10438 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(348) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) Rule 9310, ‘‘School Bus Fleets,’’ 

adopted on September 21, 2006. 

* * * * * 

(369) New and amended plans were 

submitted on November 15, 2004 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) ARB Resolution No. 04–29. 

Commitment to achieve additional 

emission reductions in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin of 10 tons per day (tpd) 

of nitrogen oxides and 15 tpd of volatile 

organic compounds by 2010 as 

described on page 5 of Resolution No. 

04–29 October 28, 2004 and page 29 of 

‘‘Staff Report, Proposed 2004 State 

Implementation Plan for Ozone in the 

San Joaquin Valley, release date 

September 28, 2004.’’ 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan, as adopted by the 

SJVAPCD on October 8, 2004 and by the 

California Air Resource Board on 

October 28, 2005. 

(370) An amended plan was 

submitted on March 6, 2006 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Amendments to the 2004 Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan 

adopted by the SJVAPCD on October 20, 

2005 and by CARB on March 3, 2006. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Executive Order G–126–336, dated 

March 3, 2005 (year is correctly 2006). 

(371) An amended plan was 

submitted on September 8, 2008 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) ‘‘Clarifications Regarding the 2004 

Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan for the Revoked 

Federal 1-hr Ozone Standard’’ adopted 

by the SJVAPCD on August 31, 2008 

and by CARB on September 5, 2008. 

(B) State of California Air Resources 

Board. 

(1) Executive Order S–08–012, 

‘‘Approval and Submittal of 

Amendments to the 2004 San Joaquin 

Valley 1-hour Ozone Attainment Plan,’’ 

dated September 5, 2008. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4752 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 450 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0465; FRL–9118–7] 

RIN 2040–AE91 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Construction and 

Development Point Source Category; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is correcting a date in a 

final rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on December 1, 2009, 74 FR 

62995, due to a date calculation error. 

The final rule established Clean Water 

Act technology-based Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and New Source 

Performance Standards for the 

Construction and Development point 

source category. 

DATES: Effective on March 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jesse W. Pritts at 202–566–1038 

(pritts.jesse@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction of Final Rule 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

is correcting a final rule that appeared 

in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 

December 1, 2009. 74 FR 62995. The 

final rule established Clean Water Act 

technology-based Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and New Source 

Performance Standards for the 

Construction and Development (C&D) 

point source category. The final C&D 

rule as signed by the Administrator on 

November 29, 2009 and posted, prepublication, on http://www.epa.gov set 

an applicable date for the numeric 

effluent limitation and associated 

monitoring requirements for sites that 

disturb 20 or more acres of land at one 

time for 20 months from the publication 

of the rule in the Federal Register. That 

date was expressed as a calculation: ‘‘20 

months after the date of publication of 

the final rule’’ or (in other places) ‘‘18 

months after the effective date of the 

rule.’’ The date would be the same under 

either calculation, because the effective 

date of the rule was two months after 

publication. That date is indicated in 

several locations throughout the 

preamble of the final rule. See e.g., 74 

FR 63050. A member of the public 

reading the preamble and regulatory text 

of the final rule as sent to the Office of 

the Federal Register (OFR) for 

publication and published on EPA’s 

Web site would easily be able to 

calculate the date intended by this rule 

and would certainly understand that 

compliance with the numeric effluent 

limitation and associated monitoring 

requirements would be required later 

than 2010. 

The rule was effective on February 1, 

2010. Calculated correctly, this means 

that August 1, 2011, is the date by 

which discharges from construction 

sites that disturb 20 or more acres of 

land at one time must comply with the 

numeric effluent limitation and 

monitoring requirements. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making today’s rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because such notice and 

opportunity for comment is unnecessary 

and contrary to public interest. 

Related Acts of Congress, Executive 

Orders and Agency Initiatives 

Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

is therefore not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Because the agency has made a ‘‘good 

cause’’ finding that this action is not 

subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is 

not subject to the regulatory flexibility 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., or to sections 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Public Law 

104–4. In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This rule also does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13084. 63 

FR 27655 (May 10, 1998). 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 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 64 FR 43255 

(August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 62 FR 

19885 (April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 10439 

This technical correction action does 

not involve technical standards; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 

272, do not apply. The rule also does 

not involve special consideration of 

environmental justice related issues as 

required by Executive Order 12898, 59 

FR 7629 (February 16, 1994). In issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988, 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630, 53 FR 8859 

(March 15, 1988), by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA’s compliance 

with these statutes and Executive 

Orders for the underlying rule is 

discussed in the December 1, 2009 

Federal Register notice. 74 FR 62995. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefor, and 

established an effective date of March 8, 

2010. The effective date of today’s 

correction is earlier than 30 days after 

publication. EPA finds that the earlier 

effective date clarifies the applicability 

date of the numeric effluent limit and 

associated monitoring requirements for 

sites that disturb 20 or more acres of 

land at one time for all stakeholders. 

Today’s amendment eliminates an 

inconsistency and thus, reduces the 

opportunity for confusion. Any 

additional delay in correcting the error 

would only increase the potential 

confusion. Thus, EPA sets an effective 

date to make the correction immediately 

effective. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This action is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 450 

Environmental protection, 

Construction industry, Land 

development, Erosion, Sediment, 

Stormwater, Water pollution control. 

Dated: March 1, 2010. 

Peter S. Silva, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

■ Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 450 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 450—CONSTRUCTION AND 

DEVELOPMENT POINT SOURCE 

CATEGORY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 450 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 101, 301, 304, 306, 

308, 401, 402, 501 and 510. 

■ 2. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) of § 450.22 to read as 

follows: 

§ 450.22 Effluent limitations reflecting the 

best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT). 

* * * * * 

(a) Beginning no later than August 1, 

2011 during construction activity that 

disturbs 20 or more acres of land at one 

time, including non-contiguous land 

disturbances that take place at the same 

time and are part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale; and no 

later than February 2, 2014 during 

construction activity that disturbs ten or 

more acres of land area at one time, 

including non-contiguous land 

disturbances that take place at the same 

time and are part of a larger common 

plan of development or sale, the 

following requirements apply: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–4823 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[ET Docket No. 03–108; FCC 10–12] 

Cognitive Radio Technologies and 

Software Defined Radios 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a 

petition for reconsideration filed by the 

SDR Forum requesting that the 

Commission modify the policy 

statements it made in the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order (MO&O) in this 

proceeding concerning the use of open 

source software to implement security 

features in software defined radios 

(SDRs). While, the Commission 

dismisses this petition on procedural 

grounds, it also provides clarification 

concerning the issues raised therein. 

DATES: Effective April 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Policy and Rules 

Division, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–7506, e-mail: 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 

Docket No. 03–108, adopted January 14, 

2010, and released January 19, 2010. 

The full text of this document is 

available on the Commission’s Internet 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also 

available for inspection and copying 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text of this document 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplication contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th St., SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 

488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion 

and Order 

1. On March 17, 2005, the 

Commission adopted the Cognitive 

Radio Report and Order, 70 FR 23032, 

May 4, 2005, in which the rules were 

modified to reflect ongoing technical 

developments in cognitive and software 

defined radio (SDR) technologies. 

2. On April 20, 2007, the Commission 

adopted a Memorandum Opinion and 

Order (MO&O), 72 FR 31190, June 6, 

2007, which responded to two petitions 

filed in response to the Cognitive Radio 

Report and Order. The Commission, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES