800  General Requirements for              11/08/05        06/16/06
                                                   Control of Fine Particulate
                                                   Matter.
                                             801  Construction & Earthmoving            11/08/05        06/16/06
                                                   Activities.
                                             802  Bulk Materials................        11/08/05        06/16/06
                                             803  Carry Out & Track Out.........        11/08/05        06/16/06
                                             804  Open Areas....................        11/08/05        06/16/06
                                             805  Paved & Unpaved Roads.........        11/08/05        06/16/06
                                             806  Conservation Management               11/08/05        06/16/06
                                                   Practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 21, 2006, we found that the State's submittal for ICAPCD
Regulation VIII, Rules 800-806, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix V. A completeness determination by EPA means that the
submission provides sufficient information for EPA to evaluate it for
action under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and (4).

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rules 800-806 in the SIP.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

    Exposure to ambient PM10 at levels above the NAAQS is
harmful to human health and the environment, with effects 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
develop a SIP that meets basic requirements for a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). If a state has areas that are designated
``nonattainment'' for a NAAQS, then section 172, and in the case of the
PM10-specific sections 188 and 189, require the state to
submit regulations that control emissions of PM10 and its
precursors, as appropriate, to bring the area into attainment of the
NAAQS.
    The Imperial Valley is designated nonattainment for
PM10. Accordingly, ICAPCD is developing regulations intended
to attain the NAAQS. ICAPCD's Regulation VIII consists of seven inter-
related rules designed to limit emissions of PM10 from
anthropogenic fugitive dust sources in Imperial County. Each rule is
described briefly below.
    Rule 800, General Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate
Matter, provides definitions, a compliance schedule, exemptions and
other requirements generally applicable to all seven rules. It also
describes specific exemptions and requirements for the U.S. Department
of Defense (DOD), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Border
Patrol (BP). Appendices A and B describe methods for determining
compliance with opacity and surface stabilization requirements in Rules
801 through 805.
    Rule 801, Construction and Earthmoving Activities, establishes a
20% opacity limit and control requirements for construction and
earthmoving activities. Affected sources must submit a dust control
plan and comply with other portions of Regulation VIII regarding bulk
materials, carry-out and track-out, and paved and unpaved roads. The
rule exempts construction of single family homes and waives the 20%
opacity limit in winds over 25 mph under certain conditions.
    Rule 802, Bulk Materials, establishes a 20% opacity limit and
control requirements for bulk material handling, storage, transport and
hauling.
    Rule 803, Carry-Out and Track-Out, establishes control requirements
for removing carry-out and track-out material transported onto paved
roads from unpaved roads and areas.
    Rule 804, Open Areas, establishes a 20% opacity limit and requires
land owners to prevent vehicular trespass and to stabilize disturbed
soil on certain open areas. Agricultural operations are exempt from the
rule.
    Rule 805, Paved and Unpaved Roads, establishes a 20% opacity limit
and control requirements for unpaved haul and access roads, canal
roads, and traffic areas that meet certain size or traffic thresholds.
Single family residences and agricultural operations are exempt from
the rule.
    Rule 806, Conservation Management Practices, requires agricultural
operation sites greater than 40 acres to implement at least one
conservation management practice (CMP) for each of these categories:
land preparation and cultivation, harvest activities, unpaved roads and
unpaved traffic areas.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more specific
information about these rules. The submission from ICAPCD also provides
additional details and includes the Regulation VIII rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation

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 SIP requirements (see sections 110(l)
and 193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) for certain emissions sources in moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas, and Best Available Control
Measures (BACM) for such sources in serious PM10
nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
    We used the following guidance and policy documents to evaluate
enforceability and to interpret RACM or BACM requirements:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability
published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.

    Please see our TSD for other documents we have used in our
evaluation.
    Because Imperial County is a PM10 nonattainment area
classified as serious (see 40 CFR part 81), Regulation VIII must
implement BACM for significant sources of PM10 in Imperial
County. In guidance, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994), we have defined
BACM to be, among other things, the maximum degree of emission
reduction achievable from a source category which is determined on a
case-by-case basis considering energy, economic, environmental impacts
and other costs. A source category is presumed to contribute
significantly to a violation of the 24-hour PM10 national
ambient air quality standard (150 [micro]g/m \3\) if its
PM10 impact exceeds 5 [mu]g/m \3\. As described in more
detail in the TSD, we determined that BACM is required for the
following sources of PM10 emissions in Imperial County:

        Table 2--Significant Sources of PM-10 in Imperial County
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open areas:
    Windblown Dust, Other Open Area.
Unpaved roads:
    Entrained Unpaved Road Dust, City/County.
    Entrained Unpaved Road Dust, Canal.
    Windblown Dust, Unpaved City/County Road.
    Windblown Dust, Unpaved Canal Road.
    Windblown Dust, Unpaved Farm Road.
Agricultural lands:
    Tilling.
    Windblown Dust, Non-Pasture Agricultural Lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We based the list of significant sources in Table 2 in part on
ICAPCD's analysis of such sources in its 2009 PM10
attainment plan.\1\ However, ICAPCD excluded from its analysis
exceedances in 2006 and 2007 that it deemed to be caused by high wind
exceptional events. As a result of the exclusion of these exceedances,
ICAPCD's list of significant sources did not include any windblown dust
sources. The State formally sought to exclude the 2006 and 2007
exceedances for regulatory purposes under EPA's exceptional events rule
(40 CFR 50.1(j) and 50.14).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``2009 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter,
Final,'' August 11, 2009, section 3.2.
    \2\ Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA,
May 19, 2009, requesting exclusion of September 2, 2006, April 12,
2007, and June 5, 2007 Imperial County PM10 exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2009, EPA did not concur with the State's request
to exclude the 2006 and 2007 exceedances as due to high wind
exceptional events.\3\ EPA adjusted ICAPCD's significant source
analysis to reflect this nonconcurrence, and as a result identified
windblown dust from open areas, unpaved roads and non-pasture
agricultural lands to be significant sources as reflected in Table 2.
We have included the documents supporting our December 22, 2009
nonconcurrence in the docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter, with enclosure, from Laura Yoshii, EPA, to James
Goldstene, ARB, Re: Exceptional events requests regarding
exceedances of the PM-10 NAAQS in Imperial County, CA, December 22,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the sources in Table 2 above, we believe BACM is
required for unpaved traffic areas and agricultural harvest operations.
These activities occur at the same facilities and are integrally
related to other activities identified as significant (i.e., unpaved
roads and tilling respectively). By analogy, where enforceable volatile
organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT)
level controls are required for refineries, SIP rules generally impose
leak detection and repair requirements on valves, flanges, threaded
connections, and other related equipment even if emissions from any one
of these taken individually might be much smaller than the major source
threshold requiring RACT.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    Rules 800-806 improve the SIP by providing more stringent emission
limits, monitoring, recording, and recordkeeping provisions for these
sources compared to existing provisions in the SIP for the ICAPCD
portion of California. The rules are largely consistent with the
relevant statutory requirements, and with relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACM and BACM. Rule provisions that do not
meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further
in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rules' Deficiencies?

    While, as indicated above, BACM is determined on a case-by-case
basis, the identification of potential BACM for a significant source
category in Imperial County necessarily involves a consideration of
control measures adopted and/or implemented in other geographical areas
for the same and similar source categories. Therefore, in evaluating
Regulation VIII, we have compared its individual rules to analogous
requirements in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD),
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD), Clark County Department
of Air Quality and Environmental Management (CCDAQEM) and other areas.
In doing so, we recognize that some variability exists among sources in
different geographical areas, and that technically and economically
feasible controls in one area may not be feasible in another area.
    Based on our analysis, we believe that Regulation VIII is generally
consistent with analogous requirements in other serious PM10
areas and includes many provisions consistent with CAA BACM
requirements and with EPA's established policy and guidance. However,
the deficiencies discussed below preclude EPA's full approval of
Regulation VIII. Sections II.C.1 through 3 below identify deficiencies
related to sources for which BACM is required as discussed above in
Section II.A. Section II.C.4 below identifies one deficiency related to
the Regulation VIII rule for bulk materials, a source category for
which BACM is not currently required based on the information available
to EPA to date. A number of these deficiencies are discussed in more
detail in the TSD.
1. BACM-Related Deficiencies For Open Areas
a. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Activity
    Recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) \4\ activity causes much of
the PM10 emissions from open areas in Imperial County. Rule
804 regulates only a small portion of these emissions.\5\ The vast
majority of the OHV emissions in Imperial County are addressed only by
requirements in Rule 800 Section F.5 for dust control plans (DCPs) for
sources under the control of BLM. While BLM is required to describe in
the DCPs the dust control measures that it intends to implement, BLM is
not required to implement any specific BACM-level controls for OHV use,
and ICAPCD has not provided an analysis of BACM for OHV activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As used in this discussion and in the TSD, the term ``off-
highway vehicle'' or OHV includes all vehicles subject to the
exemption in Rule 800 Section E.6 for recreational use of public
lands in Imperial County.
    \5\ This small portion includes some emissions from OHV activity
in Ocotillo Wells State Park where Rule 804 is apparently not being
implemented even though State lands are not exempted from the rule's
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICAPCD must provide an analysis of potential BACM controls for OHV
activity in open areas and on unpaved

roads and paths that are exempt from the specific requirements and
measures in Rules 804 and 805 and identify, adopt and submit any
appropriate revisions to Rules 800, 804 and 805. Such analysis should
address as its starting point measures in EPA's 1992 RACM guidance at
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992) and analogous requirements in other
geographical areas such as Arizona Revised Statute Sec.  49-457.03 and
Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 90. ICAPCD should
evaluate the feasibility and impacts of additional restrictions in
recreational OHV areas, such as closing some of the 250 square miles
that are open to OHV use that are particularly likely to impact
populations, and restricting OHV activity during summer months when
there is virtually no rain to reform surface crusts. In addition,
ICAPCD must implement Rules 804 and 805 on all State lands used by OHVs
or demonstrate in its BACM analysis that an exemption for OHV activity
on such lands is appropriate.
    Please see Section III.B.1 of our TSD for further discussion of
this deficiency.
b. Definition of ``Disturbed Surface''
    The term ``disturbed surface area'' is used in several Regulation
VIII rules but is never defined. For example, Rule 804 applies to a
source category for which BACM is required and relies on the undefined
term to describe rule applicability in Rule 804 Section B. In order to
ensure that these rules are enforceable at a BACM level, ICAPCD must
define ``disturbed surface area'' as do, for example, SJVAPCD Rule 8010
and SCAQMD Rule 403.
2. BACM-Related Deficiencies for Unpaved Roads
a. Unpaved Non-Farm Roads
    The CAA requires ICAPCD to implement BACM by 2008 (i.e., four years
after reclassification to serious).\6\ Rule 805 Section E.7 allows the
County until 2015 to stabilize heavily-travelled unpaved roads. This
schedule is inconsistent with the statutory requirement and ICAPCD has
not provided adequate evidence that this schedule is as expeditious as
practicable, based upon economic feasibility or any other appropriate
consideration. In evaluating economic feasibility of a measure that
depends on public funding, EPA considers past funding of similar
activities and availability of funding sources to determine whether
public agencies have made good faith efforts to expeditiously implement
the available control measures. ICAPCD must expedite the schedule for
implementation of this measure or demonstrate good faith efforts to
increase funding and priority of road stabilization projects consistent
with national guidance. Please see Section III.B.3 of our TSD for
further discussion of this deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On August 11, 2004, EPA reclassified Imperial County as
serious nonattainment for PM10. 69 FR 48835. Since 2008
has passed, BACM is now required to be implemented as expeditiously
as practicable. Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 805 Section E.7's requirement to stabilize all non-exempt
unpaved County roads is also not adequately enforceable as currently
structured. If ICAPCD retains the same structure, it must revise Rule
805 Section E.7 to clarify that the County must: (a) Implement (and not
just submit) a stabilization plan; (b) stabilize different unpaved
roads each year; and (c) maintain all stabilized roads.
b. Unpaved Farm Roads and Traffic Areas
    Rule 805 Section D.2 exempts agricultural roads and traffic areas
from the opacity and stabilization requirements applicable to non-
agricultural operation sites. Farm roads and traffic areas are only
required to implement a CMP from the menus for unpaved roads and
traffic areas in Rule 806. In contrast, for example, SJVAPCD requires
that CMPs be implemented to meet opacity and stabilization requirements
at the following thresholds: Unpaved farm roads with >= 75 VDT or >= 25
average daily vehicle trips by three or more axle vehicles; unpaved
traffic areas with >= 50 average daily vehicle trips (on an annual
basis) or >= 25 average daily vehicle trips (on an annual basis) by
three or more axle vehicles. ICAPCD must remove the exemption in Rule
805 Section D.2 or demonstrate how BACM is met in Imperial County for
farm roads and traffic areas that are subject to less stringent
requirements than other roads and traffic areas in the County and farm
roads and traffic areas in other areas.
    Rule 806 Sections E.3 and E.4 list CMPs intended to control
emissions from agricultural unpaved roads and traffic areas but these
measures are broadly defined and there is no other mechanism in the
rule to ensure specificity. The absence of sufficiently defined
requirements makes it difficult for regulated parties to understand and
comply with the requirements, and makes it difficult for ICAPCD or
others to verify compliance and to enforce the requirements if
necessary. The lack of specificity similarly renders it difficult to
assess whether the measures constitute BACM level controls. ICAPCD must
revise Rule 806 to ensure that unpaved road and traffic area CMPs are
enforceable and are implemented at a BACM level or demonstrate why such
a rule revision is not necessary. SJVAPCD Rule 4550, for example,
relies on an application submittal and approval process to ensure
sufficient specificity of the particular measures implemented at each
source. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD)
Rule 502 also has an application submittal and approval process.
Alternatively, there may be another mechanism to ensure adequate
specificity such as by revising and clarifying ICAPCD's CMP application
forms.
c. Border Patrol Roads
    Rule 800 Section F.6.c exempts roads owned or operated by BP from
Rule 805 requirements that are ``inconsistent with BP authority and/or
mission.'' It is not clear what this exemption is intended to address,
or how it would be implemented and enforced, particularly because both
BP and ICAPCD staff have informally informed EPA that BP does not own
or operate any roads in Imperial County. ICAPCD must either remove this
exemption or narrow the exemption to specific mission activities and
demonstrate that the exemption is minimized and necessary, consistent
with BACM requirements.
3. BACM-Related Deficiencies for Agricultural Lands
a. Tilling and Harvesting
    Rule 806 Sections E.1 and E.2 list CMPs intended to control
emissions from agricultural land preparation and cultivation (including
tilling), and harvest activities, but these measures are broadly
defined and there is no other mechanism in the rule to ensure
specificity. The absence of sufficiently defined requirements makes it
difficult for regulated parties to understand and comply with the
requirements, and makes it difficult for ICAPCD or others to verify
compliance and to enforce the requirements if necessary. The lack of
specificity similarly renders it difficult to assess whether the
measures constitute BACM level controls. ICAPCD must revise Rule 806 to
ensure that tilling and harvesting CMPs are enforceable and are
implemented at a BACM level or demonstrate why such a rule revision is
not necessary. SJVAPCD Rule 4550, for example, relies on an application
submittal and approval process to ensure sufficient specificity of the
particular measures implemented at each source. GBUAPCD Rule 502 also
has an application submittal and

approval process. Alternatively, there may be another mechanism to
ensure adequate specificity such as by revising and clarifying ICAPCD's
CMP application forms.
    In addition, Rule 806 Section E requires one CMP from the ``land
preparation and cultivation'' category and one CMP from the ``harvest''
category, while SJVAPCD Rule 4550 requires an additional CMP from the
``cropland-other'' category. GBUAPCD Rule 502 also requires that one
CMP each be selected from the ``land preparation and cultivation,''
``harvest,'' and the ``cropland-other'' categories. ICAPCD must
similarly require an additional CMP for cropland, or demonstrate why
that is not appropriate.
b. Windblown Dust
    Windblown dust from non-pasture agricultural lands is also a
significant source of PM10 that requires BACM independent of
agricultural tilling. The CMPs in Rule 806 Section E, however, mainly
control emissions by reducing the number of vehicle passes across
fields, and sources are not required to select BACM level practices for
controlling windblown dust from active or fallow agricultural fields.
ICAPCD must revise Rule 806 to require BACM level windblown dust
controls. In general, EPA believes that the evaluation of BACM level
controls for a particular source or activity should include
consideration of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved
conservation systems and activities. Although these guidelines may not
specifically be designed to minimize air pollution, they are intended
to be feasible and effective techniques that will reduce windblown
dust, and thus would be appropriate measures to consider for BACM for
such sources or activities for PM10. SCAQMD Rule 403
provides an example of such controls. Please see Section III.B.4 in our
TSD for further discussion of this deficiency.
4. Non-BACM Deficiency
    Rule 802 Section D.1 allows the Air Pollution Control Officer
(APCO) to set aside controls that might be used instead of water to
stabilize surfaces of bulk materials. This discretion allows ICAPCD to
approve alternatives to the applicable SIP without following the SIP
revision process described in CAA section 110. Moreover, ICAPCD has not
demonstrated why such discretion is needed for measures such as
covering, enclosing or sheltering material piles. While we prefer
removal of the exemption and APCO discretion, SJVAPCD Rule 8031
remedies the enforceability issue by requiring EPA approval.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    Our TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time ICAPCD modifies the rules, but are not the basis for
disapproval at this time.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the seven inter-related Regulation VIII
rules to strengthen the SIP. If finalized, this action would
incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, including those
provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because
EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the seven
inter-related Regulation VIII rules under sections 110(k)(3), 110(a)
and 189(a)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(B) for the reasons set forth in Section
II.C. of this proposed rule. If this disapproval is finalized,
sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act unless EPA
approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies
set forth in sections II.C.1 through 3 of this proposed rule within 18
months of the disapproval. These sanctions would be imposed according
to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the 2-year
clock for the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under
section 110(c). The deficiency identified in Section II.C.4 of this
proposed rule would not trigger sanctions or a FIP obligation at this
time because it does not appear that it is associated with SIP
revisions that are required by the CAA.
    Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by ICAPCD, and
EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent ICAPCD from enforcing
them.
    We will accept comments from the public on our proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval action for 30 days from publication in
the Federal Register.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal
SIP limited approval/limited disapproval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action

proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, because it
merely proposes to approve or disapprove 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

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: February 10, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-3513 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


requirement on the amount of allowable excursion through passenger

vehicle side windows. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,

Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) requires that ``[t]he Secretary

shall also initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish performance

standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants

from outboard seating positions. In formulating the standards the

Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation systems. The

Secretary shall issue a final rule under this paragraph no later than

October 1, 2009.'' SAFETEA-LU also requires that, if the Secretary

determines that the subject final rule deadline cannot be met, the

Secretary shall notify and provide an explanation to the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House of

Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce of the delay. On

September 24, 2009, the Secretary provided appropriate notification to

Congress that the final rule will be delayed until January 31, 2011.

    Timetable:

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

               Action                    Date            FR Cite

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

NPRM................................   12/02/09  74 FR 63180

NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/01/10

Final Rule..........................   01/19/11  76 FR 3212

Final Action Effective..............   03/01/11

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.

    Agency Contact: Louis Molino, Safety Standards Engineer, Department

of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:

202-366-4329, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2127-AK23

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Proposed Rule Stage

258. +Risk Reduction Program

    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-432, Div A, 122 Stat 4848 et seq.;

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; sec 103, 49 U.S.C. 20156

``Railroad Safety Risk Reduction Program''

    Abstract: This rulemaking would consider appropriate contents for

Risk Reduction Programs and how they should be implemented and reviewed

by FRA.

    Timetable:

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

               Action                    Date            FR Cite

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

ANPRM...............................   12/08/10  75 FR 76345

ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/07/11

NPRM................................   10/00/11

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.

    Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2130-AC11

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Final Rule Stage

259. +Hours of Service: Passenger Train Employees (Rulemaking Resulting

From a Section 610 Review)

    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-432, Div A, 122 Stat 4848 et seq.;

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; sec 108(e) (49 U.S.C. 21109)

    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish hours of service

requirements for train employees engaged in commuter and intercity

passenger rail transport.

    Timetable:

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

               Action                    Date            FR Cite

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

NPRM................................   03/22/11  76 FR 16200

NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/23/11

Final Rule..........................   08/00/11

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.

    Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2130-AC15

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)

Completed Actions

260.  Tariff of Tolls (Completion of a Section 610 Review)

    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 983(a); 33 U.S.C. 984(4) as amended and

49 CFR 1.52

    Abstract: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)

and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada,

under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer

the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls in their respective

jurisdictions. The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all

commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC

and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising its regulations to reflect the

fees and charges levied by the SLSMC in Canada starting in the 2009

navigation season, which are effective only in Canada.

    Timetable:

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

               Action                    Date            FR Cite

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

Final Rule..........................   03/12/09  74 FR 10677

Final Rule Effective................   03/12/09

NPRM................................   01/28/11  76 FR 5104

NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/28/11

Final Rule..........................   03/10/11  76 FR 13088

Final Rule Effective................   03/20/11

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.

    Agency Contact: Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator,

Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:

202-366-0091, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2135-AA29

BILLING CODE 4910-61-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Final Rule Stage

261. +Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Requirements for the

Transportation of Lithium Batteries

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the Hazardous Materials

Regulations to comprehensively address the safe transportation of

lithium cells and batteries. The intent of the rulemaking is to

strengthen the current regulatory framework by imposing more effective

safeguards, including design testing to address risks related to

internal short circuits, and enhanced packaging, hazard communication,

and operational measures for various types and sizes of lithium

batteries in specific transportation contexts. The rulemaking responds

to several recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety

Board.

    Timetable:

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

               Action                    Date            FR Cite

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

NPRM................................   01/11/10  75 FR 1302

NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/12/10

Final Rule..........................   08/00/11

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.

    Agency Contact: Kevin Leary, Transportation Specialist, Department

of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2137-AE44

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Long-Term Actions

262. +Cargo Preference--Compromise, Assessment, Mitigation, Settlement

and Collection of Civil Penalties

    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-417

    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish part 383 of the Cargo

Preference regulations. This rulemaking would cover Public Law 110-417,

section 3511 National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 statutory

changes to the cargo preference rules, which have not been

substantially revised since 1971. The rulemaking also would include

compromise, assessment, mitigation, settlement, and collection of civil

penalties.

    Timetable: Next Action Undetermined.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.

    Agency Contact: Christine Gurland, Department of Transportation,

Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC

20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     RIN: 2133-AB75

[FR Doc. 2011-15494 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60316-60317]
[DOCID:fr17oc05-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-152-000]

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Notice of Filing

October 6, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2005, Montana-Dakota Utilities
Co., (Montana-Dakota), a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc. tendered
for filing an application for relief from the obligation to purchase
power from cogeneration qualifying facilities and small power
production qualifying facilities within its service territory in North
Dakota, South Dakota and Montana.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention
or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on
persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC

Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 24, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5671 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to consider and review

Comparative Adult and Juvenile Sensitivity Toxicity Protocols for Pyrethroids

July 23, 2010

EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0378			OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Designated Federal Official

Sharlene R. Matten, Ph.D.

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi

Gerald A. LeBlanc, Ph.D.

Professor and Department Head

Department of Environmental & Molecular Toxicology

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Carey N. Pope, Ph.D.

Professor, Head & Sitlington Chair of Toxicology

Department of Physiological Sciences

Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine

Stillwater, Oklahoma

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, Georgia

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, California

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Mary Jane Alcorn, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacy

Pharmacy Graduate Chair

University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

CANADA

John F. Bowyer, Ph.D.

Research Pharmacologist

Division of Neurotoxicology

National Center for Toxicological Research

Department of Health & Human Services

Food & Drug Administration

Jefferson, Arkansas

Abby C. Collier, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Pharmacology

John A. Burns School of Medicine

University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Kaka’ako campus

Honolulu, Hawaii

Marion F. Ehrich, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology

Department of Biomedical Science and Pathobiology

Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, Virginia

Penelope Fenner-Crisp, Ph.D., DABT

Private Consultant

North Garden, Virginia

Mari S. Golub, Ph.D., DABT

Director, Murine Behavior Assessment Laboratory

California Regional Primate Research Center

University of California, Davis

Davis, California

Dale B. Hattis, Ph.D.

Research Professor

The George Perkins Marsh Institute

Clark University

Worcester, Massachusetts

Wendy J. Heiger-Bernays, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Environmental Health

Boston University School of Public Health

Boston, Massachusetts

Gaylia Jean Harry, Ph.D.

Head of Neurotoxicology Group

Division of Intramural Research

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Sastry S. Isukapalli, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine

University of Medicine and Dentistry

New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Piscataway, New Jersey

Dallas E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Department of Statistics

Kansas State University

Manhattan, Kansas

Teresa L. Leavens, Ph.D.

Research Assistant Professor

College of Veterinary Medicine

Center for Chemical Toxicology Research and Pharmacokinetics

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Nu-may Ruby Reed, Ph.D., DABT

Staff Toxicologist

Department of Pesticide Regulation

California EPA

Sacramento, California

Sonya K. Sobrian, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Pharmacology

Howard University College of Medicine

Washington, DC

 PAGE

 PAGE   4