Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 1

Responses to Comments on the Proposed Amendments to Regulation VIII

Following are the comments received following the May 20, 2004 Receive and File edition of Proposed Amendments to Regulation VIII. Most comments have been paraphrased for the sake of brevity. The comments received (in their entirety) are available upon request at the District’s

Central Office.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), via e-mail received July 29, 2004

Comment 1: The PM10 SIP commits to “establish a threshold limit of 26 or more vehicle trips/day for vehicles with three or more axles” for agricultural unpaved roads. However, proposed Rule 8081 does not include this requirement. Furthermore, the Fugitive PM10 Management Plan option in rule 8081, section 7, has not been revised to reflect the 25 truck trip threshold requirement for either unpaved roads or parking lots.

Response: We concur that this commitment is contained in the PM10 SIP and have revised section 5.2.2.1. of Rule 8081. We have also revised section 7.0 by eliminating reference to any specific vehicle number and replaced it with language referring back to each respective section where thresholds are specified

Comment 2: The PM10 SIP commits to remove the exemption for unpaved parking lots <1 acre in size. However, proposed Rule 8071 maintains the exemption under section 2.

Response: We concur that this commitment is contained in the PM10 SIP. District staff inadvertently omitted this amendment and we have removed the exemption as committed in the PM10 SIP.

Comment 3: Proposed Rule 8071, section 5.2.2, only specifies compliance with 20% opacity during special events involving 1,000 or more vehicles, while the 11/15/01 rule version requires compliance with both opacity and surface

stabilization standards.

Response: We have removed section 5.2.2. and relocated it as section 5.1.4 to eliminate any confusion of the intent to include a stabilized unpaved road requirement of section 5.2, including during special events involving 1,000 or more vehicles. We have also added language requiring compliance with a stabilized unpaved road.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 2

Comment 4: The proposed formatting revision of Table 8051-1, Measure B, could be interpreted to weaken the existing SIP requirement for vacant lots.

Response: We have revised Table 8051-1, Measure B to its November 15, 2001 form. In other words, we are withdrawing the May 20, 2004 proposed amendments to this section to ensure that the requirement is clearly stated.

Comment 5: The District proposed to revise Rules 8071 and 8081 to allow compliance with only 20% opacity (without surface stabilization standards) when vehicles remain exclusively within an unpaved parking lot. The staff report should

include the District’s rationale for this exclusion from the SIP.

Response: During the rule amendment process, stakeholders noted that there are many instances when their vehicles remain exclusively within their sites and that watering was used to effectively reduce dust. They maintained that they currently utilized water trucks/wagons to prevent dust from damaging their product and for safety reasons. The District acknowledges that sufficient watering will result in a stabilized unpaved road. The language in section 5.2.1 of Rule 8071 and section 5.3.2 of Rule 8081 clearly indicates that the use of water is an acceptable, optional technique to limit VDE to 20% opacity. EPA’s suggested change was not included in the PM10 SIP and we consider the rationale proved above to be adequate.

Comment 6: The PM10 SIP commits to “require more than one control method for disturbed open areas if VDE exceeds 20% opacity due to windblown dust”. this requirement has not been added to proposed Rule 8051. Although EPA’s BACM approval did not rely on this commitment, the staff report should explain why it has not been proposed.

Response: We believe that the existing language contained in Table 8051-1, section A, to wit, “Implement, apply, maintain, and reapply if necessary, at least one or a combination of the following control measures to comply at all times with the conditions for a stabilized surface and limit VDE to 20% opacity...” is sufficient to require both a stabilized surface and to limit VDE to 20% opacity regardless of wind. Clearly, Table 8051-1 section of Rule 8051 requires that application and maintenance/reapplication would be necessary to have both a stabilized surface and to limit VDE to 20% opacity and amending the existing language is unnecessary.

Additional EPA comments that do not raise approvability issues:

Comment 7: Delete the second sentence in Table 8021-1, Measure C2, as

redundant.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 3

Response: The second sentence is somewhat confusing, but the District interprets this as being a 1/2 acre exemption after the seventh day. In other words, all disturbed inactive areas (including those smaller than 1/2 acre) are subject to the stabilized surface requirement, but after seven days of inactivity those sites that are 1/2 acre or smaller are no longer subject to Rule 8021 requirements. We believe that EPA's recommendation would require removing the 1/2 acre threshold. Also, Rule 8051 includes a proposed 1/2 acre threshold in urban areas for open areas.

Comment 8: Remove the word “uncontrolled” from Rule 8021, section 5.3, because Table 8021-1, B3 requires stabilization of all unpaved access/haul

roads.

Response: We do not concur with removing the word “uncontrolled”. The intent of this section is to recognize lower speeds (i.e. at 15 MPH or less) as an effective PM10 control measure for "uncontrolled" unpaved roads. If lower speeds do not effectively limit VDE to 20% opacity, then the owner/operator must implement techniques to comply with the VDE standard.

Comment 9: Replace text in Rule 8081, sections 5.0 and 5.1 that requires 20% opacity “or” surface stabilization with requirements “as set forth in Sections 5-1 [through] 5.3”. Portions of sections 5.1 through 5.3 require compliance with both opacity and surface stabilization standards.

Response: We do not concur. Table 8081 A1 and A2, Handling of Bulk Materials and section 5.3.4 only require limiting VDE to 20% opacity; and sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.3.1 allow alternative compliance through implementation of a Fugitive PM10 Management Plan.

Comment 10: Delete the duplicative references in Table 8051-1, A1 – A3, to comply with 20% opacity since they might be interpreted to imply that surface stabilization requirements do not also apply.

Response: We concur, Table 8051-1, A1 – A3 has been revised.

Comment 11: Clarify in Rule 8021 that the District may withdraw Dust Control Plan approval if problems with the plan are discovered after the 30-day automatic approval period.

Response: Rule 8021, section 6.3.5 specifies that “Regardless of whether an approved Dust Control Plan is in place or not, or even when the owner/operator responsible for the plan is complying with an approved Dust Control Plan, the owner/operator is still subject to comply with all requirements of the applicable rules under Regulation VIII at all times.” Therefore, we believe that the current proposed language is appropriate.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 4

Responses to Comments on the Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII

Following are the comments received regarding the March 12, 2004 draft Amendments to Regulation VIII. Most comments have been paraphrased for the sake of brevity; other comments have been consolidated when similar concerns, questions, issues, suggestions, etc. were raised. The comments received (in their entirety) are available upon request at the

District’s Central Office.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), via e-mail received March 24, 2004

Comment 1: Regarding Rule 8031, Table 8031-1 and Rule 8081, Table 8081; the SIP-approved version of measure B3 requires coverage or surface stabilization of storage piles in addition to wind barriers. We do not believe it is an appropriate rule relaxation to remove the coverage/stabilization requirements, partly because it is difficult to apply the VDE standard to windblown dust from open storage piles. Please also review measure B4, either a similar comment applies or it was SJVUAPCD’s intention to establish different requirements for 3- sided structures with near 0% (not 50%) porosity.

Response: We do not agree. Table 8031-1 provides a menu of options that an owner/operator may use to limit VDE to 20% opacity or comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. Regardless of option used, the technique must be effective enough to limit VDE to 20% opacity or meet conditions of a stabilized surface otherwise the owner/operator will be subject to enforcement action. The 2003 PM10 Plan does not contain a commitment to require storage piles to be covered or to have a stabilized surface as well as wind barriers. However, because a wind barrier is only partially effective, we require that a stabilized surface (measure B1) be used as well. Measure B4 is an option for a 3-sided enclosure with less than 50% porosity, and therefore such enclosure is deemed to have a much greater wind-limiting effect than a simple wind barrier. In this case, then, a stabilized surface is not required, unless, or course, VDE is greater than 20%, in which case the owner/operator would be required to implement a greater level of control.

Comment 2: Regarding Rule 8061, section 5.2.1; this section requires stabilization of unpaved roads that receive 26 or more annual average daily traffic (AADT). While the rule requires cities/counties to determine urban roads subject to section 5.2.3.1.2, it does not require cities/counties to determine rural roads with >26 AADT. This is needed to demonstrate implementation of this rule requirement and committed measure PA-4 of SJVUAPCD’s Supplemental BACM Analysis.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 5

Response: The District concurs. Since the proposed rule already covers urban unpaved roads, we will revise the rule to cover rural unpaved roads with respect to identifying unpaved road segments. For rural roads serving residential uses the process for determining trip rates is expected to be difficult since few, if any, traffic counts have been accomplished. The District has proposed that estimates could be based on trip generation rates for the land use type. For example, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) provides trip generation rates for single-family residential development at about 10 trips per day. Based on this rate, roads serving three or more residences would be subject to the requirement unless the jurisdiction provided information supporting a lower rate such as trip counts. Some San Joaquin Valley counties have many miles of unpaved roads that would need to be analyzed segment by segment to determine the trip rate and to prioritize treatment. If this is done manually, it will be very time consuming. The District will work with the counties to identify an automated method such as geographic information systems (GIS) to complete this task as timely as possible.

Comment 3: Regarding Rule 8081, section 4.4; this section exempts “equipment employed in the act of loading or unloading and traveling at 3 miles per hour or less” from the vehicle trip counts that establish rule applicability. This exemption is written broadly and could be interpreted to encompass equipment that SJVUAPCD has determined should be included in the vehicle trip count, e.g., tractors. This exemption should either be eliminated or tailored only to the type of equipment SJVUAPCD demonstrates is not capable of traveling more than 3 mph for agricultural uses, e.g., forklifts.

Response: The intent of this section is to exempt slow moving forklifts used to carry large commodity containers from the field to the paved road for further loading onto a truck or trailer. The District will change the rule language to “equipment with loading forks employed in the act of loading and unloading in the harvest location” to clarify the intent.

Comment 4: Regarding Rule 8081, section 4.9; this section exempts carryout and trackout caused by agricultural sources addressed by SJVUAPCD Rule 4550. However, Rule 4550 does not contain the carryout and trackout removal requirements found in Rule 8081, section 5.4, which simply incorporates California Vehicle Code sections 23112-23113 pertaining to cleanup of dirt deposits. Because SJVUAPCD has not demonstrated that it is infeasible for sources subject to Rule 4550 to also comply with state law and Rule 8081 incorporation of CVC trackout requirements, SJVUAPCD should remove section

4.9 from Rule 8081.

Response: The District concurs that the exemption language is not consistent with the requirements of the section 5.4 and will delete section 4.9.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 6

Fresno COG comments submitted on behalf of San Joaquin Valley TPAs (Transportation Planning Agencies) via e-mail received on April 15, 2004

Comment 5: Regarding Economic Infeasibility, we acknowledge that the rule allows five fiscal years to “change-out” the street sweeping fleet, we also must reiterate our concern over the lack of ability for local jurisdictions to show that the rule is economically infeasible. The timeframe for the BACM analysis actually extended beyond five fiscal years and still allowed for the demonstration of economic infeasibility. This latest draft seems to disregard this distinction and differs from EPA guidance, placing a more restrictive burden on local jurisdictions. We again request that the draft regulation be revised to allow economic feasibility for the new Street Sweeper requirements and Post-Event Clean-up to be consistent with EPA guidance [emphasis by commenter]

.

Response: The District committed to complete plan revisions in March 2006 that will determine progress toward meeting the emission reduction goals in the 2003 PM10 Plan. We recognize that some jurisdictions may currently have insufficient funding to meet the requirements of Reg VIII; however, with CMAQ reauthorization pending and the potential to identify additional funding sources over the next two years, we believe it is appropriate to leave the requirement in place. If jurisdictions are unable to identify resources for PM10 projects, the 2006 Plan update will provide an opportunity to revise the entire attainment strategy.

Comment 6: Regarding PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers; on page 20 of Attachment A: Responses to Comments, the Air District acknowledges that PM10 efficient street sweepers “may not be adequate for heavy street loading” and that the Air District is “receptive to continue the use of non-certified street sweepers where necessary.” However, section 5.1.2.1 of Rule 8061 requires that only PM10 efficient street sweepers may be purchased after July 1, 2005. These responses to comments seem to conflict with the rule in a situation where other sweeper purchases may be necessary.

Response: The reference to “heavy street loading” on Page 20 pertained to wet sand and mud, probably related to a storm runoff event. In such cases, no street sweeper is likely to be effective. Rather, other equipment, such as skip loaders may be the best and most effective way to remove such material. This is within the purview of the local jurisdiction and within compliance of Rule 8061. In fact, the requirements for post-event clean-up make no mention of using PM10- efficient street sweepers, only “dust minimizing practices.” We have clarified sections 5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.3, and 5.1.2.4 by adding language specifying that PM10- efficient street sweepers are to be used for “routine” street sweeping routes. Also, we have added section 5.1.2.6 which allows an agency to submit a statement of financial hardship if the provisions of sections 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.2.3

can not be met.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 7

Comment 7: Regarding PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers; our previous comments referenced a Maricopa Association of Governments [Maricopa County, Arizona] PM10 Efficient Street Sweeper Study dated December 2001. It was noted that certified sweepers were identified as not being the best equipment for the job under conditions with heavy street loading such as wetsand and mud (p. ES-3). The summary of responses (p. ES-7) indicate that noncertified sweepers work better for picking up trash and packed dirt, as well as have better pick up efficiency on streets with speed bumps and crowned streets. The adopted version of the rule should resolve this situation by allowing local jurisdictions the flexibility to purchase and maintain a mixed fleet of street sweepers. We would encourage the District to consult with local jurisdictions to develop language that would add flexibility to the draft rule.

Response: If the PM10 efficient sweeper is capable of performing the cleaning function, its use is required. If it is not capable of cleaning the material in question, then other types of sweepers/cleaners will be allowed. See Response to Comment 6; nothing in the existing or proposed regulation prevents agencies from having a mixed fleet. If there are specific applications, such as speed bumps, where conventional street sweepers may be more effective, the problem for continuing to have such conventional street sweepers in their fleet would not occur until many years in the future (e.g., 8-12 years) when the turnover of the street sweeping fleet to all PM10-efficient units would likely be nearing completion. At the next update of the PM10 Plan, the District will work with local jurisdictions to explore the possibility of an exemption which would allow at least some limited use (and procurement) of conventional PM10-efficient street sweepers under certain specific conditions. We do not believe this approach places any immediate difficulty on local jurisdictions.

Comment 8: Regarding Unpaved Roads; our previous comments focused on the need for a justification of economic infeasibility that are consistent with EPA guidance and the assumption that no additional information needs to be submitted regarding financial hardship. The District responded that “additional information will be needed over time”. Again, please clarify that the process and schedule for these financial hardship statements to be approved by the APCO in accordance with the draft regulation. It is anticipated the District will develop guidance on when and how to submit this additional information, and that this guidance will be developed as soon as possible.

Response: The District will develop criteria for reporting financial hardship outside of the rule development process since hardship will change from year to year. This will provide an opportunity to work with affected agencies and the US EPA to develop the appropriate forms and reporting timeframes. As an example consistent with EPA BACM guidance, financial hardship would need to include a demonstration of a good faith effort to secure needed funding. The first reportingResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 8

period will, at a minimum, need to coincide with plan development for the March 2006 PM10 Plan update.

County of Tulare Resource Management Agency, letter dated April 14, 2004

Comment 9: Regarding Rule 8011, section 3.43; according to the 2003 Tulare County Pavement Management System, there are 304 miles with pavement widths less than 18 feet. For some of these roads, the condition of the road is so poor that traffic drives on the dirt shoulder creating an unpaved driving condition. Please clarify if the above described condition would be classified as an unpaved

road.

Response: A poorly maintained road is not necessarily an unpaved road. If the County determines that such road no longer meets County standards for paved roads, regardless of widths, it has the authority to declare it an unpaved road. If the road users are driving on the unpaved shoulder to avoid the rough surface of the remaining pavement, we would view that activity as an unpaved road, since vehicular traffic is using the shoulder as a roadway. The District would like to reiterate that only those segments of unpaved roads that exceed the 26 AADT threshold are required to comply with the provisions of Rule 8061. Also, it is possible that a poorly maintained paved road could still meet the definition of a stabilized unpaved road as defined in section 3.59 of Rule 8011, provided traffic is using that surface.

Comment 10: Regarding Rule 8061, section 5.2.4.1.3 “Existing Roads with Unpaved Shoulders” and 5.1.1.1.1 “New Paved Roads; please confirm that for existing road segments with an AADT of 3,000 or greater require only a 4 [feet] wide paved shoulder and not an 8 foot wide shoulder. This applies to 50% of existing roads in urban areas, and 25% in rural areas. For any new or modified paved road, the requirement is to pave the lesser of 8-foot width or the right of

way.

Response: Existing paved road segments with 3,000 AADT or greater require only a 4 feet wide paved shoulder or the shoulders may be treated with chemical dust suppressants or other control methods as an option to paving.

Comment 11: Regarding Rule 8061, section 5.2.4.1.4 “Financial Hardship; please confirm that the following would be adequate for approving as a financial hardship. The County of Tulare has a backlog of $250 million in deferred road

surface maintenance and reconstruction. This amount does not include the estimated $98.7 million (excluding right of way cost) for the installation of 4 foot shoulders on 658 miles of roads with the highest AADT in rural areas. For the 6 year time period (2004 to 2009), Tulare County will have available about $57.6 million for its entire road surface maintenance program. We request that the APCO and US EPA declare the County of Tulare’s financial situation to be a hardship and wa[i]ve the requirements of section 5.2.4.1.3.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 9

Response: See Response to Comment 8. Also, regarding sections 5.2.4.1.2 and 5.2.4.1.3, District staff inadvertently omitted very significant language indicating that shoulders could be either “paved or stabilized” and not simply “constructed”,

in the December 15, 2003 and March 12, 2004 drafts of this rule. The intent of this section is to stabilize unpaved shoulders on existing paved roads, or construct paved shoulders as an option, if an agency has existing right of way or isn’t limited by environmental factors. If an agency meets the definition of a stabilized unpaved road/unpaved shoulder as specified in section 3.59 of Rule 8011, the unpaved shoulder would be compliant, as would paving. Other techniques such as the application of chemical dust suppressants, washed gravel, road mix, or recycled asphalt would also provide a stabilized surface.

Comment 12: General comment to Rule 8061; we believe by diverting road surface maintenance funds to constructing shoulder or stabilizing unpaved roads would result in additional roads with higher AADT not receiving pavement maintenance and deteriorating until they are unpaved for practical purposes. Which will add to the costs to stabilize unpaved roads and further decrease the pavement maintenance. Until ultimately, all the pavement maintenance funding could be required for stabilization and possibly not enough funding to stabilize all. We have not studied the results of this, but suspect that under this scenario, there would be more PM10 generation than under our present pavement management strategy. The end result is that Rule 8061 could actually result in producing more air pollution and contribute to the problem instead of reducing the problem. We believe there should be a cooperative effort to evaluate this probability prior to the adoption of the proposed amendments to Rule 8061.

Response: The District is not requiring any agency to divert road surface maintenance funds to construct shoulders or stabilize unpaved roads. The situation described could be part of the economic hardship justification, once the guidelines for submitting such justification have been developed. As was indicated in Response to Comment 8, we believe EPA BACM guidance clearly indicates that a governmental entity must make a good faith effort to secure the needed additional funds for this purpose. We recognize, too, that costs will certainly depend upon the mileage identified and technique used to construct or stabilize shoulders. The rule requires, on the minimum, stabilizing unpaved shoulders on 25% of Tulare County’s 658 miles of paved roads (or 131.6 miles per year on average during 2005-2010). Using the $98.7 million figure results in an annual cost of $19.74 million for each of the five years for paving unpaved shoulders (using a cost of $150,000/mile to construct 4-foot wide paved shoulders). Perhaps the most economic yet effective controls would be the use of recycled asphalt removed from road repair/rebuilding projects or using a chemical stabilizer. Using a chemical stabilizer at a cost of $8,180/road mile as used in the BACM Analysis multiplied by 131.6 miles results in a cost of $1,076,488 annually or $5,382,440 if all 658 miles were treated annually. $5,382,440 million is substantially less than the $19.74 million annually cited byResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 10

the County for paving. The chemical stabilizer used in the BACM Analysis has approximately a 1-year useful life, thus it must be reapplied annually. If the County relied solely on a chemical stabilizer, it would take approximately 18.34 years to expend the same amount it estimates for constructing paved shoulders. Using a chemical stabilizer would provide a stabilized surface that meets the definition for a stabilized unpaved road/unpaved shoulder as defined in section 3.59 of Rule 8011 thereby avoiding potential PM10 generation.

Building Industry Association of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc., via e-mail letter dated April 13, 2004

Comment 13: We suggest a 90 to 120 day period so that industry can become educated and come into compliance and would also allow for the Dust Control Training classes to be held prior to enforcement.

Response: The District is proposing October 1, 2004 as the implementation date of amendments to Regulation VIII. This will provide 107 days which should be sufficient for all affected stakeholders, including the building and construction industry, to become familiar with and transition to the new requirements.

Comment 14: We agree with and support the posting of 15 mph signage and suggest that the signs be consistent with State and Federal D.O.T. standards. We feel that signs at each entrance should suffice.

Response: We agree that signs that comply with State and Federal D.O.T standards would provide adequate signage. However, we believe the 500-foot interval of signage on uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads is appropriate for larger sites. If a site has an uncontrolled unpaved access/haul roads less than 500-feet in length, one sign at the entrance should suffice.

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) via e-mail letter dated April 14, 2004

Comment 15: Regarding Rule 8021, section 6.3.6.7; renumber as section 6.3.6.8. WSPA requests clarification on what date this provision must first be completed, how often the Class must be repeated, and what information will be taught.

Response: Section 6.3.6.7 has been re-numbered to 6.3.6.8. As noted in Response to Comment 13, the District is proposing October 1, 2004 as the implementation date of amendments to Regulation VIII. The District has informed the Building Industry Association that we will conduct informal workshops to discuss changes to Regulation VIII, including Dust Control Plan requirements prior to the October 1, 2004 implementation date. The District is still developing the specifics and contents of Dust Control Training Class. We are exploring the possibility of a classroom environment, on-site instruction, or self-teaching via theResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 11

Internet. We have not determined the frequency of classes or duration of certification; this will be determined outside of the rule development process.

Comment 16: Regarding Rule 8021, section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2; WSPA requests that the proposed language in these sections be changed by deleting the word “written”. At the April 1, 2004 workshop, District staff indicated that notification by e-mail or fax would suffice and previous Response to Comment 31 indicated that notification via telephone is also acceptable.

Response: Upon additional conversations with District Compliance staff, it is felt that written notification, via fax or letter, would provide the best information and documentation. District staff is also investigating the possibility of establishing an electronic notification procedure via the District’s website.

Comment 17: Regarding Rule 8031, section 4.2; WSPA believe this exemption applies to any landfill that is permitted by the local County Environmental Health Department and not just landfill sites; WSPA requests a comment in the staff report that clarifies this issue.

Response: See Rule 8011, sections 3.27 and 3.28, Landfill Daily Cover and Landfill Disposal Site; respectively. Note that section 3.28 does not differentiate between public or private owned/operated landfill sites. The exemption at section 4.2 of Rule 8031 applies only to the spreading daily landfill cover.

Comment 18: Regarding Rule 8041, section 5.8.1.4; This requirement is unreasonable for our industry as we have many miles of existing interior paved roads that have existing dirt road intersections. The intent of Rule 8041 is to prevent or limit carryout out and trackout onto public roads which have a much higher VDT ability to create fugitive dust. District staff at the April 1, 2004 workshop indicated that this section was included with construction activities in mind; WSPA requests that this section be revised to be more specific to residential construction trackout or the ending “and” in section 5.8.1.3 be

returned to “or”.

Response: We have revised section as follows to provide clarification. Sections 5.8.1.1 and 5.8.1.2 will remain as they are. Section 5.8.1.2 will end with a “period”. If the techniques in sections 5.8.1.1 and 5.8.1.2 are insufficient to prevent carryout/trackout, section 5.8.2 will apply. Section 5.8.1.3 and 5.8.1.4 will be incorporated into section 5.9.3. Section 5.9.3 applies to the first 100 feet of a paved interior road where it intersects with a public paved road. As specified in section 5.9.3, any carryout or trackout accumulating on the first 100 feet of a paved interior road must still be removed with sufficient frequency, but still not less than once per day, to prevent carryout and trackout onto paved public roads.

Comment 19: Rule 8061, section 4.1.2; WSPA request that this section be revised to change the wording to require providing the APCD with data only forResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 12

unpaved road segments with less than 26 AADT and that the District provide information on how to demonstrate the 26 AADT thresholds. In addition, WSPA requests that owners/operators of unpaved road segments have one year after rule adoption to provide this data.

Response: The District is revising section 4.1.2 to require owners of unpaved roads with 26 or more AADT to submit actual or estimated vehicle trip data to the APCO by July 1, 2005. Failure to provide this data will result in District enforcement action. Discovery of unreported unpaved roads with 26 or more AADT by District compliance staff will also result in District enforcement action.

Comment 20: Regarding Table 6 of the Socioeconomic Analysis. WSPA estimates that between 10-20 miles of existing dirt roads over 26 AADT will be paved per year within our industry. At approximately $50,000/mile for paving, this cost will be at least $500,000/year. WSPA recommends that the minimum Table 6 estimate for our industry be changed to $1,000,000 per year.

Response: We have revised Table 6 of the Socioeconomic Analysis as suggested. We thank W SPA for providing this updated information.

County of San Joaquin, Public Works Department, letter dated April 14,

2004

Comment 21: Rule 8061, section 5.1.1.1.1; resurfacing projects should not be considered a modification to existing roads as this is a maintenance activity.

Response: Please refer to Rule 8011, section 3.32, Modified Road. Resurfacing is considered a maintenance activity and does not have to comply with the provisions of section 5.1.1.1.1 of Rule 8061.

Comment 22: Rule 8061, section 5.2.4; Unpaved shoulders shall be referred to as unstabilized shoulders. Requirement should be to stabilize shoulders, not

pave.

Response: Concur. See Response to Comment 11.

Comment 23: General note, there are not sufficient funds or personnel to comply with these rules and regulations at this time. The limits outlined in this rule should

be reduced.

Response: Section 5.2.4.1.4 of Rule 8061 contains a provision if the requirements of section 5.2.4.1.2 or 5.2.4.1.3 cannot be met due to budgetary constraints. Please see Responses to Comments 8 and 12.

Clean Water and Air Matter (C.W.A.M.), letter received November 6, 2003 and addendum received December 2, 3003 [Letter was inadvertently excludedResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 13

in Response to Comments from December 15, 2003 draft of Regulation VIII amendments.]

Comment 24: Regulation VIII offers no methods for efficient enforcement of the Rule. The District should require notification from any city or county located within the District whenever grading permits are issued by the city or county. This “Notice of a Project” shall state, among other things, the location of the project, estimated time of completion, contractor knowledge of required dust control measures and the name of the applicant with contact numbers for all involved parties, including the permitting agency. This process would allow District inspectors to schedule inspection of the project site thereby eliminating the current complaint based system.

Response: The District is proposing to lower the Dust Control Plan provision

contained in Rule 8021 from 40 acres to 10.0 or more acres for residential construction projects and 5.0 or more acres for non-residential construction (i.e., commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.) projects. The District will also require written notification of projects below these respective thresholds. As noted in the 2003 PM10 Plan, “The District proposes to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement through several action that include an increased presence of Compliance Division staff in the field, increased use of Dust Control Plans, increased compliance assistance, and greater public outreach.” The District has investigated dust control programs in other serious nonattainment areas such as Las Vegas, Maricopa, and South Coast AQMD and is developing a compliance program appropriate for our air basin. We believe this approach will provide adequate pre-construction activity notification to the District that will subsequently allow our inspectors enough information to visit construction sites prior to and during active periods. We believe the notification procedures in contained in Rule 8021 are sufficient and do not believe it is necessary to receive additional notification from all of our 59 cities and eight counties local governments located within the District. Sites that do not submit a dust control plan are still subject to the control requirements and nuisance prohibitions so enforcement would occur on a complaint basis or when District inspectors see a violation while in the field.

Comment 25: An area of concern is the dust generated by Off Road Vehicles (ORV) specifically for recreational use. It seems the current regulations only recognize emissions from tailpipes. It does not address the larger and more severe issue of the impacts that arise from unsupervised use of the ORV. Most riders trespass on private land to recreate and create significant amounts of PM10 without any enforcement tools beyond claims of trespass; because of absentee landlords, there is no knowledge of trespass unless local residents notify law enforcement. This method once again relies upon a complaint based enforcement system without recognition of the larger problem. Clear direction is needed from the District regarding containment, evaluation, and eventual subsidence of this activity except in designated, controlled areas.Responses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 14

Response: District rule 8051, Table 8051-B1 and B2 contain provisions regarding trespass in open areas that property owners must comply with. Other air districts have reported difficulty in enforcing this type of regulation due to the insolated nature of sites, enforcement staff’s inability to timely respond to complaints, lack of authority to enforce trespass laws, and repeated illegal entry even when “No Trespassing” signs are posted or gates, fences, chains block access to a site. Law enforcement agencies generally do not have the resources to prioritize responding to citizen complaints regarding ORV activity in open areas. The District is committed to making every effort to enforce this and other Regulation VIII provisions.

Comment 26: An area of concern which is not delineated within either rule 8051 (Open Areas) of Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads) is the land adjacent to railroad tracks that are not covered with gravel. Once trains are running at upper speed, plumes of dust circle up from the tracks sending untold levels of particulate matter into the air. For cost effectiveness, either chemical suppressants where there is no automobile access to the siding area or gravel where there is automobile traffic would help to contain this source of dust.

Response: There is currently no emissions inventory for train wake emissions from land adjacent to railroad tracks. EPA guidance for BACM level controls require identification of de minimis sources before BACM controls are imposed on fugitive dust sources that are not de minimis. De minimis criteria thresholds for source categories are contributions of 1μg/m 3 based on the annual average PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 5 μg/m 3 based on the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Without an emissions inventory to validate the fugitive dust contribution from land adjacent to railroad tracks, the District does not currently have a foundation to regulate this source. The District will pursue developing an emissions inventory category for entrained PM10 emissions from land adjacent to railroad tracks.

Comment 27: Data is available from the air pollution monitoring station on Golden State Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield, that shows higher than average levels of PM10 at that location. This issue was raised by Council Member Maggard in public meetings before the City Council and Board of Supervisors. The point that dust generated by the trains is significant enough to generate higher readings is well taken. Although the number isn’t verified, approximately 40 trains per day come down from the Tehachapi Loop. The by-product of trains in the terms of PM10 generated is an area that needs to be addressed.

Response: While it is accurate that the District’s ambient air monitoring station located on Golden State Avenue in Bakersfield has some of the highest PM10 readings in the Air Basin, it is not possible to conclude that dust generated by trains is a significant contributor. Speciation shows that ambient air samples contain geologic sources as well as other PM10 sources; although geologic contributions are usually the highest of all PM10 sources when high readingsResponses to Comments on the August 19, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 15

occur at the Golden State Avenue site. However, it is impossible to determine if dust generated by trains is the most significant contributor because other geologic sources such as farming, construction, entrainment of paved and unpaved road dust, etc. also contribute.This Page Intentionally BlankResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 1

Responses to Comments on the Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII

Following are the comments received regarding the December 15, 2003 draft Amendments to Regulation VIII. Most comments have been paraphrased for the sake of brevity; other comments have been consolidated when similar concerns, questions, issues, suggestions, etc. were raised. The comments received (in their entirety) are available upon request at the District’s Central Office.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), via e-mail received January 15, 2004

Comment 1: [Regarding Rule 8011, section 3.72] The definition of what constitutes a wind event should indicate the equipment the District will use to make this determination (e.g.; according to the nearest CARB or District monitoring station or from a certified meteorological station).

Response: The District has investigated several options in defining a “wind

event.” Some air districts use the National Weather Services while others use air monitoring stations or site-specific hand-held anemometers or other portable wind measuring devices. Due to the size of the basin, meteorological conditions can vary substantially from place to place within the District. Unlike other air basins, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin infrequently experiences wind speeds at or exceeding 25 MPH and when high wind conditions occur they are of short duration. As we have not experienced many high wind condition days and we do not anticipate many high wind conditions days, the District will not pursue defining “wind events”. In our opinion, not defining a wind event with a specific speed, location, or duration provides superior coverage because regardless of speed, location, or duration, an owner/operation must effectively control VDE

emissions or cease outdoor activities. The District will revise “wind event requirements” to read “wind generated fugitive dust requirements” and retain

section 5.5 of Rule 8021. Draft sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 will be consolidated assection 5.5.1 minus “wind event” language, and draft section 5.5.3 will be reenumerated as section 5.5.2.

Comment 2: [Regarding Rule 8031, Table 8031-1 and Rule 8081, Table 8081-1] Measure B4 should be combined with Measure B3, which requires dust suppression in addition to wind barriers for open storage piles. EPA raised this as an approvability issue for a previous draft version of Rule 8031 that preceded the adopted November 2001 rule.

Response: The District has a performance based rule. If barriers are inadequate to control emissions to a level below the opacity limits, then operators would be required to apply additional control. Keep in mind that the San JoaquinResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 2

Valley has some of the lowest average wind speeds in the country; therefore, unlike desert areas this is not a major problem in this air basin.

Comment 3: [Regarding Rule 8041, section 5.9.2] The District submittals lack explanation justifying revising the gravel pad specifications from a 6-inch dept gravel pad to a 3-inch depth gravel pad.

Response: The District submitted a justification in the BACM analysis contained in the 2003 PM10 as Appendix G. See discussion 2d. In light of this analysis, we believe a 3-inch depth gravel pad would suffice.

Comment 4: [Rule 8041, section 5.8.1.2] This section contains Executive Officer discretion without specifying how the District would make this determination.

Response: The District places the burden of demonstrating alternative equivalent or greater levels of control on the owner/operator. Engineering estimates, citation of appropriate research/study results, other state or federal emission control/generation estimation methods, etc. are all generally acceptable

forms of demonstration. Also, the District will amend this section to include US EPA approval.

Comment 5: [Rule 8041, section 5.8.1.3] This section allows owners/operators to substitute compliance with Rule 8041 trackout prevention requirements by complying with rule 8031 requirements to prevent spillage of material from haul trucks. Requirements for trackout prevention address the accumulation and deposition of dirt and mud from vehicle tires, as opposed to material spillage. As these measures constitute two separate BACM requirements and the District’s BACM analysis indicates both are feasible, this section should be eliminated from

the rule.

Response: We concur, draft section 5.8.1.3 has been removed.

Comment 6: Rule 8061 lacks one of the paved road measures adopted by the District in its plan commitments for Rule 8061. “Obtain commitments from municipalities to construct 4-foot paved shoulders on 50% of existing paved roads with the highest ADT in urban areas and on 25% of the existing paved roads with the highest ADT in rural areas.” The District needs to indicate whether this commitment will be met through Rule 8061 according to the schedule provided in the plan or in a format outside of Rule 8061 (e.g.; adoption of city and county ordinances).

Response: We have added draft section 5.2.4 for existing paved public roads with unpaved shoulders in urban and rural areas

. These commitments will also be met through a schedule provided by local agencies as specified in the 2003

PM10 Plan.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 3

Comment 7: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.3] A BACM demonstration is necessary to support an exemption for deposits less than 50 square feet.

Response: The purpose of using 50 square feet was to draw an analogy to the 50-foot trackout requirement, assuming that a 50-foot distance when multiplied by the tire widths (assumed to be 1 foot width for two tires (left and right)) would be 50 square feet. Because runoff can go completely across the roadway, it was felt that 50 square feet is the more appropriate measure for this circumstance, but equivalent in de minimis justification to the 50-foot trackout limit.

Comment 8: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.3.1.2] The rule allows five years for cities and counties to pave 20% of a maximum of 5 miles of unpaved roads within their jurisdictions, following the January 2005 deadline in section 5.2.3.1.1 for agencies to identify unpaved roads. The Clean Air Act requires BACM to be implemented as expeditiously as practicable. We believe the District should examine the feasibility of shortening the deadline by 2 years (i.e., 2008).

Response: We disagree. Many of the jurisdictions have indicated existing and uncertain financial hardships. We believe the larger jurisdictions, where the largest population bases are located, will be able to achieve the 20% earlier than the January 2010 goal. However, it will remain difficult but achievable for the smaller jurisdictions to meet the 2010 timeframe. We maintain that this timeframe does not stray from the expeditiously as practicable intent of the Clean Air Act given the financial hardship it will cause in some jurisdictions. The District will work with the local agencies to help prioritize projects and to identify additional funding sources to meet the targets. Also, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) established a one-mile-per year requirement in their Rule 1186. By having a limit of 5 miles over a five-year period, with required incremental progress, the requirements of section 5.2.3.1.2 are essentially similar to those established by SCAQMD.

Comment 9: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.3.1.4] This section allows cities and counties to apply for an exemption by submitting to the District a statement of financial hardship. The rule provides Executive Officer discretion without specifying criteria for approval of financial hardship statements received.

Response: We do not believe it would be appropriate to include the criteria as part of this rule; however, the criteria will be developed at the policy level prior to determining financial hardship. The District will also work with EPA in developing such criteria, as guidance for local governments.

Comment 10: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.1] While this section requires cities and counties to determine urban roads subject to section 5.2.3.1.2, it does not require cities and counties to determine public urban and rural unpaved roads with less than 26 AADT. This is needed to demonstrate implementation of this rule requirement and committed measure PA-4 of the Supplemental BACM.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 4

Response: The District is working with the local agencies responsible for the roads to identify roads subject to the rule provisions. Trip rates for roads serving residential subdivisions can be estimated on a per house basis from traffic studies used for project approval or Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Data for roads serving recreational areas can be based usage statistics for the facilities. Trip rates for commercial or industrial sites may be available from traffic studies conducted for their land use permits or from ITE

rates.

Comment 11: [Rule 8071, section 4.1] The exemption should be revised to apply to “unpaved vehicle and equipment traffic areas on any day on which that receive less than 50 AADT occur” for consistency with the rule’s requirement.

Response: This section has been revised by replacing “...on any day...” with “...whenever...” throughout each section where this language occurs. We believe this allows for consistency with the rule’s requirement.

Comment 12: [Rule 8071, section 5.0] The rules should contain a provision as to how public agencies or the District will determine which publicly owned unpaved parking lots are subject to the rule.

Response: The rule does not distinguish between public or private parking lots; the provisions of this section apply to all public or private parking lots. The District will determine if the trip thresholds are being exceeded based on observations in

the field.

Comment 13: [Rule 8081, section 4.4] We ask for clarification as to whether the District intends to exclude haul trucks traveling 3 miles per hour or less with this exemption and the means by which the District will determine vehicle speed for purposes of determining the vehicle trip count. Additional information from the District is required in order for us to evaluate the impact of this exemption.

Response: The intent of section 4.4 is to exclude equipment used for loading or unloading, such as forklifts, harvesters, or other similar equipment that travel 3 miles per hour or less. A haul truck is not considered this type of equipment, thus it would not qualify for an exemption.

Comment 14: [Rule 8081, section 4.9] Trackout removal/cleanup and trackout prevention constitute two separate BACM. The District has not provided an analysis demonstrating it is not feasible for agricultural sources subject to proposed Rule 4550 [(Conservation Management Practices)] measures to also be subject to Rule 8081, section 5.4 requirements concerning CVC trackout removal requirements. We believe this section should be removed.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 5

Response: The preventive measures will be included in the Conservation Management Practices of Rule 4550 for interfaces of unpaved roads with paved public roads. Construction sites are different than farms. In most cases, farmers avoid taking implements of husbandry on public paved roads. Farmers that must travel on public paved roads to access the next field do not repeatedly enter the same point in a way that would result in significant track out quantities. End of row turnarounds onto the paved roads are also not common practice due to safety considerations. Compare this to track out problems on construction sites where numerous vehicles and haul trucks exit from a single access road from disturbed surfaces that are often wet. On the limited days when trackout may occur on the farm, the existing provisions of the CVC provide an adequate mechanism to ensure cleanup from farms. Construction sites in the urban area and large construction sites in the rural area are likely to have high traffic volumes that will entrain the road dust and expose nearby receptors to elevated

PM10 concentrations.

Comment 15: [Rule 8081, section 5.4] The actual language of CVC section 23112-231133 should be placed into the rule.

Response: We do not agree. We believe incorporating the provisions of CVC

sections 23112-23113 is sufficient.

County of Stanislaus, Public Works Department, letter dated 1/6/04.

Comment 16: [Rule 8061, section 5.1] Does base rock qualify as paving? The

definition seems to indicate that it does.

Response: The definition for paved road in Rule 8011, section 3.43 does not explicitly include base rock as paving. However, the use of base rock would meet the requirements of a stabilized surface as specified in Rule 8061.

Comment 17: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.1] Who will perform opacity tests? What about reporting?

Response: The owner/operator may want to perform opacity tests to ensure that they are in compliance. There are no reporting requirements for opacity. District compliance staff may perform opacity tests when inspecting a site or responding to a complaint. Whether that individual is a District representative or a representative of the owner/operator of a site where an opacity test would be conducted, only individuals certified to read opacity could perform opacity tests.

Comment 18: The Storm Water Management Division commented that a provision [should] be added to protect any storm drainage system or waterway from the runoff of silt, soil, or other deleterious materials resulting from water used to control dust or when washing down impervious areas.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 6

Response: We concur, a provision will be added to Rule 8041, section 5.0 and as draft section 5.7.4 to protect storm water drainage system/waterways as suggested by the commenter.

Kern County Waste Management Department, letter dated 1/05/04

Comment 19: [Rule 8011, section 3.8] The current definition of carryout and trackout should be refined to differentiate between visible “staining” of the road surface due to trackout and the presence of material that is capable of being entrained by passing vehicles. It is recommended that the definition of carryout and trackout be restricted to loose material deposited on a paved public road or paved shoulder of a paved public road that can be entrained into the air by a passing vehicle.

Response: We do not believe a definition which would incorporate staining is necessary. Staining would not result in visible dust emissions.

Comment 20: [Rule 8021, section 5.3.1] It is unclear as to which vehicles would be limited to a 15 mph speed limit. We estimate that a 15 mph limit on earthmoving equipment could increase construction costs 30% or more. It is recommended that the rule provide an exemption if the construction project has a dust control plan that includes dust mitigation measures that would limit VDE at speeds above 15 mph.

Response: The intent of section 5.3.1 is to limit vehicle speeds on uncontrolled, unpaved roads. The section has been revised to reflect this intent. Earthmoving equipment operating outside of an uncontrolled, unpaved road must still comply with the 20% opacity limitation. The selection of a technique, whether it is speed reduction, wetting, etc. remains at the discretion of the owner/operator.

Comment 21: [Rule 8021, section 6.3.7] Additional information is requested on the requirements of a Dust Control Training Class. Specifically, when would a class be required, would the individual(s) attending the class be certified and if so, how long would the certification last.

Response: The District will conduct Dust Control Training Class on an as needed basis upon Governing Board adoption of the amendments to Regulation VIII. We are exploring certification and duration of certification. Other air districts accept attendance at a dust control training class as sufficient to obtain a certification. Individuals must attend another dust control training class once every two-to-three years.

Comment 22: [Rule 8041, section 5.6] This section can be interpreted to say that any site that has a paved interior road must install one of the trackout controls stipulated in section 5.8. This does not take into account the size of the site, vehicle traffic from the site or other conditions that would not necessarily requireResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 7

trackout control. We suggest that this section is redundant and unnecessary in light of the requirements of sections 5.1 and 5.2.

Response: The commenter’s interpretation is incorrect. The intent of section 5.6 is to require removal of carryout/trackout that is occurring on interior paved roads. An interior paved road can accumulate significant carryout/trackout which could ultimately render useless its effectiveness as a preventative measure. In order to prevent this from occurring, accumulation of material deposited on an interior paved road should be removed as specified in section 5.8.1.

Comment 23: [Rule 8041, section 5.7] At rural sites, mechanical sweepers are not readily available and manual sweeping on a roadway is unsafe. Therefore, it is recommended that at rural sites, where there are no curb and gutters or regulatory restrictions, the use of water flushing should be included as an approved method for carryout and trackout removal in accordance with section

5.1.

Response: District staff is evaluating this control option. Using water flushing may be appropriate in rural areas, however, questions remain on the potential of soil/silt impacts on storm water drainage systems. If water flushing becomes an option, the water must not create a potential source of trackout material, must not adversely impact storm water drainage systems, nor violate any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. Also, techniques to prevent carryout/trackout are encouraged over mitigative techniques, thereby further reducing the potential for vehicle conflicts with manual street sweepers.

Comment 24: [Rule 8041, sections 5.9.1 and 5.9.2] This requirement is unnecessary if a site has a paved exit that intersects the public road. If the paved exit is less than 100 feet, a trackout device should be placed at a greater distance from the intersection to allow any residual carryout/trackout to be removed by the remaining paved interior road. We believe that the intent of the rule is for unpaved interior roads to have carryout/trackout controls at the intersection with the paved public road.

Response: If an owner/operator chooses to implement section 5.9.3 as his/her preventative techniques, paving must be at least 100 feet long or the owner/operator would be in violation of this section. The commenter is correct, the intent is for carryout/trackout control devices to begin at the intersection of the paved public road and run the length specified in section 5.9.1 if using a grizzly, section 5.9.2 if using a gravel pad, or 5.9.3 if using a paved road.

Independent Oil Producers Agency (IOPA), letter dated 1/05/04

Comment 25: [Rule 8021, section 6.3.7] This requirement that a key individual representing the owner/operator must complete a Dust Control Training Class conducted by the District is very onerous and costly to Small Producers. WeResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 8

recommend that this section be clarified to state that a representative for a number of companies, or an employee of the construction contractor, be designated to take this training.

Response: The District is still developing the specifics of Dust Control Training Class procedures. We are developing Dust Control Plan templates to simplify plan preparation as much as possible. We believe the language contained in this section provides the latitude for an owner/operator to select an appropriate representative.

Comment 26: [Rule 8061, section 4.1.2] The addition of this section is very onerous for small producers. It implies that vehicle traffic must be counted on a daily basis. The section needs to be clarified, stating that owners will be able to submit a letter providing estimated AADT.

Response: The intent of section 4.1.2 is for the operator to provide data on potential AADT. Based upon the land use and resultant traffic generated by it, a statement from an owner estimating the AADT should satisfy the data requirements of this section. For an operating oil field, perhaps an estimate based on the service schedule, the average number of wells serviced per day, and the number of vehicles used to accomplish the service could be used.

State of California, Caltrans, letters dated 1/02/04

Comment 27: [Rule 8021, section 5.0] Requirement should add verbiage to state that the requirement is to limit VDE to 20 % opacity where necessary.

Response: Section 5.0 contains language requiring the limitation of VDE to 20% opacity, additional verbiage is not necessary since it is understood that one would only control where necessary.

Comment 28: [Rule 8021, section 5.3.1] for construction projects limiting vehicle speeds to 15 mph should only be required if the VDE is being exceeded at higher speeds. Through compaction and watering many of the haul roads within a construction site may be sufficiently stabilized to accommodate speed exceeding 15 mph. This control measure should be an option to control dust and not a requirement.

Response: See Response to Comment 20.

Comment 29: [Rule 8021, section 5.4.1] The District should not be requiring speed limits on construction sites [that are 10 acres or greater]. Again, this control measure should be an option to control dust and not a requirement.

Response: See Response to Comment 20.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 9

Comment 30: [Rule 8021, section 6.3.1] Requiring Dust Control Plans to this magnitude will backlog the District with paperwork and will also place significant workloads on state and governmental agencies. It is speculative as to whether or not the District will be able to provide approval in sufficient time for the multitude of projects that will be under review. It may be in the District’s best interest to revisit its determination between rural and commercial developments and maintain the current threshold for county and state road projects. The District should also consider the financial as well as budget constraints placed on local and state agencies.

Response: We are revising section 6.3.1 with language that will result in automatic approval if the District does not respond to a Dust Control Plan within 30-days. We are developing Dust Control Plan templates to simplify plan preparation and review; this should shorten both preparation and review time thereby lessening potential financial and workload impacts.

Comment 31: [Rule 8021, section 5.4] Notification of earthmoving should be included in the DCP as required for the acres defined in Regulation VIII. Although the notification process is speculative, it would appear notification outside the DCP is excessive and the current requirements in regulation to prevent carryout and trackout as well as limit the VDE should sufficiently cover the rules.

Response: Notification (via telephone call, e-mail, or fax) for projects outside of DCP acreage will provide information on active sites to the District. This will enable Compliance staff to visit such sites while out on inspections and provide a record if the District were to receive complaints from the public. Absent this system, the District would have to require DCPs on all sites regardless of size; as

is the case for other serious PM10 nonattainment areas.

Comment 32: [Rule 8021, section 5.5.2] The declaration of a wind event may not be specific to a construction location. The 20% opacity rule should be combined to read the following: “Cease construction activities that disturb the soil when a

wind event is declared and activities that disturb the soil cannot limit VDE to20% opacity .”

Response: We do not agree. We believe that, as written, the language conveys

the intent of this section which is to cease construction activities whenever an owner/operator is not successful while using a control technique to limit VDE to 20% opacity and attempts to continue operations. If the control technique is

ineffective, activities must cease.

Comment 33: [Rule 8021, section 5.5.3] This section should read “Require continued operation of water trucks to stabilize the surface or limit VDE to 20% opacity, when construction ceases due to wind, unless unsafe to do so.”Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 10

Response: On the minimum, section 5.0 requires limiting VDE to 20% opacity. In certain circumstances, a stabilized surface is also required. District staff is uncertain if the commenter is suggesting that the District incorporate a stabilized surface to this requirement.

Comment 34: [Rule 8041, section 5.9.1] The minimum length and width should remain under the use of gravel as a control option. If the control is not sufficiently preventing trackout, then the combination of control options or a minimum width and length should be applied. It is also important to visualize a 25ft wheel washer or a 25ft grizzly, both large and unnecessary. This amendment also defines a minimum length that may not be technically feasible due to location. The District currently requires maintaining “sufficient length” to control carryout and trackout; this current rule is adequate.

Response: The BACM Analysis contained in the 2003 PM10 relies on the experience of other areas that have found that, on a minimum, 50 feet is the length necessary to adequately remove trackout. Section 5.8.2 requires removal of carryout and trackout within 1⁄2 hour if the control option selected in 5.8.1, including gravel pads, is insufficient. Nothing in the rule limits the use of one option; an owner/operator may select one or more of the control techniques to prevent and/or mitigate carryout/trackout. If a location limits the use of a control technique, an owner/operator has two options: select an alternative technique suitable for the location, or use the selected technique and implement cleanup within 1⁄2 hour of deposition of material on a public paved road.

County of Fresno, letter dated 12/22/04

Comment 35: [Rule 8011, section 3.32] The County suggests the following clarification to the definition of “modified”: Any road that is widened or improves so as to increase traffic capacity or that has been reconstructed. This term does not include road maintenance, repair, chip seal, pavement or roadbed rehabilitation that does not affect roadway geometrics , or surface overlay work.” The proposed change will not affect the intent of the rule, which appropriately excludes conventionally defined road maintenance activities that do not change the characteristic of the roadway. Maintenance reconstruction in Fresno County is done most commonly on low-volume roads, using day-labor forces. The type of rehabilitation does not alter use, capacity, geometry, or roadway characteristics.

Response: We concur; the definition has been revised as suggested.

Comment 36: [Rule 8061, section 4.1] The rule exemption threshold for unpaved road segments is proposed to be reduced from 75 AADT to less than 26 AADT. At the 26 AADT threshold, the rule application will be potentially financially prohibitive for the majority of rural applications, regardless of jurisdiction or responsibility, but especially for private roads.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 11

Response: To clarify, the current vehicle threshold is based on daily, peak traffic activity levels to capture trips on the actual days they occur, thus a vehicle daily trip threshold of 75. The revision to the threshold is intended to capture vehicle trips generated throughout the year divided by the total number days in the year, thus 26 AADT. At 26 AADT, this equals approximately 9,490 total vehicle trips if the average daily vehicle trip rate is achieved. The District recognizes that rural residential uses on dirt roads with steady, year round use are likely to exceed this threshold with as few as three or four dwellings depending on the trip rate assigned per dwelling unit.

In the 2003 PM20 Plan Supplemental BACM Analysis, we assumed the use of a chemical dust suppressant to achieve control. The cost, approximately $3,000/ton of PM10 removed, is well below the District’s cost-effectiveness threshold of $5,700/ton. As noted in the 2003 PM10 Plan Supplemental BACM Analysis, District staff will consider alternatives to implementing this provision to reduce impacts on both public road agencies and private road owners.

Comment 37: [Rule 8061, section 4.1] The socio-economic analysis that will follow this initial screening of draft rules must take the rural impact of a 26 AADT

threshold into account.

Response: The intent of the socio-economic impact analysis is to evaluate region-wide impacts caused by amendments to the regulation. It is not intended to evaluate impacts on individuals; the cost-effectiveness analysis provides a reasonable indicator on potential costs. Also, cost impacts will vary based on the control technique implemented. As with many control techniques, the initial application costs may appear to be expensive; however, an owner/operator must evaluate the financial impact he/she is willing to sustain. Will costs be paid “upfront” for a more durable, permanent control technique which may have a lifetime of many years (e.g., paving), or will costs be accrued incrementally as less permanent, short duration control techniques with durability limited to hours (e.g., watering)? Paving or treating the unpaved roads also provides benefits to the homeowners in terms of safety, convenience, and less personal exposure to PM10 from their own road. Regardless of technique utilize, the rule requires compliance with the 20% VDE limitation and stabilized surface standards and provides a variety of control options whose costs will vary.

Comment 38: The increased applicability of Rule 8061 to private roads also surfaces questions of enforcement and responsibility—how and by whom will the rule be interpreted and enforced, especially private uses already in existence? On what authority might mechanisms for establishing responsibility and cost sharing for private road users be developed?

Response: The current version of the rule already requires controls for private roads at the higher threshold of 75 trips per day. District staff will be responsible for enforcing the rule. Regarding responsibility and cost sharing, the SupplementResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 12

BACM Analysis discusses the District’s receptiveness to requiring control only to that portion of a shared private unpaved road where the AADT threshold is reached/exceeded. Since all road users share at least a portion of the unpaved road, controlling only the portion of the unpaved road where the threshold is reached/exceeded would reduce control cost. Using this approach would be a fair way of allocating and spreading the costs for treating the portion of the unpaved road that is travel upon by all.

Comment 39: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.2] The language and the intent of the draft rule remain unclear. Is the rule to be interpreted as a requirement to prioritize and sweep urban roads that are not now swept on a regular basis, or focused on change-out of equipment to PM10 efficient street sweepers?

Response: The rule should be viewed in its entirety. Section 5.1.2.1 requires an agency or its contractor to purchases only PM10-efficient street sweepers after July 1, 2005. Existing non-PM10 efficient street sweepers can continue to be used, if preceded by wetting, until they are replaced by PM10-efficient street sweepers. Section 5.1.2.2 requires an agency or its contractor to prioritize routes where PM10-efficient street sweepers should be used; it’s entirely an agency’s or its contractor’s determination. Section 5.1.2.3 requires the purchase of at least one PM10-efficient street sweeper, again by an agency or its contractor, not later than July 1, 2008 (approximately 5 years following adoption of the 2003 PM10 Plan). Section 5.1.2.4 requires the use of PM10-efficient street sweepers at least once per month on the routes determined by an agency or its contractor.

Comment 40: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.2] Fresno County currently provides for sweeping of 21 miles of roadway in the Fresno/Clovis metropolitan area on urban type streets maintained by the County. Through a contract, urban area sweeping may also be performed on an as-needed basis, which could be construed as a “prioritization” process. How will the frequency requirement be interpreted toaffect County operations where majority use of sweeping contracts is on an oncall basis?

Response: As noted in Response to Comment 39, an agency or its contractor shall prioritize the routes where PM10-efficient street sweepers should be used. If the agency or contractor determine, and provides documentation that none of the 21 miles of urban type streets requires monthly street sweeping, then the agency/contractor has fulfilled the requirements of section 5.1.2.3. Responding to as-needed street sweeping does not fulfill the prioritization requirement.

Comment 41: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.2] The rule should also specifically exclude uncurbed pavements from sweeping requirements. Uncurbed locations do not retain roadway debris to the same extent as curbed locations. Air turbulence from passing vehicles tends to remove dry material from the roadway to adjacent shoulders.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 13

Response: Comment noted, the section has been revised to apply to roads with curbed pavement. However, it should be noted that wet material is not removed by air turbulence, it is merely spread out. When it eventually dries, air turbulence will entrain the material which may settle adjacent to a road or remain entrained thus contributing to the PM10 problem. Removing the material when it is still wet is a preventative measure to minimize entrainment as the material dries.

Comment 42: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.3] Removal of dirt/debris from roadways within 24 ours of notification after a major storm event is infeasible. Storms, especially severe events, may cause widespread multiple incidents of damage, flooding, or debris deposit, that are managed on a priority basis to the full extent that staffing and available equipment allow. Public safety is, appropriately, the first priority. Existing staff and equipment, even if fully utilized on an emergency basis, would not permit 24-hour removal Countywide in major events.

Response: In the event of a major storm event where severe or widespread multiple incidents of damage, flooding or debris deposit were to occur, Rule 8011, section 4.1 provides an exemption for emergency activities to ensure public health and safety. Such emergency activities would be exempt from Regulation VIII requirements for 30 days, or longer if necessary, to ensure an emergency activity is effectively performed to ensure public health and safety. The intent of section 5.1.3 is to prompt agencies responsible for paved roads to initiate a response when material, mostly in the form of mud/silt, occurs as a

result of storm or wind action.

As specified in section 5.1.3.1, upon 24-hours of discovery, not within 24-hours of the event, an agency should initiate an action to close off travel lanes covered by the debris or to begin removing the debris from travel lanes. Once the discovery has been made, this section requires completion of clean up or lane closure within 24-hours, however, District staff is evaluating a longer clean up period.

Section 5.1.3.3 states that in the event of unsafe travel conditions resulting from restricting vehicular traffic, an extension for completing removal of material can be extended by 72-hours. District staff is also evaluating extending this period to a longer timeframe.

Comment 43: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.3] The provision for an authorized extension to 72 hours upon notification and approval by the APCO is not realistic during a major storm event. Widespread emergency demands on public service, with public safety the first concern, would put seeking approval from the Air District at a low priority. An exemption for major storm events should be written into the regulation.

Response: See Response to Comment 42. An exemption for a major storm event is not necessary. Rule 8011 contains a provision to allow exemption of Regulation VIII requirements to ensure public health and safety in the form ofResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 14

emergency activities by an agency. However, following a less than major storm event that results in mud/silt being deposited on paved travel lanes and if an agency does not take action within 24-hours of discovery and does not notify the District that such mud/silt can be removed within 24-hours, the agency leaves itself open to District enforcement action.

Comment 44: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.4] The expectation that posting speed limit signs on unpaved roads will lower vehicle speeds is inconsistent with our long experience of traffic operations on rural roads, and remains difficult to credit. Unpaved roads are, almost by definition, low-volume locations. Requiring 25 MPH speed zone posting will result in a proliferation of signs, and increased cost to both public agencies and private parties, with no likely measurable effect on either speeds or emissions.

Response: Comment noted. The BACM Analysis contained in the 2003 PM10 Plan confirms that reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads effectively reduces PM10 emissions. It also notes that no greater than 25% of all drivers will comply with a 25 MPH speed limit; therefore, our estimated emission reductions from this control technique accounts for less than 100% compliance.

The District will be seeking information from agencies regarding 25 MPH speed limits. Can it be assumed that unless otherwise posted, that 25 MPH is the maximum speed on rural unpaved roads? We believe that 25 MPH is the default limit for residential areas, would rural unpaved roads also fall within this category? Would it be possible for agencies, particularly County agencies, to adopt a default 25 MPH limit on all unpaved roads unless otherwise posted?

Comment 45: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.5] The prevalence of applicability to private roads, as defined, will also make enforcement problematic. The proposal to change the CVC to allow implementation of vehicle speed limits on unpaved roads does not address how these regulations will be applied to private roads, which are currently not under the jurisdiction of the CHP or CVC except under

certain defined circumstances.

Response: The District has the authority to enforce its rules and regulations via the California Health and Safety Code. Although we do not have the authority to enforce speed limits, we are capable of using “speed guns” to record a vehicle’s speed and our inspectors are certified by the California Air Resources Board to evaluate visible emissions. As there is a direct correlation of vehicle speed and the amount of dust entrained, visible dust emissions from vehicles traveling greater than 25 MPH will be noticeably greater than vehicle traveling less than 25 MPH. We can then exercise our authority to enforce the 20% VDE limitation and cite potential violators.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 15

ChevronTexaco, letter dated 12/19/02

Comment 46: [Rule 8021, sections 5.3, 5.4, and 6.3] These sections are specific to construction. Consequently, our interpretation is that drilling activities do not constitute construction and that these sections do not apply. Other requirements, such as watering earthmoving activities to keep VDE to 20% or less, apply. We request that the District concur with our assessment. We also wish to clarify that section 6.3.7 (required District training) does not apply to activities which do not require a Dust Control Plan.

Response: Drilling results in the extraction of soil from its natural state and other soil disturbing activities such as land clearing are activities that are regulated by Rule 8021. Regarding Dust Control Plans (DCP), we would be receptive to receiving such a plan that covers a large area such an oilfield and contains a description of the types of activities that would occur. This would cover, for example, 30 separate well sites that individually would not meet the 5.0-acre requirement for submitting a DCP, yet cumulatively would exceed the 5.0-acre

minimum.

Comment 47: [Rule 8061, section 4.1.2] This section requires that owners provide proof of exemption or be subject to rule requirements. We request that the District consider accepting a signed statement by a responsible company representative which stipulates that all unpaved roads under his jurisdiction have been surveyed and identifies the ones, if any, that are not exempt from rule requirements. Each facility would then be responsible for providing proof of dust suppression for those applicable road segments.

Response: We would be receptive to such documentation and reporting.

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), letter dated 1/05/04

Comment 48: WSPA would like to again reinforce the concept of “urban” control measures. The Valley includes large rural areas, especially on the Westside. Since “fugitive dust” episodes by nature are localized (i.e., particulate matter tends to settle out of the air in a relative short distance from the source), activities that may create airborne particulate in remote rural areas will have no effect on urban areas. Therefore, sources that do not contribute to these high pollution levels should not be subject to the same control measures.

Response: Some rules, for example Rules 8041, 8051, and 8061, contain provisions for both rural and urban settings. As noted by the commenter, rural Westside area activities may not substantially impact urban areas. However, there are other areas in proximity to urban areas (e.g., Taft, Oildale, and Bakersfield) where oil production may contribute to the overall air quality. In addition, the District is required to protect all populations, including those in rural, sparsely settled areas by implementing BACM throughout the air basin. SierraResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 16

Research, the consultant which prepared the 2003 PM10 BACM Analysis, provided an analysis that showed a disturbed area larger than 1.5 acres will have a significant air quality impact at a monitoring site. The sites with the highest geological PM10 24-hour concentrations included Bakersfield/Golden State,

Corcoran, Fresno-Drummond, Hanford, Oildale, and Visalia. We believe it is appropriate to retain the rule requirements as currently drafted.

Comment 49: [Rule 8021, section 5.5] It is recommended that any requirementsfor curtailment of activities during wind events should be well defined, subregionally categorized and easily understood by operators. The District may consider providing a general guideline as to what physical conditions occur (i.e., flags at full extension, tall trees bent in breeze, etc.) under such conditions. A “rule of thumbs” (similar to opacity readings) would be useful for this application. In addition, we re-emphasize that wind events should only be called in urban areas where stoppage or reduction of contributing operations will be most effective without disrupting all businesses.

Response: On those days that high winds occur we believe it is appropriate to cease outdoor earthmoving activities that could contribute erodible soil during windy days. Windy days are the days when transport from rural to urban areas is most likely to occur. Cessation of earthmoving operations and immediate application of water, if safe to do so, would substantially reduce windblown emissions. Also, see Response to Comment 1.

Tulare County, Resource Management Agency, letter dated 1/05/04

Comment 50: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.1] The most significant proposed change to the rule is the reduction of the AADT from 75 to 26 and that a road segment is deemed to exceed the 26 AADT unless data is provided to show otherwise.

Response: To clarify, the existing threshold is 75 vehicle daily trips, whereas the proposed threshold is 26 AADT; see Response to Comment 36. The District is exploring reporting alternatives in providing data to demonstrate that a road is

below the 26 AADT threshold.

Comment 51: After accounting for roads below 3000 foot elevation and roads having an AADT higher than 26, we have estimated that about 300 miles of roads may be subject to Rule 8061 requirements. The present estimate for stabilizing these roads is $700,000 annually. We have not been able to identify any new funding sources for this new activity and funding available for pavement maintenance is expected to decrease due to the State’s budget crisis.

Response: Rule 8061, section 5.2.3.1 only requires reporting of existing unpaved roads in urban areas; rural roads will be exempt from the reporting requirement. Section 5.2.3.1.4 contains a provision which allows an agency toResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 17

submit a statement of financial hardship if budgetary constraints prevent accomplishing the provisions of section 5.2.3.1.2.

Comment 52: Diverting $700,000 annually would reduce the County’s pavement maintenance by about 10%. That 10% reduction would result in additional roads with higher AADT not receiving pavement maintenance and deteriorating until they are unpaved for practical purposes. The end result is that Rule 8061 could actually result in producing more air pollution and contribute to the problem instead of reducing the problem.

Response: As noted in Response to Comment 51, an agency may submit a statement of financial hardship thereby reducing or eliminating diversion of road maintenance funds. The 10% or $700,000 annual cost would be avoided until such time that funding is available, thereby avoiding deterioration of the paved road system.

Comment 53: [General comments] Can a representative from the SJVAPCD meet with County staff and assist us in inventorying the road mileage that the proposed Rule 8061 would define as “unpaved”? Are the proposed rule changes subject to the CEQA? We request the SJVAPCD provide the scientific basis for the proposed changes. We request the SJVAPCD provide a list of the benefits the citizens of Tulare County would enjoy from the proposed rule changes

discussed above.

Response: According to the 2001-2002 Road Report received from the County of Tulare per District Rule 8061, section 6.2, the County reported 116 total lane miles of unpaved roads. As part of the commitments forwarded to the District as part of their BACM submittal in the 2003 PM10 Plan, Tulare County is committed to paving 14.5 miles of unpaved roads by 2005. Although this commitment falls short (approximately 23.2 miles) of the 20% specified in Rule 8061, section 5.2.3.1.2, this section also specifies a 2010 completion date of the 20% target. The County would have 5 more years from its 2005 date to accomplish the remaining 8.7 miles.

All rule making/amendment processes are subject to the CEQA process. An environmental document prepared pursuant to CEQA will be circulated when the

final draft of the rule amendments are released.

Regarding the “scientific basis” for the proposed changes, please refer to the 2003 PM10 Plan, Appendix G BACM/BACT Demonstration for quantitative and qualitative methodologies used to determine BACM and the subsequent draft amendments to Regulation VIII.

Regarding the list of benefits, one need not look farther than the health-based PM10 daily and annual standards established by the Federal Clean Air Act. The 2003 PM10 Plan contains a thorough discussion of health impacts associatedResponses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 18

with poor air quality. Unless the Air District implements programs to reduce, minimize, or eliminate sources of PM10 concentrations, a number of economic and social consequences will result including medical costs, work loss, and an increased burden for caregivers caused by elevated levels of PM10. Elevated levels of PM10 reduces lung functions, increases in symptoms of respiratory disease, and increases medication use among asthmatics. The elderly, younger children, and even athletes are susceptible to elevated levels of PM10. The second highest geological annual average PM10 24-hour concentration recorded by an Air District air monitoring site occurred in Visalia (Church Street site, 54 μg/m 3 ) which trailed only Bakersfield (Golden State site, 57 μg/m 3 ) when compared to other Valleys sites.

County of Kern, received via e-mail received on 1/09/04

Comment 54: [Rule 8041, section 5.8.2] This section indicates that the removal of carryout and trackout must be accomplished within one-half hour of the generation; however, sections 5.4 and 5.5 indicate that removal shall occur immediately; which one rule applies?

Response: Sections 5.4. and 5.5 are mitigative requirements to immediately remove carryout/trackout in urban and rural areas, respectively, if carryout/trackout extends 50 feet or more. However, section 5.8.2 specifies that if a preventative technique is insufficient to prevent carryout/trackout, it must be removed within one-half hour. If a preventative technique is effectively implemented, carryout/trackout should never reach the 50 feet threshold.

Comment 55: [Rule 8041, section 5.9.2] This section states that a gravel pad may be used to mitigate carryout and trackout. Our previous concern regarding the creation of an additional hazard of gravel trackout into paved public road,

have not been addressed

Response: If an owner/operator selects gravel, it must be washed and at least 1” or greater in diameter. We have added language requiring any gravel tracked-out to a paved shoulder or travel lane must be removed when exiting traffic ceases or at the end of the workday, whichever occurs sooner. If an owner/operator selects gravel, he/she should be aware of the potential liability. Using gravel is not a requirement; it is an option whose selection and implications should be carefully weighed.

Comment 56: [Rule 8051, section 2.0] This section has been revised in such a way that it may be incorrectly applied to the area between the edge of pavement and road right-of-way. Please clarify.

Response: The intent of this section is to require stabilization of disturbed open areas within real property; a right-of-way is not considered real property.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 19

Comment 57: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.4] This section indicates “non-urban areas”; provide a definition for that term. Also, the speed limit cannot be arbitrarily set at 25 mph; they have to be enforceable.

Response: “Non-urban areas” has been revised to “rural” which is defined in section 3.53 of Rule 8011 (Administrative Requirements). Regarding 25 MPH speed limits, see Response to Comment 45.

Comment 58: [Rule 8071] Throughout this section reference is made to VDT,

revise to the defined term of VTD.

Response: In order to remain consistent throughout the Regulation we have universally applied VDT and have also modified the definition of VDT in Rule

8011, section 3.69.

Earth Matters, via e-mail received on 1/26/04

Comment 59: [Rule 8011, section 3.2] The definition for annual average daily vehicle trips (AADT) refers to “counted” vehicles. We understand that this really means volume and would like to clarify and confirm that AADT can be estimated using best engineering judgment methods (e.g., ITE Manual, transportation networks, etc.)

Response: The commenter is correct; ITE Manual and transportation networks would qualify as best engineering judgment methods.

Comment 60: It appears that economic infeasibility is only provided for under the unpaved road requirements whereas EPA guidance allows for implementing entities to demonstrate that a potential control measure is economically infeasible to implement. We request that the draft regulation be revised to allow economic infeasibility for the new street sweeper requirements and post-event clean-up as well consistent with EPA guidance. Has the District evaluated providing subsidies to local jurisdictions to meet the requirements of the Regulation (e.g., purchase of PM10 efficient street sweepers and/or post event clean-up?

Response: We do not agree, the BACM Analysis contained in the 2003 PM10 Plan provides a reasonable justification regarding change-out of non-PM10- efficient street sweepers and subsequent replacement with PM10-efficient street sweepers. Since the adoption of the 2003 PM10 Plan, five fiscal years are allowed for agencies to budget for the change-out to PM10-efficient street sweepers. We acknowledge that PM10-efficient street sweepers are more expensive than non-PM10-efficient street sweepers, but we also understand that the cost difference would be CMAQ-eligible. The District is developing an Indirect Source Review program that will require PM10 mitigation. There is the potential that PM10-efficient sweepers will be eligible for indirect source funding.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 20

Regarding post-event clean up, such events are rare and clean up would occur regardless of a District requirement. The intent of the this requirement is to prompt agencies responsible for paved roads to initiate a response when material, mostly in the form of mud/silt, occurs as a result of storm or wind action.

Comment 61: What provisions have been included regarding increased enforcement of the Regulation? What resources have been allocated by the District to increase staffing? It is recommended that the District provide for an enhanced enforcement program that is similar to fugitive dust control programs in other serious PM10 nonattainment areas, such as Las Vegas and Maricopa County.

Response: As noted in the 2003 PM10 Plan, “The District proposes to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement through several action that include an increased presence of Compliance Division staff in the field, increased use of Dust Control Plans, increased compliance assistance, and greater public outreach.” The District has investigated dust control programs in other serious nonattainment areas such as Las Vegas, Maricopa, and South Coast AQMD and is developing a compliance program appropriate for our air basin.

Comment 62: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.2] It is recommended that the requirement to prioritize use on facilities with the greatest dirt/silt loading be re-evaluated. It is important that public works departments be allowed to have a balanced fleet of sweepers that meet individual jurisdiction usage requirements. In a study conducted on PM10-efficient street sweepers by the Maricopa County Association of Governments (MCAG), it was noted that certified sweepers were identified as not being the best equipment for the job under conditions with heavy street loading such as wet sand and mud. Non-certified sweepers work better for picking up trash and packed dirt, as well as have better pick up efficiency on streets with bumps and crowned streets.

Response: Comments noted. The intent of the street sweeping prioritization is to identify and implement a minimal once-a-month street sweeping program of those streets with the greatest potential for dirt and silt loadings. We acknowledge that PM10-efficient street sweepers may not be adequate for heavy street loading with wet sand and mud, trash, or packed dirt. This is not the intent of this requirement. The use of non-certified street sweepers to remove these types of loadings is appropriate. We are receptive to public works departments to continue the use of non-certified street sweepers where necessary; however, the implementation of a regular street sweeping program must be accomplished by the use of PM10-efficient street sweepers.

Comment 63: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.3] It is recommended that public works departments be consulted in the policy development regarding the exemption provided. It is requested that the first “and” in section 5.1.3.3 be changed to “or”.Responses to Comments on the March 12, 2004 Draft Amendments to Regulation VIII Page 21

Response: As this is a new requirement, we would appreciate any suggestions that public works departments would offer. We concur with the commenter’s suggestion at section 5.1.3.3 and have revised the first “and” with “or”.

Comment 64: [Rule 8061, section 5.1.3] Local jurisdictions have indicated concern that safety still be the first priority and the time constraints may not be

reasonable with certain storm or erosion events. The District needs to incorporate a more flexible policy into the proposed rule.

Response: See Response to Comments 42 and 43.

Comment 65: [Rule 8061, section 5.2.3.1.4] A number of local jurisdictions submitted reasoned justification for paving existing unpaved roads based on economic infeasibility in the commitment document [TPA Process to Identify and Implement BACM]. Since this justification is consistent with EPA guidance it is assumed that no additional information needs to be submitted regarding financial hardship. Please clarify the process and schedule for these statements to be approved by the APCO in accordance with the draft regulation.

Response: Although the reasoned justifications met the initial requirements of the PM10 Plan BACM analysis, additional information will be needed over time. In some instances, the justifications submitted by the agencies lack detailed explanations on how a financial hardship exists and when such a hardship might end. For example, no budgeting information was provided to indicate that X % or X dollars were allocated to paving unpaved roads and a reduction of X % or X dollars would result in a reduction of X number of miles or X % of unpaved roads being paved. Statements such as “when budget permits”, “should funding become available”, “if additional funding were obtained”, do not demonstrate financial hardship to an adequate degree. Updates will be needed over time to show a good faith effort to make emission reductions a budget priority.