40660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

action that will incorporate these 

regulations 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

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

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17232 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0547; FRL–9435–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from open burning. 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 

August 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0547, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

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 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 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

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: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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: 

Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4118, wells.joanne@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 and rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule and portion of 

District Staff Report addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 40661 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local 

agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................... 4103 Open Burning ............................................................................................... 04/15/10 04/05/11 

SJVUAPCD ................... .................... Table 9–1, Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural 

Burning.

05/20/10 04/05/11 

On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that 

the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 

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 this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4103 into the SIP on November 10, 

2009 (74 FR 57907). The SJVUAPCD 

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 

version on April 15, 2010 and CARB 

submitted them to us on April 5, 2011. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule and rule revisions? 

VOCs and NOX help produce groundlevel ozone and smog, which harm 

human health and the environment. PM 

emissions also harm human health and 

the environment by causing, among 

other things, 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 

VOC, NOX, and PM emissions. 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 limits emissions 

of air pollutants, including VOC, NOX

and PM, that result from the open 

burning of agricultural waste and other 

materials. 

Rule 4103 was revised largely to 

implement portions of California Health 

and Safety Code (CH&SC) sections 

41855.5 and 41855.6. CH&SC section 

41855.5 requires SJVUAPCD to prohibit 

specific crop categories from open 

burning according to a schedule, the 

final phase of which began on June 1, 

2010. CH&SC section 41855.6 authorizes 

SJVUAPCD to postpone the burn 

prohibition for specific crop categories 

if all of the conditions listed in section 

41855.6 are met. 

Specific revisions to the previous 

version of the rule include: 

• New or revised definitions are 

provided in Section 3.0 for the 

following terms: Air Pollution Control 

Officer, Board, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Field Crops, Orchard 

Removals, Other Materials, Other Weeds 

and Maintenance, Prunings, Surface 

Harvested Prunings, Vineyard Removal 

Materials, Vineyard Materials and Weed 

Abatement. 

• Section 5.5.1 was amended to 

include all agricultural crops and 

materials listed in CH&SC Section 

41855.5, thereby prohibiting the open 

burning of all materials not subject to a 

postponement under Section 5.5.2. 

• Section 5.5.2 was revised to include 

criteria that SJVUAPCD must satisfy to 

postpone a burn prohibition under 

CH&SC Section 41855.6. 

• New Section 6.3 requires the 

SJVUAPCD Air Pollution Control 

Officer (APCO) to prepare and present 

to the Board for review and approval a 

‘‘Staff Report and Recommendations on 

Agricultural Burning’’ for any Board 

determination under section 5.5.2. The 

APCO must also review and update this 

Report at least every five years. 

• On May 20, 2010, the SJVUAPCD 

Board approved and incorporated by 

reference a ‘‘Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural 

Burning’’ prepared pursuant to section 

6.3 of the rule. The Staff Report 

recommended complete or partial 

postponement of the burn prohibition 

for a number of crop categories. These 

recommendations are summarized in 

Table 9–1 of the Staff Report. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about these 

rule revisions. 

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). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also 

requires implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable 

in nonattainment areas. Because the San 

Joaquin Valley (SJV) area is designated 

nonattainment for the fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

designated and classified as extreme 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS 

(see 40 CFR 81.305), the RACM 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) 

applies to this area. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACM requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

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. Preamble, ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8–Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2,’’ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). 

5. Preamble, ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 

2007). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the applicable CAA requirements and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACM, and SIP revisions. The TSD has 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

III. Proposed Action. 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it 

under 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. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 29, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17454 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9436–9] 

[RIN 2060–AR01] 

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: In this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR), EPA is 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment on our conclusion that 

emissions from Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. EPA is also 

proposing Federal Implementation 

Plans (FIPs) to address (a) the emissions 

identified as significantly contributing 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance and (b) the transport 

requirements with respect to the 

relevant NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

implement the ozone season NOX

program in the Transport Rule (Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone in 27 States; 

Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 

States) as the FIPs for Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin to address the emissions 

identified as significantly contributing 

to nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. In addition, this notice 

identifies the budgets, associated 

variability limits, and allowance 

allocations that would be used for each 

state if EPA finalizes the FIPs proposed 

here. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2011. 

A public hearing, if requested, will be 

held in Room 4128 at USEPA West (EPA 

West) [Old Customs Building], 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004 on July 21, 2011, beginning at 

9 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0491, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0491. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1