69002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject State approval/ 

submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

Subchapter A—General Rules 

Section 101.1 .... Definitions .................................... 01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter F—Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities 

Division 1—Emissions Events 

Section 101.201 Emissions Event Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements.

01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

101.201(h) is not in the SIP. 

Division 2—Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities 

Section 101.211 Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, 

and Shutdown Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements.

01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

101.211(f) is not in the SIP. 

Division 3—Operational Requirements, Demonstrations, and Actions To Reduce Excessive Emissions 

Section 101.221 Operational Requirements .......... 01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

Section 101.222 Demonstrations ........................... 01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

The SIP does not include 

101.222(h), 101.222 (i), and 

101.222 (j). See section 

52.2273(e). 

Section 101.223 Actions to Reduce Excessive 

Emissions.

01/23/06 11/10/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2273 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2273 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(e) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP 

revision submittals under 30 TAC 

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

as follows: 

(1) Subchapter F—Emissions Events 

and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, 

and Shutdown Activities, Division 1— 

Section 101.222 (Demonstrations): 

Sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 

101.222(j), adopted December 14, 2005, 

and submitted January 23, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28135 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0740; FRL–9221–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on May 19, 2010 and concern 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

beef feedlots. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0740 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 69003 

1Printed in error as III–2. 

2Provided by e-mail from Reyes Romero, 

ICAPCD, to Christine Vineyard, EPA, October 5, 

2010. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action 

On May 19, 2010 (75 FR 27975), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rule 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ................................................................ 420 Beef Feedlots ....................................................... 10/10/06 08/24/07 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received one set of 

comments from Jose Luis Olmedo, 

Comite Civico Del Valle, and Jane 

Williams, Desert Citizens Against 

Pollution (collectively ‘‘commentors’’); 

letter dated June 18, 2010 and received 

June 18, 2010. A copy of the video 

referenced in the letter was separately 

provided on the same day. 

In addition, several letters were 

received after the comment period from 

local business owners in support of 

approving Rule 420; letters dated July 

27, 2010 thru August 2, 2010 and 

received August 2, 2010. We do not 

address these letters below because: (1) 

They were submitted significantly after 

the comment deadline; (2) they do not 

request change to our proposal; and (3) 

they do not provide new information 

helpful to address the comments listed 

above. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: There is a lack of 

documentation to substantiate the 

District’s claim that beef feedlots are a 

de minimis source based on a purported 

50% emissions reduction that is 

assumed in 2002. This 50% reduction 

assumption is not adequately explained, 

verified or supported with background 

data. 

Response #1: Our proposed action (75 

FR 27976) and the associated TSD 

(pages 2–3) both refer to two ICAPCD 

analyses as the basis for the District’s 

claim that beef feedlots are a de minimis 

source of PM–10. The TSD specifically 

references page 15 of Environ’s ‘‘Draft 

Final Technical Memorandum 

Regulation VIII BACM Analysis’’ 

(October 2005); and page III.A–2 1 of 

Environ’s ‘‘2009 Imperial County State 

Implementation Plan for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 10 Microns in 

Aerodynamic Diameter’’ (August 11, 

2009). These documents in turn 

reference CARB’s inventory analysis to 

support the 50% reduction assumption. 

In response to this comment, ICAPCD 

provided additional clarification on the 

50% assumption.2 Specifically, ICAPCD 

reiterates that the 50% assumption was 

developed through CARB’s normal 

review procedure for inventories, and 

clarifies that it relies on three studies: 

(1) USEPA, Fugitive Dust Document and 

Technical Information Document for 

Best Available Control Measures, EPA– 

450/2–92–004, September 1992; 

Sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.2; (2) Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), 

WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, 

September 2006, Table 9–4; and (3) E.H. 

Pechan & Associates, Inc., 

Documentation Report, Version 4.1, 

Pechan Report No. 06.05.003/9011.002, 

May 2006; Section III, p. 645. We 

generally defer to District and CARB 

analysis on most emission inventory 

details, and we have no obvious basis to 

question this particular assumption at 

this time. However, if Imperial 

continues to exceed the PM–10 standard 

in the future despite implementation of 

BACM on all sources identified as 

significant, it would be appropriate to 

subject inventory assumptions for de 

minimis sources such as this to more 

scrutiny. 

Comment #2: How does the tons per 

day analysis provided by the District 

relate to the 5 μg/m3 standard set forth 

in 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

Response #2: 2–3% of Imperial 

County’s annual PM–10 inventory is 

calculated to result in a 5 μg/m3

contribution, which equates to about 

6–8 ton/day emissions. See 75 FR 39371 

(July 8, 2010). 

Comment #3: ICAPCD Rule 420 relies 

on the permitting scheme in ICAPCD 

Rule 217, but Rule 217 has not been 

approved by EPA. How do Rule 217, 

420 and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

Rule 4570 interrelate? 

Response #3: ICAPCD Rule 420 

sections A and B reference requirements 

in Rule 217, which have not been 

approved by EPA into the SIP. However, 

the substantive requirements of Rule 

420 do not rely on Rule 217 and are 

enforceable independent of Rule 217. 

Specifically, Rule 420 section A requires 

all Large Confined Animal Facilities 

(LCAF, defined in ICAPCD Rule 101) to 

acquire and maintain a LCAF permit. 

Rule 420 section B further requires all 

facilities that apply for an LCAF permit 

to have a dust control plan (DCP) which 

describes compliance with the 

substantive requirements of Rule 420 in 

paragraphs B.1 and B.2. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 limits 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) from LCAFs in 

SJVUAPCD, and is analogous to ICAPCD 

Rule 217. ICAPCD Rule 420 and Rule 

217 are related in that they both impose 

air pollution controls on LCAFs in 

Imperial County. Many of the controls 

will differ, however, because Rule 420 

is designed to limit PM emissions while 

Rule 217 targets VOC emissions. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 and ICAPCD Rule 

420 are less directly related as they 

address both different geographic areas 

and different pollutants. 

Comment #4: There should be an 

established maximum inch of manure 

stockpile in feedlot pens and a 

standardized method of dust control 

with an enforceable menu or list of 

applicable options. 

Response #4: We agree that the rule 

could be improved by more specific and 

standardized requirements. However, 

we have no basis to require such 

improvements without determining that 

additional emission reductions are 

needed for BACM, attainment or other 

CAA requirements. However, 

particularly if Imperial continues to 

exceed the PM–10 standard despite 

implementation of BACM on all sources 

identified as significant, Rule 420 

improvements that ICAPCD should 

consider include: 

a. Applying control requirements to 

smaller sources. South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 

1127(j)(1), for example, only exempts 

farms with fewer than 50 cows from 

analogous requirements. 

b. Restructuring sections A, B and C 

to more clearly establish control 

requirements independent of Rule 217 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
69004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Id. 

4EPA AIRS Facility Subsystem Quick Look 

Report generated October 4, 2010. 

permit requirements. This is consistent 

with the structure of most or all other 

ICAPCD prohibitory rules. 

c. Establishing more specific control 

requirements in section B regarding 

manure moisture and disposal such as, 

for example, described in SCAQMD 

Rule 1127. 

d. Further restricting the APCO 

discretion provided in section D. 

e. Clarifying sampling procedures in 

section E.2. to reflect ICAPCD’s 

inspection procedures which we 

understand to be that ten (10) random 

samples are taken throughout each 

selected corral. Those ten random 

samples are then averaged to determine 

compliance. 

Comment #5: The commentors 

question whether ICAPCD is adequately 

enforcing Rule 420, and reference the 

video identified in the letter. They ask 

if there are other enforcement 

mechanisms that EPA can consider as 

BACM such as random inspections, 

increased funding or verification of the 

District’s enforcement program. 

Response #5: According to ICAPCD, 

the video shows land that was formerly 

part of a LCAF subject to ICAPCD Rule 

420, but that has not operated at this 

location since the winter of 2009 due to 

heavy rains and flooding. ICAPCD also 

stated that the Imperial County 

Environmental Health Department and 

the Regional Water Control Board have 

investigated this site as a potential 

health issue. 

Regarding enforcement mechanisms, 

ICAPCD staff explained that ICAPCD 

permits issued to all cattle feedlots 

contain conditions to ensure that 

required Rule 420 mitigation measures 

are fully enforced. ICAPCD also 

explained that all permitted sources are 

routinely inspected (including 

unannounced inspections at least 

annually and in response to citizen 

complaints) to determine compliance 

with Rule 420 and other regulations.3

Like all air quality agencies, Imperial 

is required to periodically inspect all 

major stationary sources within its 

jurisdiction and reports the results of 

those inspections to EPA’s national data 

system, AIRS/AFS, which is publically 

available. We have included a report 

generated from AIRS/AFS in the docket 

for this action which shows the 

inspections and enforcement actions 

taken by ICAPCD for the past ten years.4

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k) (3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or Tribal populations because it 

maintains or increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population as 

described in Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(351)(i)(A)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(351) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 69005 

(2) Rule 420, ‘‘Beef Feedlots,’’ adopted 

on October 10, 2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–28257 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0781; FRL–8850–3] 

Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of flumioxazin in 

or on the commodity fish, freshwater. 

Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested 

these tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 10, 2010. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 10, 2011, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0781. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathryn V. Montague, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 305–1243; e-mail address: 

montague.kathryn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0781 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before January 10, 2011. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit a copy of 

your non-CBI objection or hearing 

request, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0781, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of December 3, 

2008 (73 FR 73640) (FRL–8390–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 8F7438) by Valent 

U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera 

Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 

94596. The petition requested that 40 

CFR part 180 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione and its 

metabolites APF (3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-6- 

amino-7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1,4- 

benzoxazin) and 482–HA (N-(7-fluoro3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-2H-1,4- 

benzoxazin-6-yl)cyclohex-1-ene-1- 

carboxamide-2-carboxylic acid) in or on 

commodity fish, freshwater at 1.5 parts 

per million (ppm). That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 

the registrant, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notice of filing. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES