922 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

Local Agency Rule # Rule Title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ................................................................ 800 General Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10).10/16/12 11/07/12 

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 Practices (CMPs) ..... 10/16/12 11/07/12 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 hightraffic 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
924 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0914; 

FRL–9764–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Eagle River PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Limited Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) 

submitted by the State of Alaska on 

September 29, 2010, for the Eagle River 

nonattainment area (Eagle River NAA) 

and the State’s request to redesignate 

the area to attainment for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

EPA is proposing to approve the State’s 

request because it meets Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements for redesignation. 

EPA has also published, at the same 

time, a direct final rule of the same title 

because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. Any 

parties interested in commenting on this 

action should do so at this time. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and will 

then address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–0914, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Justin A. Spenillo, EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Justin A. 

Spenillo, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

0914. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with