### 45080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

value was then analyzed using a bootstrapping statistical method. Bootstrapping involves the use of regression residuals and repeating the regression analysis 1,000 times. There were no exceedances of the NAAQS as a result of the bootstrapping analysis. The result of the analysis determined that the 2007–2009 design value for the NY–NJ–CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area would be 14.0 μg/m 3

. VI. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to determine that the NY–NJ–CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS has attained the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard based on data through 2009. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the requirements for this area to submit attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, and contingency measures related to attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements. 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 CAA; 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, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 22, 2010. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, Region 1.

Dated: June 28, 2010. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010–18885 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0596; FRL–9183–7]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters with a rated heat input from 0.75 to less than 2.0 MMbtu/hr. 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 September 1, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2010–0596, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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: The index to the docket for this action is 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 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 :**  Idalia Pe  ́ rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@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 revision? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?


### 45081 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria? 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 Resources Board (CARB).



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SJVUAPCD ................ 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters—0.75 to less than 2.0 MMbtu/hr. 12/17/09 05/17/10

On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4308 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 4308 into the SIP on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29886). C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

NO X helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control NO X emissions. Rule 4308 limits NO X and CO emissions from boilers, steam generators, process heaters and water heaters with a total rated heat input equal or larger than 0.075 MMBtu/hour and less than 2 MMBtu/hour. Rule 4308 was amended to include specific limits for instantaneous and pool water heaters as well as to strengthen the NO X emission limits for other units. 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), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f)), must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for PM2.5 nonattainment areas ( see CAA section 172(c)(1)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4308 must fulfill RACT and RACM.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently include the following:

1. ‘‘ State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule, ’’ (the NO X Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

2. ‘‘ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, ’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. ‘‘ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, ’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters, ’’ CARB, July 18,
1991.

5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document— NO X Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers, ’’ U.S. EPA, 453/R–94–022, March 1994.

6. ‘‘ Alternative Control Techniques Document—NO X Emissions. ’’

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, RACM and SIP relaxations. 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.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes the submitted rule 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. 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


### 45082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 147 / Monday, August 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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, 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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 21, 2010. Keith Takata, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010–18926 Filed 7–30–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418; FRL–9183–8]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara**  **County Air Pollution Control District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters with a rated heat input rate greater than 2 million BTU/hr and less than 5 million BTU/hr and internal combustion engines with a rated brake horse power of 50 or greater. We are proposing action on local rules that regulate 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 September 1, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2010–0418, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 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 thebody of your comment. If you send email 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 :**  Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@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? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria? C. What are the rules’ deficiencies? D. EPA Recommendations to Further

Improve the Rule E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 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 with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SBCAPCD .................................. 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters ................ 01/17/08 07/18/08SBCAPCD .................................. 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. 06/19/08 10/20/08

On August 22, 2008, the submittal for SBCAPCD Rule 361 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On November 22, 2008, the submittal for SBCAPCD 333 was found to meet the completeness criteria. B. Are there other versions of these rules?

There are no previous versions of Rule 361 in the SIP. There are no previous versions of Rule 333 in the SIP, although the District submitted a previous version of this rule on June 19, 1992 and we proposed a limited approval and a limited disapproval (60 FR 6049) but did not finalize the action. The District then submitted another