Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0740; FRL-9152-9]
 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: 
                        *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 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, 
                        *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.*


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?
                        ( print 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
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
Adopted
SubmittedICAPCD
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.
                    ( print 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: Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget underExecutive 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 inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
                Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive 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
                Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, underExecutive 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