Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 922-924 [2012-31729]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 922-924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 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 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, vineyard.christine@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 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