Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19921 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

two State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on September 11, 2008. 

Wyoming has revised its Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations, specifically 

Chapter 1, Section 5, Unavoidable 

equipment malfunction, and Chapter 1, 

Section 6, Credible evidence. EPA is 

taking this action under section 110 of 

the Clean Air Act. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If EPA receives no 

adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. EPA will address 

all public comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 17, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0052, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations Section of 

this Federal Register. 

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

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Carol L. Campbell, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8404 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0277; FRL–9137–9] 

Revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) portion 

of the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

opacity standards related to multiple 

pollutants, including particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from several different 

types of sources, ranging from fugitive 

dust to diesel generators. 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 

May 17, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0277], by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

• 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 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: 

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 revision? 

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 

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 Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

19922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule 

number Rule title Amended Submitted 

MCAQD ................................................... 300 Visible Emissions ................................................................... 03/12/08 07/10/08 

On March 13, 2009, EPA determined 

this rule 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? 

On April 12, 1982, EPA approved a 

previous version of Rule 300 (Rule 30) 

into the SIP. Please see 47 FR 15579. 

The MCAQD adopted revisions to the 

SIP-approved version on July 13, 1988 

and ADEQ submitted them to us on 

January 4, 1990. However, EPA did not 

take action on this submittal. MCAQD 

also revised Rule 300 on August 5, 1994 

and February 7, 2001, but did not 

submit these versions to EPA. 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 

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. 

MCAQD Rule 300 is designed to limit 

the emissions of particulate matter or 

other pollutants such as oxides of 

nitrogen from a variety of activities and 

sources using a 20% opacity standard. 

These sources may include construction 

sites, unpaved roads, disturbed soil in 

open areas, and power plants. MCAQD 

amended Rule 300 to change the opacity 

limit from 40% to 20% and change the 

procedure for determining compliance 

with the 20% opacity limitation from 

‘‘averaging to aggregating.’’ The rule was 

also renumbered from Rule 30 to Rule 

300, reformatted, and 4 exceptions were 

added. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this submitted rule and its 

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). In addition, SIP rules 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)). The MCAQD regulates a PM 

nonattainment area classified as serious 

(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 300 must 

implement RACM and BACM. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACM or BACM requirements 

consistently include the following: 

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. 

6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background 

Document and Technical Information 

Document for Best Available Control 

Measures,’’ EPA 450/2–92–004, 

September 1992. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACM, BACM, 

and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes several rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule, but that are not currently the basis 

for disapproval of 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 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); 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19923 

• 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, 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, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8764 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0237; FRL–9138–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), 

particulate matter (PM), and carbon 

monoxide (CO) emissions from the 

permanent curtailment of burning rice 

straw. 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 

May 17, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0237, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

• 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: Lily 

Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, 

wong.lily@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? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. 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 dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

YSAQMD ................................................ 3.21 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits ................................ 12/10/08 03/17/09 

On April 20, 2009, EPA determined 

that the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 

3.21 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? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 3.21 in the SIP. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS