```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69002-69005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28257]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 69003]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Printed in error as III-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Provided by e-mail from Reyes Romero, ICAPCD, to Christine 
Vineyard, EPA, October 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: How does the tons per day analysis provided by the 
District relate to the 5 [micro]g/m\3\ 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 [micro]g/m\3\ 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

[[Page 69004]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA AIRS Facility Subsystem Quick Look Report generated 
October 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, low-income 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.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(351)(i)(A)(2) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (351) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *

[[Page 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
```