Technical Support Document

for

EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on R evisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

a s submitted by the State of California

, for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

EPA's Analysis of Imperia l County Air Pollution Control District ’ s Regulation VIII

- Fugitive Dust ; Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Air Division

December 2012Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 2

- Rule Identification

Agency: Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD)

Rule Number s and Title s : Rule 800 General Requirements for

Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10)

Rule 804 Open Areas

Rule 805 Paved and Unpaved Areas

Rule 806 Conservation Management

Practices (CMPs)

Vers ions Currently SIP Approved: Adopted November 8, 2005

Submitted June 16, 2006 EPA Approved July 8, 2010 ( 75 FR 39366)

Versions Addressed by this TSD: Revised October 16, 2012

Submitted November 7, 2012 Found Complete November 21, 2012

Ba ckground

Inhalable particulate matter ( PM 10 ) 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. Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)

a mendments, Imperial County was classified as moderate nonattainment for the PM 10 national ambient air quali ty standard (NAAQS) under CAA s ections 107(d)(4)(B) and

1 88(a). By November 15, 1991, such areas were required to develop and submit State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) revisions providing for, among other things, implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM).

Partly to address the RACM requirem ent, ICAPCD adopted local Regulation VIII rules

to control PM 10 from sources of fugitive dust on October 10, 1994, and revised them on November 25, 1996. EPA did not act on t hese versions of the rules with respect to the federally enforceable SIP.

On Aug ust 11, 2004, EPA reclassified Imperial County as serious nonattainment for

PM 10 . As a result, CAA s ection 189(b)(1)(B) required all best available contro l measures (BACM) to be implemented in the area within four years of the effective date

of the reclas sification, i.e., by September 10, 2008.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 3

- On November 8, 2005, partly to address the BACM requirement, ICAPCD revised the Regulation VIII rules to strengthen fugitive dust requirements.

On July 8, 2010, EPA finalized a limited approval of the 2005 ve rsion of Regulation VIII, finding that the seven Regulation VIII rules largely fulfilled the relevant CAA requirements. Simultaneously, EPA also finalized a limited disapproval of several of the rules, identifying specific deficiencies that needed to be a ddressed to fully demonstrate compliance with CAA requirements regarding BACM and enforceability. 1

In September 2010, ICAP CD and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) filed petition s with the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals for re view of EPA’s limited disapproval of the rules. After hearing oral argument on February 15, 2012, the

Ninth Circuit directed the parties to consider med iation before rendering a decision on the litigation. On July 27, 2012 , ICAPCD, DPR and EPA reached ag reement on a resolution to the dispute which included a set of specific revisions to Regulation VIII. 2
These revisions are reflected in the version of Regulation VIII adopted by ICAPCD on October 16, 2012 and addressed by this technical support document ( TSD) to EPA’s

associated SIP action.

Regulation VIII Summary

ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII consists of seven interrelated rules designed to limit

emissions of PM 10 from a nthropogenic 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 submi t dust control plans (DCP) to mitigate fugitive

dust from areas and/or activities under their control . Appendi ces A and B describe methods for determining compliance with opacity and surface stabilization requirements

in R ules 801 through 806

.

Rule 801 , Construction and Earthmoving Activities , establishes a 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

1 “Revisions to the California State Imp lementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Final Rule,” 75 FR 39366 (July 8, 2010).

2 Settlement agreement signed by Michael Kelley (ICAPCD, July 17, 2012), Janelle Beland (California Department of Parks and Recreation, July 25, 201 2), and Christina Richmond (U.S. Department of Justice, July 27, 2012).Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 4

- certain conditions.

Rule 802 , Bulk Materials , establishes a 20% opacity limit and other requirements t o 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 Are as , establishes a 20% opacity limit and requires land owners to prevent vehicular trespass and stab ilize disturbed soil on open areas larger than 0.5 acres in urban areas, and larger than three acres in rural areas

. A gricultural operations are exempted

.

Rule 805 , Paved and Unpaved Roads , establishes a 20% opacity limit and control requirements for unpaved hau l and access roads, canal roads and traffic areas that

meet certain size or traffic thresholds . It also prohibits construction of new unpaved

roa ds in certain circumstances . Single

- family residences and agricultural operations
are exempt ed

.

Rule 806 , Conservation Management Practices , requires agricultural operation sites greater than 40 acres to implement at least one conservation management p ractice (CMP) for each of sever al activities that often generate d ust 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 IC APC D upon request.

Responses to Previous EPA Action on Regulation VIII

Our July 8, 2010 final action found that the previous version of Regulation VIII largely

fulfilled the relevant CAA r equirements , except for several specific deficiencies that requi red correction. A summary of these deficiencies a nd how they are addressed by

California’s November 7, 2012 SIP submittal is provided below. 3

Deficiency #1 : Recreational Off

- Highway Vehicle (OHV) Activity

- Most OHV emissions in Imperial County are addressed only by DCP requirements in Rule 800 for sources

under BLM control . 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 u se. Moreover, ICAPCD has not provided an analysis of BACM for OHV activity, including potential OHV activity in open areas and on unpaved roads and paths that are exempt from the specific requirements and measures in Rules

3 ICAPCD also summarizes how it addressed each deficiency in Appendix B to its s taff report

associated with adoption of Regulation VIII revisions, October 16, 2012.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 5

- 804 and 805.

Response #1: ICAP CD adequately addressed this deficiency by clarifying and strengthe ning requirements related to OHV activity and by developing and submitting an adequate demonstration that the revised Regulation VIII fulfills BACM with respect to

OHV. 4 Relevant rule impr ovements include:

 New def inition of off

- road event s / competition s (Rule 800. C.26 ) , which are subject

to additional requirements (e.g., Rule 800.F.5.c).

 Revised definition of OHV (Rule 800.C.27).

 Expansion to the definitions of open area (Rule 800.C.29) and recreational OHV use area (Rule 800.C.34)

, which are subject to requirements elsewhere in Regulation VIII.

 Addition of DPR as a regulated entity subject to OHV requirements (e.g., Rule

800.D.3 and F.5 ).

 Additional requirement to address any comments on dra ft DCPs from CARB or EPA (Rule 800.D.3.c).

 Additional reporting requirements regarding OHV use and dust controls (Rule

800.F.5.b and F.5.d ).

 Addition of 20% opacity and surface stabilization requirements for certain roads

and traffic areas associated with OHV events/competitions (Rule 800.F.5.c).

 Restriction on OHV events/competitions from June 15 to August 15 (Rule 800.F.5.g).

 Additional novel requirements for proposed new OHV areas (Rule 800.F.7).

The 2012 OHV BACM analy sis is consistent with EPA’s four

- step process 5 for identifying BACM by :

 D evelop ing a detailed emissions inventory of PM 10 sour ces

. ICAPCD’s 2009

PM 10 SIP provided detailed PM 10 inventories. 6 Section 2 of ICAPCD’s 2012 OHV BACM analysis summarizes and clarifies the previous inventories wi th respect to both windblown and entrained (both during OHV events and on other days) OHV

emissions. Windblown emissions from open areas is the largest PM 10 source in Imperial County, estimated at 157 tons/day. Of that, 8.8 tons/day is estimated

from Stat e and federal land where OHV activity is not restricted. Private land and entrained OHV emissions from public land are estimated to contribute much

smaller emissions.

 E valuat ing the impact of various sources on PM 10 concentrations to determine

which are s ignificant

. Section 2 of ICAPC D’s 2012 OHV BACM analysis

4 “Off

- Highway Ve hicle BACM Analysis,” Appendix C to ICAPCD Regulation VIII staff report, Environ,

October 2012.

5 59 FR 42010

- 42014 (August 16, 1994)

. 6 “2009 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter, Final,” adopted by ICAPCD Governing Board on August 11, 2009, (2009 PM 10 SIP)

, Appendix III.A and III.B.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 6

- summarizes ICAPCD’s argument that OHV emissions are only significant during exceptional wind events that ICAPCD is not required to control as BACM. EPA’s July 8, 2010 final action, however, determi ned that OHV emissions are significant sources requiring BACM. 7 While ICAPCD disagrees with this conclusion, the remainder of the 2012 OHV BACM analysis demonstrates that BACM is now implemented for OHV activity in the County.

 I dentify ing potential BACM f or significant source categories and evaluat ing their reasonableness considering technological feasibility, costs, energy and environmental impacts

. Section s 3, 4 and 5 of ICAPCD’s 2012 OHV BACM analysis identifies and evaluates potential BACM control meas ures for OHV activity in Imperial County. This includes analysis of various potential control strategies (e.g., require use permits, restrict OHV times and restrict OHV locations) as well as specific requirements adopted in other areas (primarily Maricopa and Clark counties).

 P rovid ing for the implementation of BACM or provid ing a reasoned justification for rejecting any potential BACM. Sections 3 and 4 of ICAPCD’s 2012 OHV BACM analysis describe those measures implemented as BACM in Imperial County and p rovide a reasoned justification for rejecting other measures. Implemented controls include restrictions on new and existing areas available for OHV activity, restrictions on times available for OHV activity, OHV use permits, and requirements for dust miti gation measures for operators of areas available for OHV activity.

Deficiency #2 : 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 so urce category for which BACM is required and relies on the undefined term to describe rule applicability i n Rule 804. B.

Response #2: ICAPCD added a clear definition of disturbed surface a rea (Rule

800. C.15 ) , which is similar to the analogous definition in S an J oaquin V alley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJV APCD ) Rule 8011.

Deficiency #3 : Schedule for Stabilizing County Unpaved Roads

- While CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires ICAPCD to implement B ACM by 2008 , Rule 805. 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 appr opriate consideration. In addition, Rule 805. E.7’s requirement to stabilize all non

- exempt unpaved County roads is not adequately enforceable as currently structured because it is not clear that the County is required to implement (and not ju st submit) a stabilization plan, stabilize di fferent unpaved roads each year and maintain all stabilized roads.

7 See, e.g., 75 FR 39369 (July 8, 2010).Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 7

- Response #3: The Imperial County Department of Public Works (ICDPW) has primary responsibility for stabilizing public unpaved roads in the County. ICDPW has verified that the maximum funds are obligated to paving and road dust mitigation efforts in light of other County obligations. 8 This verification

, along with related documentation supporting ICAPCD’s 2006 submittal of Regulation VIII, 9 adequate ly demo nstrate s that the Rule 805.E.7 schedule is as expeditious as practicable. In addition, revisions to Rule 805.E.7.b and E.7.c adequately address the enforceability concerns by explicitly requiring plan compliance, stabilizati on of different roads each year and maintenance of

all stabilized roads.

Deficiency #4 : High

- Traffic Agricultural Roads

- Rule 805. D.2 exempts agricultural roads and traffic areas from the opacity and stabilization requirements applicable to

non

- agricultural operation sites. Farm roa ds and traffic areas are only required to implement a conservation management practice (CMP) from the menus for unpaved roads and traffic areas in Rule 806 in contrast to analogous rules in other geographical

areas.

Response #4 : While ICAPCD re tained th e general agricultural exemption in Rule 805.D.2, it adequa tely addressed this issue by adding requirements for high

- traffic unpaved agricultural roads and traffic areas to meet opacity and sta bilization requirements in Rule 806.D.2 and D.3, in addition to the existing CMP requirements. For example, unpaved roads and traffic areas with more than fifty vehicle daily trips must meet 20% opacity requirements.

Deficiency #5 : Specificity of Agricultural Unpaved R oad CMPs

- Rule 806. E.3 and E.4

list CMPs int ended 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.

Response #5: ICAPCD adequately addressed this deficiency by extensively clarifying and strengthening numerous CMP definitions and related text in Rule 806. Other areas (e.g., S JVAPCD Rule 8081) ensure sufficient specificity by requiring a CMP application and review process. ICAPCD has avoided the need for this by incorporating sufficient clarity and specificity directly into the CMP definitions and requirements so that CMP

8 Letter from William Brunet, ICDPW, to Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, May 11, 2012, included in the

attachment to t he Staff Report in the November 7, 2012 SIP submittal for Regulation VIII as part of ICAPCD’s response to comment letter four from Comite Civico Del Valle.

9 See, for example, 2009 PM 10 SIP , pg 4

- 8 and Table IV.C

- 1, Appendix IV.C

- 1, pg. IV.C

- 1.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 8

- implementation and enforceability at a B ACM level is clear to all parties. For example,

the definition of track

- out control i n Rule 806.C.51 was revised from:

“ Minimize any and all material that adheres to and agglomerates on all vehicle and equipment from unpaved roads and falls onto a paved public road or the paved shoulder of a paved public road. ”

A dd itional new text is:

“ Install one of the following devices: a grizzly, a gravel pad or a wheelwash system at all intersections of unpaved roads and public roads .”

Deficiency # 6 : Border Patro l Roads

- Rule 800. 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 in order to meet BACM requirements.

Response #6 : ICAPCD adequately addressed this by removing the exemption of Rule

800.F.6.c.

Deficiency #7 : Specificity of Agricultural Tilling and Harvesting CMPs

- Rule 806. E.1

and E.2 list CMPs intended to control emiss ions from agricultural land preparation and

cultivation , 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 t he measures constitute BACM level controls.

Response #7: ICAPCD adequately addressed this deficiency by extensively clarifying and strengthening numerous CMP definitions and related text in Rule 806. Other areas (e.g., SJVAPCD Rule 4550) ensure suffic ient specificity by requiring a CMP application and review process. ICAPCD has avoided the need for this by incorporating sufficient clarity and specificity directly into the CMP definitions and requirements so that CMP implementation and enforceability a t a BACM level is clear to all parties. For example, the definition of mulching in Rule 806.C.30 was revised from: “Applying or leaving plant residue or other material to soil surface. It reduces

entrainment of PM due to winds as well as reduces weed co mpetition thereby

reducin g tillage passes and compaction. ”

The new text reads : “Reducing PM10 emissions and wind erosion and preserving soil moisture by uniformly applying a protective layer of plant residue or other material to a soil surface prior to disturbing the site to reduce soil movement. Mulching material shall be evenly applied, and if necessary, anchored to the soil. Mulch should achieve a minimum 70% cover, and a minimum of 2 inch height above the surface. Inorganic

material used for mulch ing should consist of pieces of .75 to 2 inches in diameter.”Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 9

- Deficiency #8 : Additional CMP Requirements

- Rule 806. E requires one CMP from the “land preparation and cultivation” category and one CMP from the “harvesting” category, while rules in other ge ographic areas have more stringent requirements.

Response #8: ICAPCD adequately addressed this by adding CMP requirements for “Cropland

- others,” in Rule 806.E.5 (similar to SJVAPCD) and windblown dust control in Rule 806.E.6 ( including measures similar t o South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD).

Deficiency #9 : Windblown Dust

- Windblown dust from non

- pas ture agricultural lands is a significant source of PM 10 that requires BACM independent of agricultural tilling. The

CMPs in Rule 806. E, howe ver, 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.

Response #9: ICAPCD adequately add ressed this by adding CMP requirements for
windblown dust control in Rule 806.E.6, including measures similar to th ose in
SCAQMD’s Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook

.

Deficiency #10 : Bulk Material Stabilization Discretion

- Rule 802. D.1 allows ICAPCD t o

set a side 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.

Response #10: As discussed in our July 2010 final action

, 10 our limited disapproval with
respect to this deficiency in Rule 802.D.1 di d not trigger CAA sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan ( FIP ) obligation s because Rule 802 does not address a source category identified as significant and thus requiring BACM. Because of this and because ICAPCD did not agree that this was a rule de ficiency, ICAPCD did not revise

Rule 802 in October 2012

, an d we are not reevaluating Rule 802 in this TSD.

Additional Rule Revisions

– ICAPCD made several additional rule improvements in October 2012 that did not directly respond to the specific rule deficiencies listed above.

These include:

 Clarification that unpaved roads, parking lots and other activities are not exempted as military tactical training in Rule 800.E.6

.

 Incentive for selecting the conservation tillage CMP in Rule 80 6 .D.1.

10 75 FR 29388, ( July 8, 2010 )

.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 10

- E valuatio n Criteria

- The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule s

.

Enforceability

- The Bluebook 11 and the Little Bluebook 12 were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

Stringency

– As discussed above, these rules must implement BACM pursuant to CAA

s ection 189(b)(1)(B)

. 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 ba sis considering energy, economic, environmental impacts and other

costs. 13 When a moderate area is reclassified to serious, the requirement to im plement

RACM in CAA s ection 189(a)(1)(C) remains. However, EPA does not ordinarily conduct a separate evaluati on to determine whether measures for significant sources in a serious area also meet the RACM requirements. This is because in our serious area guidance, we interpret the BACM requirement as generally subsuming the RACM requirement ( i.e. , if we determine t hat the measures are indeed the "best available," we have necessarily concluded that they are "reasonably available"). 14

SIP Relaxation and Non

- Interference

- CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any a pplicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP

- approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

EPA E valuation

– Our July 2010 SIP approval was based on our analysis and conclusions that the 2006 submittal of Regulation VIII fulfilled the same three evaluation criteria of enforceability, stringency and SIP relaxation, except for the specified rule deficiencies. As discussed above, the 2012 submittal of revised versions of ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806 adequately address all the deficienci es we previously

identified except for deficiency #10 regarding Rule 802, an d revisions to Rule 802 are not required. We have no information causing us to change our analysis of the three

ev aluation criteria. In summary :

Enforceability

- The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, repo rting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources

11 “ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations ,” EPA, May 25, 1988

. 12 “ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August
21, 2001

. 13 “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, 42 010 (August 16,

19 94)

. 14 59 FR 42013

- 42014. See also “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498, 13540

- 13541 (April 16, 1992).Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 11

- and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule s 800, 804, 805 and

806 consistently.

Stringency

– ICAPCD has adequately demonstrated that Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806

f ulfil CAA section 18 9(b) requirements for BACM taking into consideration existing policy and guidance, analogous rules adopted in other areas, and analysis of technological and economic availability of controls.

SIP Relaxation and Non

- Interference

- W e propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP

revision would not interfere with the on

- going process for ensuring that requirements for
RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and (2) the requirements in the submitted rule are more stringent than the existing SIP

- approved control requirements that they would replace.

Relation to Exceptional Events

– EPA’s July 2010 final action on Regulation VIII also took final agency a ction on requests by California to exclude several PM 10 NAAQS exceedances in Imperial County for regulatory purposes under EPA’s exceptional

events rule. 15 EPA’s preli minary view is that the Regulation VIII rules as revised in

October 2012 constitute reaso nable control of the sources covered by Regulation VIII for the purpose of evaluating whether an exceedance of the PM 10 NAAQS is an exceptional event pursuant to the exceptional events rule, including reasonable and appropriate control measures on signific ant contributing anthropogenic sources. This
statement does not extend to exceedances of NAAQS other than the PM 10 NAAQS, or to events that differ significantly in terms of meteorology, sources, or conditions from

the events that are at issue in EPA’s Jul y 2010 final action and the associated litigation.

Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision

– The TSD supporting EPA’s proposed action in 2010 recommended several a dditional rule improvements

which were not required to fulfil BACM or other C AA requirements. 16 Several, for example, recommended improvements to Regulation VIII rules which do not address source categories identified as significant and thus requiring BACM. ICAPCD considered these recommendations while revising Regulation VIII in O ctober 2012. Several of the recommended rule improvements are reflected in the 2012 rule revisions. While the remaining rule improvements are still not required, we continue to

recommend that ICAPCD consider them further the next time Regulation VIII is

15 40 CFR 50.1(j) and 50.14.

16 “Technical Support D ocument for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan as Submitted by the State of California, for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; EPA’s Analysis of Imperial County Air Pollution Contro l District’s Regulation VIII

– Fugitive Dust Rules 800

- 806,” US EPA, Region IX Air Division, February 2010, page

11

– 12.Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 12

- amended.

EPA A ction

- Revised ICAPCD Rule s 800, 804, 805 and 806 as submitted in October 2012 strengthen the SI P , adequately address all previously identified rule deficiencies

, and fulfil all relevant CAA section 110 and part D requirements. Therefor e, EPA staff

recommends full approval of these rules pursuant to CAA section s 110(k)(3) and 301(a). If finalized as proposed, this action woul d permanently terminate all CAA

sanction and FIP implications associated with our July 2010 final limited disappro val of a previous version of these rules. The versions of ICAPCD Rules 801, 802 and 803 that were adopted locally in 2005 and approved by EPA into the federally enforceable SIP in 2010 would not be affected by this action.

Partial List of R eferences

1. ICA PCD Rules 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, as amended November 8,

2005 and submitted to EPA on June 16, 2006

. 2. Letter regarding completeness from Deborah Jordan (EPA) to James Goldstene (CARB), November 21, 2012.

3. Revisions to the California State Imp lementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Final Rule, 75 FR 39366, July 8, 2010.

4. ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806, as amended October 16, 2012 and
submitted to EPA on November 7, 2012.

5. Settlement agreement signed by Michael Kell ey (ICAPCD, July 17, 2012), Janelle Beland (California Department of Parks and Recreation, July 25, 2012), and Christina Richmond (U.S. Department of Justice, July 27, 2012).

6. “Staff Report; BACM Amendments to Regulation VIII, Fugitive Dust Rules,” ICAPCD, October 16, 2012.

a. “Regulation VIII Amendments to Address EPA’s Cited Deficiencies in 75 FR 8008; February 23, 2013 (sic),” ICAPCD, Appendix B to October 16, 2012 staff
report.

b. “Off

- Highway Vehicle (OHV) Area Best Available Control Measures (BACM)

Assessmen t, ENVIRON, October 2012, Appendix C to October 16, 2012 staff
report.

c. Letter from William Brunet, ICDPW, to Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, May 11, 2012,

inc luded in ICAPCD’s response to comment letter four from Comite Civico Del

Valle , Attachment to October 16, 20 12 staff report

. 7. “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM

- 10 Nonattainment Area s, 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 1 990, ” 59 FR 42010

- 42014 , August 16, 1994

. 8. “2009 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter, Final,” adopted by ICAPCD Governing Board on August 11, 2009, (2009 PM 10 SIP).Imperial County APCD

– Regulation VIII

TSD, December 2012 - 13

- 9. “Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions,” SJVAPCD, adopted August 19 and September 16, 2004.

10. “Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices,” SJVAPCD, August 19, 2004.

11. “Rule 403, Fugitive Dust,” SCAQMD, June 3, 2005.

12. “Rule 310.01 , Fugitive Dust from Non

- Traditional Sour ces of Fugitive Dust,” MCAQD, January 27, 2010.

13. “Section 90, Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots” (July 1, 2004); “Section 91, Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys, and Unpaved Easement Roads” (July 1, 2004); “Section 92, Fugitive Dus t from Unpaved Parking Lots and Storage Areas” (August 2, 2011); “Section 93, Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads and Street Sweeping Equipment” (July 1, 2004); “Section 94, Permitting and Dust Control for Construction Activities” (July 1, 2004); CCDAQEM

. 14. “Iss ues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988

, ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pd f ).

15. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook) , EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001, ( http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littleb luebook2001.pdf ).

16. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498, 13540

- 13541 (April 16, 1992).

17. “Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

R evisions to the California State Implementation Plan as submitted by the State of California for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; EPA's Analysis of Imperial County Air Pollution Control District’s Regulation VIII

- Fugitive Dust Rules

80 0

- 806,” U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, February 2010 (EPA 2010 TSD)

. 18. “Rule 403

– Fugitive Dust,” SCAQMD, June 3, 2005.

19. “Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook

– Measures to Reduce Dust from Agricultural Operations in the South Coast Air Basin,” SCAQMD, December 1998.

20. “Rule 4550

– Conservation Management Practices,” SJVAPCD, August 19, 2004.

21. “ Rule 8011

– General Requirements, ” SJVAPCD, August 19, 2004.

22. “Rule 8081

– Agricultural Sources,” SJVAPCD, September 16, 2004.