Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 7142-7144 [2011-2862]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7142
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 165.1191—Continued
[All coordinates referenced use datum NAD 83.]
25. Fleet Week Fireworks
Sponsor ...............................
Event Description ................
Date .....................................
Location ...............................
Regulated Area ....................
Various Sponsors.
Fireworks Display.
Second Friday and Saturday in October.
1,000 feet off Pier 3, San Francisco, CA.
100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge during the loading of pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks barge
and during the transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location. Increases to a
1000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display.
26. Monte Foundation Fireworks
Sponsor ...............................
Event Description ................
Date .....................................
Location ...............................
Regulated Area ....................
Monte Foundation Fireworks.
Fireworks Display.
Second Saturday in October.
Sea Cliff State Beach Pier in Aptos, CA.
1000-foot safety zone around the navigable waters of the Sea Cliff State Beach Pier.
27. Rio Vista Bass Derby Fireworks
Sponsor ...............................
Event Description ................
Date .....................................
Location ...............................
Regulated Area ....................
Rio Vista Chamber of Commerce.
Fireworks Display.
Second Saturday in October.
500 feet off Rio Vista, CA waterfront.
100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge during the loading of pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks barge
and during the transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location. Increases to a
1000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display.
28. San Francisco New Years Eve Fireworks Display
Sponsor ...............................
Event Description ................
Date .....................................
Location ...............................
Regulated Area ....................
City of San Francisco.
Fireworks Display.
New Years Eve, December 31st.
1,000 feet off Pier 2, San Francisco, CA.
100-foot radius around the fireworks launch barge during the loading of pyrotechnics aboard the fireworks barge
and during the transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display location. Increases to a
1000-foot radius upon commencement of the fireworks display.
29. Sacramento New Years Eve Fireworks Display
Sponsor ...............................
Event Description ................
Date .....................................
Location ...............................
Regulated Area ....................
Sacramento Convention and Visitors’ Bureau.
Fireworks Display.
New Years Eve, December 31st.
Near Tower Bridge, Sacramento River.
The navigable waters of the Sacramento River surrounding the shore-based launch locations between two lines
drawn 1,000 feet south of Tower Bridge, and 1,000 feet north of the I Street Bridge.
Dated: December 21, 2010.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011–2863 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–1073; FRL–9263–8]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 clarify permitting
requirements, and update and revise
exemptions from New Source Review
(NSR) permitting requirements, for
various air pollution sources. We are
taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
March 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2007–1073, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air—
3), 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 https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
https://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-
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
https://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
7143
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:
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules and rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. The State’s Submittal
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal, including the dates they
were adopted by the local air agency
and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Amended
Submitted
ICAPCD ................................................................
ICAPCD ................................................................
201
202
Permits Required ..................................................
Exemptions ...........................................................
10/10/06
10/10/06
08/24/07
08/24/07
On September 17, 2007, EPA
determined that the submittal for
ICAPCD Rules 201 and 202 met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
appendix V, which must be met before
formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 201 into the SIP on January 3, 2007
(72 FR 9). There are no previous
versions of Rule 202 in the SIP, but SIP
approved Rule 103, also contains permit
exemptions. Rule 103 was approved
into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR
10842). The ICAPCD originally adopted
new Rule 202 on June 1, 1977 and also
adopted revisions on September 7, 1993
and September 14, 1999. Both of these
revisions were submitted to EPA,
however EPA has not taken action on
either of these submittals. While we can
act on only the most recently submitted
version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules and rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter and other air
pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. Permitting rules
were developed as part of the local air
district’s programs to control these
pollutants.
The purpose of District Rule 201
(Permits Required) is to identify when,
and what permits, a source must obtain
prior to construction and operation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
The purpose of District Rule 202
(Exemptions) is to identify processes,
articles, machines, equipment, or other
contrivances for which an Authority to
Construct (ATC) or Permit to Operate
(PTO) is not required. Rule 202 also
requires recordkeeping to verify and
maintain any exemption.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
The relevant statutory provisions for
our review of the submitted rules
include CAA section 110(a) and section
110(l). Section 110(a) requires that SIP
rules be enforceable, while section
110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP
revisions that would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition, we
have reviewed the submitted rules for
compliance with EPA implementing
regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR
51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
EPA has reviewed the submitted rules
in accordance with the Rule Evaluation
criteria described above. Consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR subpart
I, all major stationary sources are
required to obtain an ATC permit prior
to construction. For minor sources, EPA
believes that emissions from the types
and sizes of equipment and operations
exempted from NSR permit
requirements are consistent with the
flexibility afforded to states to regulate
only those sources as necessary to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
assure attainment and maintenance of
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). While several new
provisions have been added to Rule 202
that could be seen as a relaxation of the
SIP because more sources are
specifically exempted from Rule 207
permit requirements, in practice most of
these sources have never been required
to obtain a NSR ATC permit due to their
small size or state law prohibitions.
Because these rules will not actually
worsen air quality, and will in fact
require many agricultural sources to
obtain permits and be subject to control
requirements for the first time, EPA
believes that these revisions are a long
overdue update to the SIP which will
provide an overall strengthening of the
SIP without interfering with the
District’s ability to attain and maintain
the NAAQS, and are therefore
approvable under 110(l) of the CAA.
The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rules
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted
rules fulfill all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve them
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
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
7144
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules
action that will incorporate these rules
into the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:54 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
• 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
• Does not interfere with Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
1994)) because EPA lacks the
discretionary authority to address
environmental justice in this
rulemaking.
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, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 28, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–2862 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM
09FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7142-7144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2862]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1073; FRL-9263-8]
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 clarify permitting
requirements, and update and revise exemptions from New Source Review
(NSR) permitting requirements, for various air pollution sources. We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by March 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1073, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air--3), 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://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-
[[Page 7143]]
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 https://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: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule
revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the
dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD................................... 201 Permits Required........... 10/10/06 08/24/07
ICAPCD................................... 202 Exemptions................. 10/10/06 08/24/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 17, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for ICAPCD
Rules 201 and 202 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We approved an earlier version of Rule 201 into the SIP on January
3, 2007 (72 FR 9). There are no previous versions of Rule 202 in the
SIP, but SIP approved Rule 103, also contains permit exemptions. Rule
103 was approved into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). The ICAPCD
originally adopted new Rule 202 on June 1, 1977 and also adopted
revisions on September 7, 1993 and September 14, 1999. Both of these
revisions were submitted to EPA, however EPA has not taken action on
either of these submittals. While we can act on only the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter and other air pollutants which harm human health and the
environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local air
district's programs to control these pollutants.
The purpose of District Rule 201 (Permits Required) is to identify
when, and what permits, a source must obtain prior to construction and
operation.
The purpose of District Rule 202 (Exemptions) is to identify
processes, articles, machines, equipment, or other contrivances for
which an Authority to Construct (ATC) or Permit to Operate (PTO) is not
required. Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to verify and maintain
any exemption.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted
rules include CAA section 110(a) and section 110(l). Section 110(a)
requires that SIP rules be enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes
EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, we have
reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing
regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the Rule
Evaluation criteria described above. Consistent with the requirements
of 40 CFR subpart I, all major stationary sources are required to
obtain an ATC permit prior to construction. For minor sources, EPA
believes that emissions from the types and sizes of equipment and
operations exempted from NSR permit requirements are consistent with
the flexibility afforded to states to regulate only those sources as
necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While several new provisions have been
added to Rule 202 that could be seen as a relaxation of the SIP because
more sources are specifically exempted from Rule 207 permit
requirements, in practice most of these sources have never been
required to obtain a NSR ATC permit due to their small size or state
law prohibitions. Because these rules will not actually worsen air
quality, and will in fact require many agricultural sources to obtain
permits and be subject to control requirements for the first time, EPA
believes that these revisions are a long overdue update to the SIP
which will provide an overall strengthening of the SIP without
interfering with the District's ability to attain and maintain the
NAAQS, and are therefore approvable under 110(l) of the CAA.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them 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
[[Page 7144]]
action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable
SIP.
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 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
Does not interfere with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) because EPA lacks the discretionary authority to
address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
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, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 28, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-2862 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
