[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 922-924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31729]
[[Page 922]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0960; FRL-9766-5]
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 to approve revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern local rules that
regulate inhalable particulate matter (PM10) emissions from
sources of fugitive dust such as unpaved roads and disturbed soils in
open and agricultural areas in Imperial County. We are proposing to
approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (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 February 6, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0960, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. Email: [email protected].
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 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 www.regulations.gov or email.
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 email directly to EPA, your email
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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at 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 at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125, [email protected].
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 rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Reasonable Control for Exceptional Events.
D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
E. 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 addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule Title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.................................... 800 General Requirements for 10/16/12 11/07/12
Control of Fine Particulate
Matter (PM10).
ICAPCD.................................... 804 Open Areas................... 10/16/12 11/07/12
ICAPCD.................................... 805 Paved and Unpaved Roads...... 10/16/12 11/07/12
ICAPCD.................................... 806 Conservation Management 10/16/12 11/07/12
Practices (CMPs).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for ICPACD
Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of an
earlier version of the submitted rules on July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39366).
That action incorporated Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806 into the
California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
PM10 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
PM10 emissions. ICAPCD's Regulation VIII consists of seven
interrelated rules designed to limit emissions of PM10 from
anthropogenic fugitive dust sources in Imperial County.
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 requires
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Border Patrol (BP) and
DPR to submit dust control plans (DCP) to mitigate fugitive dust from
areas and/or activities under their control. Appendices A and B
describe methods for determining compliance with opacity and surface
stabilization requirements in Rules 801 through 806.
Rule 801, Construction and Earthmoving Activities, establishes a
[[Page 923]]
20% opacity limit and control requirements for construction and
earthmoving activities. Affected sources must submit a DCP and comply
with other portions of Regulation VIII regarding bulk materials, carry-
out and track-out, and paved and unpaved roads. The rule exempts 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 other
requirements to control dust from bulk material handling, storage,
transport and hauling.
Rule 803, Carry-Out and Track-Out, establishes requirements to
prevent and clean-up mud and dirt 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 stabilize disturbed soil
on open areas larger than 0.5 acres in urban areas, and larger than
three acres in rural areas. Agricultural operations are exempted.
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. It also
prohibits construction of new unpaved roads in certain circumstances.
Single family residences and agricultural operations are exempted.
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 several activities
that often generate dust at agricultural operations. In addition,
agricultural operation sites must prepare a CMP plan describing how
they comply with Rule 806, and must make the CMP plan available to the
ICAPCD upon request.
EPA approved versions of all of these rules on July 8, 2010, but
required revisions only to Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806. As a result,
ICAPCD did not revise or resubmit Rules 801, 802 or 803.
ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806 were revised primarily to:
Clarify and strengthen requirements for recreational off-
highway vehicle (OHV) activity;
Demonstrate BACM;
Clarify the definition of disturbed surface area and
conservation management practice (CMP);
Verify responsibility for stabilizing public unpaved roads
in the county by the Imperial County Department of Public Works;
Include opacity limits and stabilization requirements for
high-traffic unpaved agricultural roads and traffic areas;
Add CMP requirements for cropland-others, windblown dust
control and agricultural tilling and harvesting; and
Remove the exemption for border patrol roads.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has 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 PM10 nonattainment areas, and
Best Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), in serious PM10 nonattainment
areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)). The ICAPCD regulates
a PM10 nonattainment area classified as serious (see 40 CFR
part 81), so Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806 must implement BACM.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and BACM requirements consistently include the
following:
1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.
B. 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. The
revised rules adequately address all deficiencies identified in our
July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39366) final limited disapproval of a previous
version of these rules. Rules 801, 802, and 803 were approved in the
July 8, 2010 rulemaking as meeting BACM requirements and are not
affected by this action. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. Reasonable Control for Exceptional Events
EPA's preliminary view is that the Regulation VIII rules as revised
in October 2012 constitute reasonable control of the sources covered by
Regulation VIII for the purpose of evaluating whether an exceedance of
the PM10 NAAQS is an exceptional event pursuant to the
exceptional events rule, including reasonable and appropriate control
measures on significant contributing anthropogenic sources. This
statement does not extend to exceedances of NAAQS other than the
PM10 NAAQS, or to events that differ significantly in terms
of meteorology, sources, or conditions from the events that were at
issue in EPA's July 2010 final action and associated litigation. EPA is
not making any determinations at this time with respect to any specific
PM10 exceedances.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.
E. 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 Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP. If finalized as proposed, this action would
permanently terminate all sanctions and FIP implications associated
with the July 8, 2010 final action.
[[Page 924]]
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 17, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-31729 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P