[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27975-27977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0740; FRL-9152-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County 
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions 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). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan 
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0740, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0d3d4c5c3cbc5cc8ec1cec4d2c5d7e0c5d0c18ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0838495939b959cde919e94829587b0958091de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through  http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  http://www.regulations.gov is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b383f2e28202e27652a252f392e3c0b2e3b2a652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="24575041474f41480a454a40564153644154450a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

[[Page 27976]]

    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resource Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule
                Local agency                 <greek-i>            Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.....................................        420  Beef Feedlots.................     10/10/06     08/24/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 17, 2007, EPA found this rule submittal met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must 
be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On February 26, 2003, we approved and incorporated into the SIP a 
previous version of Rule 420 (see 68 FR 8839). CARB has made no 
subsequent submittals of the rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the 
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory 
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility 
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of 
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM 
emissions. ICAPCD's Rule 420 is designed to limit the emission of 
particulate matter from beef feedlots using a Dust Control Plan based 
on maintaining a target soil moisture content and manure removal and 
management practices designed to prevent adverse public health 
conditions.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about 
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 
193). In addition, SIP rules generally must implement Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best 
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
    On August 11, 2004, Imperial County was reclassified as a serious 
PM nonattainment area (see 69 FR 48792 and 40 CFR part 81). On December 
11, 2007, EPA found that Imperial County failed to meet the serious 
area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001 and must now submit a 
``5% Plan'' pursuant to Section 189(d) of the CAA by December 11, 2008 
(please see 72 FR 70222). The Imperial County Board adopted a PM-10 
``5% Plan'' in August 2009 and forwarded it to CARB for submittal; 
CARB, however, has not submitted the plan to us.
    ICAPCD has produced two reports analyzing the significant source 
categories that contribute to violations of the PM-10 standard and 
require BACM: ``Draft Final Technical Memorandum Regulation VIII BACM 
Analysis,'' October 2005; and, ``2009 Imperial County State 
Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in 
Aerodynamic Diameter,'' August 11, 2009. On the basis of these 
analyses, ICAPCD determined that PM-10 emissions from beef feedlots 
were below the estimated ``de minimis'' or significant source 
threshold. Consequently, we are not evaluating Rule 420 as a BACM rule; 
instead, we will evaluate this rule for its enforceability and whether 
or not it maintains or strengthens the SIP. Please see our guidance at 
59 FR 41998 for determining significant source categories and requiring 
BACM and our TSD for further discussion.
    We used the following guidance and policy documents to evaluate 
specific enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal 
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment 
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas 
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 
16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. We found no 
deficiencies within the rule. The dust control plan submittal and 
implementation requirements are clear and enforceable. The testable 
moisture content standard and manure management requirements are as 
stringent as any existing California rule. The rule contains an 
adequate test method for determining moisture content of the livestock 
corrals according to the rule's requirements. For the reasons discussed 
earlier and in our TSD, we are not evaluating Rule 420 as a BACM rule.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    We have no recommendations for the next time the local agency 
modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes Rule 420 fulfills all relevant requirements, 
we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) 
of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal 
for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information 
during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action 
that will incorporate this rule into the Federally enforceable SIP.

[[Page 27977]]

III. 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-11984 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>