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

19924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

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

human health and the environment. 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 

VOC, NOX, and PM emissions. 

Historically, the practice of rice 

growing included burning the field 

stubble or straw following harvest to kill 

weeds and insects and prepare the field 

for next year’s plantings. The purpose of 

Rule 3.21 is to provide procedures to 

quantify, certify and issue emission 

reduction credits (ERCs) that have 

resulted from the permanent 

curtailment of rice straw burning in 

YSAQMD. Approval of Rule 3.21 into 

the SIP would allow these ERCs to be 

used as offsets under YSAQMD’s New 

Source Review (NSR) rule. 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, a rule of this type that 

generates emission reduction credits for 

use as offsets in the NSR program must 

meet the NSR requirement for valid 

offsets (see section 173(c)) and should 

meet the criteria set forth in EPA’s 

guidance concerning economic 

incentive programs. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate these criteria 

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; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOx

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

4. New Source Review—Section 

173(c) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix S, ‘‘Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling’’ require certain 

sources to obtain emission reductions to 

offset increased emissions from new 

projects. 

5. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA– 

452/R–01–001, January 2001. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, 

and economic incentive programs; and 

ensures that the emission reductions are 

real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, 

and permanent. This rule includes 

detailed emissions quantification 

protocols and enforceable procedures 

which provide the necessary assurance 

that the emission reduction credits 

issued will meet the criteria for valid 

NSR offsets. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. 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 

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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 1, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8771 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS