298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

estimated. The Postal Service proposes 

to rely primarily on data from the 

manual density table to estimate the 

number of handlings of letter bundles. 

It comments that any additional changes 

to the cost methodology and structure of 

the presort letter cost models should be 

addressed in Docket No. RM2010–13. 

Id. at 2. 

Proposal Ten concerns Inbound 

International Mail. For FY 2010, it 

proposes to change the assignment of InOffice Cost System (IOCS)-based clerk 

and mail handler labor costs to country 

groups Canada, Industrialized 

Countries, and Developing Countries, so 

that normal downstream Cost and 

Revenue Analysis (CRA) and 

International Cost and Revenue 

Analysis (ICRA) processes can 

automatically distribute costs to those 

groups consistent with the way that 

clerk and mail handler costs are 

distributed to other products. (The 

standard distribution method reflects 

cost pools, container types, and shape 

distinctions—not just direct IOCS 

tallies). 

Proposal Eleven concerns 

International Money Transfers (IMTS). 

The Postal Service proposes to change 

the method for reporting IMTS 

separately for Inbound and Outbound 

products using information gathered 

from Point-of-Sale (POS), IOCS, and 

Chapter 9 in USPS–FY09–NPS. This, it 

says, will create two new line items in 

the ICRA report: IMTS-Outbound and 

IMTS-Inbound, but would not affect the 

sum currently reported in the IMTS line 

in that report. 

Proposal Twelve would affect the 

Media/Library Mail Processing Cost 

Model, the Bound Printed Matter 

Transportation Cost Model, and the 

Bulk Parcel Return Service Cost Model. 

In the 2009 ACD, the Commission 

expressed concern that use of the Intraand Inter-BMC volume split for singlepiece Parcel Post in the abovereferenced cost models is no longer 

appropriate because that distinction no 

longer exists for single-piece Parcel 

Post. The Postal Service proposes to use 

the percent of total single-piece Parcel 

Post volume comprised of volume for 

Zones 1, 2, and 3 as the new proxy in 

the above-referenced models. 

The Petition includes attachments 

that discuss the background, rationale, 

and impact of Proposals Nine through 

Twelve. The Petition, including the 

attachments, is available for review on 

the Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov. Comments on Proposals 

Nine through Twelve are due no later 

than January 28, 2011. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. 

Klingenberg is appointed as Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytic Principles 

(Proposals Nine–Twelve), filed 

December 20, 2010, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–5 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested person may submit 

comments on Proposals Nine through 

Twelve no later than January 28, 2011. 

4. The Commission will determine the 

need for reply comments after review of 

the initial comments. 

5. John P. Klingenberg is appointed to 

serve as the Public Representative to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33170 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907; FRL–9247–2] 

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 a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from crude 

oil production operations and refineries. 

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 

February 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0907, 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 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 rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

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 rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 299 

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 date that they 

were amended by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps ................................................. 12/17/92 08/24/07 

SJVUAPCD ............................. 4625 Wastewater Separators .......................................................... 12/17/92 08/24/07 

On September 17, 2007, the submittal 

for San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District Rules 4402 

and 4625 was found to meet 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 December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64132), 

EPA approved into the SIP a previous 

version of Rule 4402, SJVUAPCD Rule 

465.2. On May 13, 1993 (58 FR 28354), 

EPA approved into the SIP a previous 

version of Rule 4625, SJVUAPCD Rule 

463.4. CARB has not submitted any 

subsequent versions of these rules for 

our consideration besides those 

submitted on August 24, 2007. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. These rules were developed 

as part of the local district’s program to 

control VOCs. 

The purpose of the rules and the rule 

revisions are as follows: 

• Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production 

Sumps, is designed to limit VOC 

emissions from crude oil production 

sumps. The rule is renumbered and the 

format updated. The rule purpose is 

added and the definition of VOC 

deleted. The exemptions for sumps at 

petroleum refineries, pits and ponds 

have been moved from Section I 

(Applicability) to Section 4.0 

(Exemptions). 

• Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators, 

is designed to limit VOC emissions from 

oil-water separators by requiring covers 

and use of vapor loss control devices. 

The rule is renumbered and the format 

updated. The rule purpose is added and 

the definition of VOC deleted. 

Paragraph 4.3 was added, which allows 

an exemption from the BACT and offset 

requirements of Rule 2201 for existing 

facilities where an incineration device 

has been added for the sole purpose of 

complying with the requirements of this 

rule. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) for each rule has more 

information about these rules and the 

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), 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 (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), 

so Rules 4402 and 4625 must fulfill 

RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT 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. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 

24, 1987). 

4. ‘‘Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans’’, U.S. EPA, 40 

CFR part 51. 

5. ‘‘RACT Qs & As-Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT): 

Questions and Answers’’, EPA, _William 

T. Harnett, May 18, 2006. http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ 

ractqanda.pdf. 

6. ‘‘Clean Water Act Analytical 

Methods’’, U.S. EPA. http:// 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/ 

method/oil/oilfaq.html. 

7. ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods 

(SW–846)’’, U.S. EPA. http:// 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/ 

testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm. 

8. ‘‘Control of Refinery Vacuum 

Producing Systems, Water Separators 

and Process Units’’, EPA–450/2–77–025, 

October 1977. 

9. ‘‘Standards of Performance for VOC 

Emissions from Petroleum Refinery 

Wastewater Systems’’, 40 CFR part 60 

subpart QQQ, November 23, 1988 (53 

FR 47623). 

10. ‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water 

Separators’’, 40 CFR part 63 subpart VV, 

July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34195). 

B. Do these rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

Both submitted Rules 4402 and 4625 

clarify and marginally improve the SIP 

with revisions that are largely 

administrative. These rules are generally 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability and 

SIP relaxations. Rule provisions which 

do not meet the evaluation criteria are 

summarized below for each rule and 

discussed further in the TSD. 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

These provisions conflict with section 

110 and part D of the Act and prevent 

full approval of the SIP revision. Rule 

4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps: 

1. SJVUAPCD should strengthen these 

requirements to help implement RACT 

or demonstrate why such improvements 

are not appropriate in light of analogous 

requirements in neighboring districts. 

a. Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap 

and does not require seals for rigid 

floating covers. In contrast, SCAQMD 

Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and SLOCAPCD 

Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating 

covers to have seals, the gap cannot 

exceed 1⁄8′′ for a cumulative length of 

95% of the perimeter, and no single gap 

may exceed 1⁄2 inch. 

b. Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers 

to be equipped with a pressure/vacuum 

valve set to within ten percent of 

maximum safe working pressure. In 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) 

and (6)(A) and SBCAPCD Rule 344 

D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be 

equipped with a 95% efficient Air 

Pollution Control (APC) device. 

c. Rule 4402 does not require periodic 

inspection of covers and APC 

equipment to ensure proper operation. 

In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(f)(C) 

requires periodic leak inspection and 

APC testing. 

d. Rule 4402 has exemptions that are 

more broad than those found in other 

districts rules. SJVUAPCD should 

analyze whether these exemptions 

continue to be appropriate. This 

analysis should consider more current 

cost data than used in the 2009 RACT 

Analysis, and should consider 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., 

underground injection, tanks, or 

additional pretreatment) in addition to 

sump and pond covers. The following 

exemptions are of particular concern: 

• Uncontrolled VOC emissions from 

exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps. 

Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less 

than 6,000 barrels per day with sumps 

less than 1,000 sf and section 4.1.3 

exempts operations less than 300 barrels 

per day with sumps less than 5,000 sf 

from substantive requirements. No other 

neighboring districts allow exemptions 

for small producers except for 

SBCAPCD Rule 344. The exemption in 

Santa Barbara’s rule is more restrictive 

than the exemptions found in Rule 

4402. 

• Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of 

‘‘clean produced water’’ with less than 

35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 

requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD 

Rule 1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 

C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 

exempt wastewater sumps only where 

the VOC/ROC content does not exceed 

5 mg/l at the inlet. Of particular concern 

are VOC emissions from the ponds that 

initially receive the oily wastewater 

from oil production facilities. 

Alternatives including additional 

pretreatment to lower the VOC content 

and other disposal methods such as 

underground injection should be 

evaluated. 

e. Rule 4402 does not limit the time 

that oil or oily water can be kept in an 

emergency pit. In contrast, SLOCAPCD 

Rule 419 C.2 requires clean-up to begin 

within 24 hours and finish within 15 

days. 

f. Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. 

In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and 

VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the 

operation of 1st stage sumps. 

g. Provisions should be added in Rule 

4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic 

Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to 

replace the 1st stage crude oil sumps 

have adequate VOC controls. 

2. The following revisions are needed 

to improve rule clarity and 

enforceability consistent with CAA 

section 110(a). 

a. Please remove the language at the 

end of Section 5.3 that states ‘‘If 

replacement tank exclusively serves 

identical function of sump replaced, 

permitting of such tank shall not be 

considered an emission change for the 

purposes of Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Source Review Rule)’’. Any 

exemptions to NSR requirements should 

be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s 

NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and 

incorporated within the NSR program 

only if appropriate. Such exemptions 

should not be in source-specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4402. 

b. Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to 

remove and/or replace inappropriate or 

outdated test methods such as 6.2.1 

ARB Method 432, which is designed for 

paints and coatings and not oily 

wastewater. We also recommend adding 

EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for 

determining leaks. 

c. Update the definition of clean 

product water (Section 3.1) replacing 

outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 

418.2 and 8240 that used CFC–113 as 

the extraction solvent. The new test 

methods using non-CFC extraction 

solvents are EPA Method 1664A and 

EPA Method 8260. 

d. Please revise section 6.1 

(Recordkeeping) to: 

• Add requirement for facilities to 

keep records of all inspections for leaks 

and testing of APC devices (for example, 

see SCAQMD Rule 1176 (g) (1)). 

• Add requirement to document use 

of emergency pits, including when use 

started, clean-up started and clean-up 

finished. 

• Require documentation justifying 

any exemptions claimed under section 

4, including 4.1.7, which exempts pits 

and ponds. 

• Add requirements to verify the 

sump surface area and the annual 

production rates for both the small 

producers and very small producers in 

section 6.1.1. 

• Add requirement to keep all records 

for at least two, and preferably five 

years. 

Rule 4625, Wastewater Separators: 

The following revisions are needed to 

improve rule clarity, enforceability, and 

to strengthen requirements to help 

implement RACT. 

1. The December 1992 amendment 

added exemption 4.3, which reads ‘‘For 

existing facilities, if an incineration 

device is added or modified for the sole 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of this rule, such a device 

shall be exempt from the Best Available 

Control Technology and the Offset 

requirements of Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule)’’. This exemption should be 

removed from Rule 4625. Any 

exemptions to NSR requirements should 

be evaluated in context of SJVUAPCD’s 

NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and 

incorporated within the NSR program 

only if appropriate. Such exemptions 

should not be in source-specific 

prohibitory rules like Rule 4625. 

2. Although Rule 4625 includes 

similar requirements to the 1977 CTG, 

SJVUAPCD has not adequately 

demonstrated that Rule 4625 currently 

implements RACT because RACT can 

change over time as control technology 

improves and/or becomes more 

available. More stringent requirements 

exist in the NSPS (1988), NESHAP 

(1995), BAAQMD Rule 8–8 (1993) and 

SCAQMD 1176 (1996). These 

regulations have requirements for 

stricter VOC controls (see, e.g., 95% 

requirement in SCAQMD Rule 1176, 

section (e)(2)(A)(ii) and (e)(6)), 

additional design requirements for 

controlling fugitive emissions or 

breathing losses (see, e.g., BAAQMD 

Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4), and 

additional requirements for inspections 

and maintenance (see, e.g., BAAQMD 

Regulation 8 Rule 8, section 302.4 and 

302.6). 

3. The exemption for air flotation 

units precludes regulation of potentially 

significant VOC sources (section 4.2). 

Even though these sources are currently 

regulated via District permit conditions, 

SJVUAPCD should subject them to SIP 

requirements as part of Rule 4625 or 

demonstrate why that is not necessary. 

There is no specific allowance in the 

CTG or other guidance documents for 

exempting air flotation units from 

regulation and no other California air 

district rules include such an 

exemption. 

4. To improve enforceability, 

SJVUAPCD should revise section 6.0 

Test Methods to remove inappropriate 

or outdated test methods such as 6.1.2 

ARB Method 432 for paints and 

coatings, and 6.1.3 which refers to an 

obsolete document superseded by EPA 

Method 204 for determining capture 

efficiency (40 CFR part 51). We 

recommend including EPA Test Method 

21 (measurements of leaks) as 

referenced in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, 

Section 6.4 Test Methods, or SCAQMD 

Rule 1176, Section (h). 

5. The SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT SIP 

Demonstration mentions that the 

requirements in SJVUAPCD Rule 4455, 

‘‘Components at Petroleum Refineries, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 301 

Gas Liquids Processing Facilities and 

Chemical Plants’’, apply to oil-water 

separators. SJVUAPCD should include 

those requirements directly in Rule 

4625 or by reference to improve 

enforceability, or demonstrate that this 

is not appropriate. 

6. To ensure ongoing compliance and 

strengthen enforceability, SJVUACPD 

should add to the rule requirements for 

inspections of covers, access hatches 

and other openings and emissions 

control equipment, along with 

recordkeeping requirements for 

inspections and testing or demonstrate 

that this is not appropriate. For 

example, please see SCAQMD Rule 

1176, section (f) and (g). 

7. SJVUAPCD should delete or justify 

exemption 4.1 for wastewater separators 

exceeding a set value for a sump surface 

area to the rate of oil vapor loss ratio. 

The only other rule where we found 

such exemption is SCAQMD Rule 464 

for Wastewater Separators; last amended 

December 7, 1990. This exemption is 

not found in the newer SCAQMD Rule 

1176, ‘‘VOC Emissions from Wastewater 

Systems’’, amended September 13, 1996, 

which also addresses wastewater 

separators and which largely supersedes 

Rule 464. 

D. EPA recommendations to further 

improve these rules. 

The TSD for each of these rules 

describes additional rule revisions that 

we recommend for the next time the 

local agency modifies these rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a limited approval of the submitted 

rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, 

this action would incorporate the 

submitted rules into the SIP, including 

those provisions identified as deficient. 

This approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rule under section 

110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 

finalized, sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the disapproval. These 

sanctions would be imposed according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval 

would also trigger the 2-year clock for 

the federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). Note 

that the submitted rules have been 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

them. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

proposed Federal SIP limited approval/ 

limited disapproval does not create any 

new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a) (2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into 

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

proposed does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve and 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve or 

disapprove a State rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 14, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33194 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 152 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0456; FRL–8858–2] 

RIN 2070–AJ58 

Pesticides; Satisfaction of Data 

Requirements; Procedures To Ensure 

Protection of Data Submitters’ Rights; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of November 5, 

2010, concerning the revision of its 

regulations which govern procedures for 

the satisfaction of data requirements 

under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA). EPA received two requests to 

extend the comment period for this 

proposed rule. This document extends 

the comment period for 30 days, from 

January 4, 2011 to February 3, 2011. 

DATES: Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0456, must be received on or 

before February 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES in the Federal Register 

document of November 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cameo G. Smoot, Field and External 

Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 305–5454; fax number: 

(703) 305–5884; e-mail address: 

smoot.cameo@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register of November 5, 2010 (75 FR 

68297) (FRL–8424–8). In that document, 

EPA proposed to review its regulations 

which govern procedures for the 

satisfaction of data requirements under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is hereby 

extending the comment period, which 

was set to end on January 4, 2011, to 

February 3, 2011. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES in the November 5, 2010 

Federal Register document. If you have 

questions, consult the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 27, 2010. 

Marylouise M. Uhlig, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33201 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1