Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions and TSD at the following locations:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are proposing to approve with the dates that they were adopted by the District and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA.
On January 22, 2002, EPA found that these submittals meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
We approved prior versions of most of the submitted rules into the SIP on March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12188) with a limited approval and limited disapproval rulemaking. Table 2 summarizes source category coverage of the submitted rules compared to the applicable SIP rules.
The purpose of the submitted rules is to remedy deficiencies described in EPA's limited approval and limited disapproval of SIP Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 and 8070 on March 8, 2000. SJVUAPCD also submitted the revised rules to fulfill BACM requirements in CAA section 189.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see section 110(l) and section 193). We evaluated these criteria using the CAA as amended in 1990, 40 CFR part 51, and various EPA policy and guidance documents. In addition, section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas to adopt RACM and section 189(b) of the CAA requires serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, including SJVUAPCD, to adopt BACM.
Guidance for RACM and BACM, respectively, includes the following:
We believe relevant requirements in CAA section 110(a), section 110(l) and section 193 have been met because these rules are enforceable and more stringent overall than the existing SIP, which contains the District's 1996 adopted version of Regulation VIII. The District significantly strengthened Regulation VIII with the following requirements:
• Tightened general performance standard from 40% opacity to 20% opacity;
• Added requirements for existing (as opposed to 1993 and later) public access unpaved roads, including agricultural unpaved access roads, where none existed previously;
• Added surface stabilization standards and corresponding test methods for unpaved roads/unpaved traffic/equipment areas and disturbed surfaces;
• Added coverage of weed abatement activities and related surface disturbances where none existed previously;
• Added requirements for Dust Control Plans for certain construction, demolition, excavation, and extraction sites where none existed previously;
• Eliminated a 7-day allowance before inactive disturbed surface areas at construction, demolition, excavation and extraction sites are subject to control;
• Eliminated an option allowing a 24-hour period before trackout controls are required for sites subject to Rule 8041;
• Added a requirement for trackout extending 50 feet or more to be cleaned up immediately;
• Added a requirement for trackout control devices or paved interior roads for certain sites where none existed previously;
• Added coverage of agricultural unpaved traffic/equipment areas where none existed previously;
• Added coverage of off-field open area agricultural materials where none existed previously;
• Expanded coverage of bulk material requirements from ≥250 cubic yards of material to ≥100 cubic yards of material;
• Removed an exemption for unpaved roads or road segments
• Removed control measure options for unpaved roads that limit applicability of requirements to the entire length of the road;
• Added requirements for unpaved roads and inactive disturbed areas (not associated with the spreading of landfill daily cover) at landfills;
• Removed an exemption for paved road segments 3 miles in length from shoulder stabilization requirements for new/modified paved roads;
• Removed several other exemptions that potentially weakened rule coverage.
Because the version of Regulation VIII submitted on December 6, 2001 includes the types of measures commonly relied upon for achieving the bulk of PM-10 emission reductions from fugitive dust sources (
In our prior proposed rulemaking (64 FR 51489, September 23, 1999), and subsequent final rulemaking (65 FR 12118, March 8, 2000) on Regulation VIII, we issued a limited approval and limited disapproval because of deficiencies in the submission. We established a sanctions clock under section 179 because the prior submission did not fulfill enforceability requirements pursuant to section 110(a) or demonstrate RACM pursuant to section 189(a). We also discussed deficiencies regarding section 189(b) because the prior submission did not demonstrate BACM. We did not, however, start a sanction clock for section 189(b) deficiencies because the District explicitly adopted the April 25, 1996, Regulation VIII rules for purposes of maintaining RACM, rather than for meeting BACM requirements. We have now concluded that the District's December 6, 2001 submittal corrected the enforceability and RACM deficiencies that were the basis for the sanction clock.
At the time of our March 2000 action, we could have made a finding of failure to submit rules constituting BACM pursuant to section 179(a). However, the District has now corrected this failure to submit because it submitted Regulation VIII for the stated purpose of meeting BACM on December 6, 2001. Now that the District has submitted Regulation VIII for BACM purposes, EPA has evaluated the December 6, 2001 version of Regulation VIII for BACM. EPA believes that the submittal does not adequately fulfill the section 189(b) requirement for a BACM demonstration, nor any upgrades or revisions to the control measures that are required as a result of the BACM demonstration. EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the submittal with respect to BACM. If this proposal is finalized, it will start a sanction clock for the BACM deficiencies in the December 6, 2001 submittal.
The TSD accompanying this proposal provides more information on our evaluation of the District's submittal and identifies how the District has addressed the enforceability and RACM deficiencies associated with our March 8, 2000 rulemaking. The TSD also provides more information about why the December 6, 2001 submittal of Regulation VIII does not fulfill BACM requirements.
Today we propose to approve conditionally Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8061, 8071 and 8081 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4), with respect to section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C)
Based on this proposed conditional approval, elsewhere in today's
We further propose limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061, 8071 and 8081 per section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a) with respect to section 189(b)(1)(B)
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 60 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 3 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency rules that help control PM-10 emissions.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.