Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 19923-19924 [2010-8771]
Download as PDF
19923
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• 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: https://
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 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-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: 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.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
YSAQMD ................................................
3.21
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Adopted
Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits ................................
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/10/08
Submitted
03/17/09
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
There are no previous versions of
Rule 3.21 in the SIP.
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
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
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:04 Apr 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
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
E:\FR\FM\16APP1.SGM
16APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 73 (Friday, April 16, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19923-19924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: https://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 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-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: 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD..................................... 3.21 Rice Straw Emission Reduction 12/10/08 03/17/09
Credits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 19924]]
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level 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