41826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, this proposed 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 

Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19858 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0024; FRL–8943–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

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 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

concern a local fee rule that applies to 

major sources of volatile organic 

compound and nitrogen oxide 

emissions within the San Joaquin Valley 

ozone nonattainment area. We are 

proposing action on a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0024, 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 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: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@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. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

adopted Rule 3170, Federally Mandated 

Ozone Nonattainment Fee, on May 16, 

2002. This rule was submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

on August 6, 2002, for incorporation 

into the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). On August 30, 2002, this rule 

submittal was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V. 

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 requires certain 

major stationary sources of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the San 

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment 

area to pay a fee to the SJVUAPCD if the 

area fails to attain the 1-hour national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone by its Federally established 

attainment date. The fee must be paid 

for each calendar year after the 

attainment year until the area is 

redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), and 185 

of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act), States are required to 

adopt an excess emissions fee regulation 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as severe or extreme. The 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS classification for the San 

Joaquin Valley area is extreme (see 69 

FR 20550, April 16, 2004). Although 

EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), 

Section 185 requirements still apply for 

1-hour ozone non-attainment areas 

(South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, DC Cir. 

2006). The fee regulation specified by 

the Act requires major stationary 

sources of VOCs in the nonattainment 

area to pay a fee to the State if the area 

fails to attain the standard by the 

attainment date set forth in the Act. 

Section 182(f) of the Act requires States 

to apply the same requirements to major 

stationary sources of NOX as are applied 

to major stationary sources of VOCs. 

Emissions of VOCs and NOX play a role 

in producing ground-level ozone and 

smog, which harm human health and 

the environment. SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 

applies to major sources of both NOX

and VOCs. 

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). Rule 3170 was evaluated for 

compliance with the requirements in 

CAA section 185. The rule was also 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41827 

evaluated for consistency with the CAA 

and EPA’s general SIP policies, as well 

as a March 21, 2008, memorandum from 

William Harnett, Director of the Air 

Quality Policy Division, to the Regional 

Air Division Directors, entitled, 

‘‘Guidance on Establishing Emissions 

Baselines under Section 185 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and 

Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone 

NAAQS by their Attainment Date.’’ 

Guidance and policy documents that we 

use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability requirements typically 

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. ‘‘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. 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

Rule 3170 improves the SIP by 

establishing an excess emissions fee 

regulation. Portions of the rule are 

consistent with the CAA, as well as 

relevant policy and guidance regarding 

enforceability and SIP relaxations. Rule 

provisions which do not meet the 

evaluation criteria are summarized 

below. 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

The following provisions conflict 

with section 185 of the Act and prevent 

full approval of the SIP revision: 

Section 4.2 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 

exempts units that begin operation after 

the attainment year. CAA Section 185 

does not provide for an exemption for 

emission units that begin operation after 

the attainment year, so this exemption 

does not fully comply with the CAA. 

Rather, it requires ‘‘each major source’’ 

to pay the fee. See CAA section 185(a). 

Section 4.3 exempts any ‘‘clean 

emission unit’’ from the requirements of 

the rule. Section 3.6 defines a clean 

emission unit as a unit that is equipped 

with an emissions control technology 

that either has a minimum 95% control 

efficiency (or 85% for lean-burn internal 

combustion engines), or meets the 

requirements for achieved-in-practice 

Best Achievable Control Technology as 

accepted by the APCO during the 5 

years immediately prior to the end of 

the attainment year. The District’s staff 

report for Rule 3170 states that the 

exemption is intended to address ‘‘the 

difficulty of reducing emissions from 

units with recently installed BACT.’’ 

Although EPA understands the District’s 

intended purpose for including the 

exemption, the exemption does not 

comply with CAA section 185, for the 

same reason as noted above for new 

emission units. 

The EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory 

Committee (CAAAC) has recently asked 

EPA to review and address whether it is 

‘‘legally permissible under either 

section 185 or 172(e) of the Clean Air 

Act for a State to exercise discretion’’ to 

develop fee program SIPs employing 

one or more of a list of CAAACidentified program options (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/caaac/185wg). One of 

the program options the CAAAC 

identified is an exemption from fees for 

‘‘well-controlled’’ sources. In today’s 

action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the ‘‘clean emission unit’’ exemption in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 because we do 

not believe such an exemption is 

authorized by CAA section 185. 

However, the State has not requested 

that EPA review the SIP pursuant to 

section 172(e) and has not made a 

demonstration that the program it has 

submitted would ensure controls that 

are ‘‘not less stringent’’ than those 

required under section 172(e). Thus, 

EPA is not at this time addressing 

whether it is legally permissible under 

CAA section 172(e) for a State to adopt 

an alternative program at least as 

stringent as a section 185 fee program, 

and for the alternative program to 

contain a clean unit exemption. 

Section 3.2.1 defines the baseline 

period as two consecutive years 

consisting of the attainment year and 

the year immediately prior to the 

attainment year. CAA Section 185(b)(2) 

establishes the attainment year as the 

baseline period. While this provision 

also provides the option for calculating 

baseline emissions over a period of 

more than one calendar year, that option 

is limited to sources with emissions that 

are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary 

significantly from year to year. Thus 

section 3.2.1 is inconsistent with the 

CAA because it provides a different 

baseline than that required by the CAA 

(two years instead of one) regardless of 

whether the emissions are irregular, etc. 

Section 3.2.2 allows averaging over 2– 

5 years to establish baseline emissions. 

CAA Section 185(b)(2) states that EPA 

may issue guidance authorizing such an 

alternative method of calculating 

baseline emissions if a source’s 

emissions are irregular, cyclical, or 

otherwise vary significantly from year to 

year. EPA issued guidance on 

alternative methods for calculating 

baseline emissions in the form of the 

memorandum from William Harnett, 

mentioned above. The averaging period 

allowed in Section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 

appears consistent with the March 21, 

2008, guidance. However, the language 

in Section 3.2.2 allows such averaging 

‘‘if those years are determined by the 

APCO as more representative of normal 

source operation.’’ This language is 

considered less stringent than the CAA 

criteria. The rule should be amended to 

specify use of the expanded averaging 

period only if a source’s emissions are 

irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary 

significantly from year to year. 

Section 3.4 defines the term ‘‘Major 

Source’’ by referring to the definition in 

SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review 

Rule). The current SIP-approved version 

of Rule 2201 was adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD on December 19, 2002, and 

approved by EPA on May 17, 2004 (69 

FR 27837). This version of Rule 2201 

defines ‘‘Major Source’’ as a stationary 

source with VOC or NOx emissions of 

over 50,000 pounds per year (25 tons 

per year). The CAA defines the major 

source threshold as 10 tons per year for 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

extreme. The SJVUAPCD amended Rule 

2201 on December 18, 2008, and 

submitted it for inclusion in the SIP on 

March 17, 2009. This amended version 

includes the 10 tons per year threshold, 

but has not been approved into the SIP. 

Therefore, Rule 3170’s reliance on Rule 

2201 to define major sources is not 

approvable at this time. If a version of 

Rule 2201 that contains the appropriate 

major source threshold is approved into 

the SIP prior to finalizing this proposed 

action, then we will no longer cite 

Section 3.4 as a deficiency in Rule 3170. 

D. 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 rule 

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule 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) because the rule does not fully 

meet the statutory section 185 

requirement. 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. These sanctions would be 

imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

final disapproval would also trigger the 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). Note 

that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. Moreover, because the rule would be 

approved into the SIP, it would also be 

Federally enforceable. 

However, the limited approval of Rule 

3170 does not override specific CAA 

mandates. If the area fails to attain by its 

2010 attainment date, fees will accrue 

beginning in 2011 for emissions above 

80% of source baselines for clean units, 

new units and major sources which are 

exempted from fee collection under the 

State rule. The State must adopt and 

submit a rule to collect fees for 2011 and 

future years from those units or, 

consistent with the Administrator’s 

obligation under section 185(d), EPA 

will collect those fees. In addition, all 

sources are liable for fees calculated in 

accordance with the baseline definition 

in section 185(b)(2) as further 

interpreted in EPA guidance issued 

pursuant to that provision. The State 

must adopt and submit a rule that 

ensures fees are collected for 2011 and 

all future applicable years based on the 

statutory baseline requirement. If the 

State fails to do so, EPA will collect any 

additional fees owed pursuant to a 

Federal program under section 185(d). 

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 

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 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41829 

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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19856 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0024; FRL–8943–8] 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Revising 

the California State Implementation 

Plan; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 

33950), EPA published a rule proposing 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a revision to the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan. The revision concerned 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170, Federally 

Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee. 

We are withdrawing this previously 

published rule, and in this Federal 

Register, we are publishing a proposed 

rule that replaces the July 14, 2009, 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33950) is 

withdrawn as of August 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

14, 2009 (74 FR 33950), EPA proposed 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170, 

Federally Mandated Ozone 

Nonattainment Fee. Rule 3170 is a local 

fee rule that applies to major sources of 

volatile organic compound and nitrogen 

oxide emissions within the San Joaquin 

Valley ozone nonattainment area. Due to 

a clerical error, the proposed rule that 

was published on July 14, 2009, was 

inconsistent with the signed document. 

Consequently, we are withdrawing the 

rule proposed on July 14, 2009, and in 

this Federal Register, we are publishing 

the proposed rule as originally signed. 

The rule being proposed in this Federal 

Register replaces the following rule 

published on July 14, 2009: 

Title: Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (Proposed rule, 74 FR 33950, 

July 14, 2009, EPA–R09–OAR–2009– 

0024). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19857 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

42 CFR Part 73 

RIN 0920–AA32 

Possession, Use, and Transfer of 

Select Agents and Toxins—Chapare 

virus 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to add 

Chapare virus to the list of HHS select 

agents and toxins. We are proposing this 

action because Chapare virus has been 

phylogenetically identified as a Clade B 

arenavirus and is closely related to other 

currently regulated South American 

arenaviruses that cause haemorrhagic 

fever, particularly Sabia virus. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed 

change to the list of HHS select agents 

and toxins should be marked 

‘‘Comments on Chapare virus’’ and 

mailed to: Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Select Agent Program, 

1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop A–46, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Comments may 

be e-mailed to: SAPcomments@cdc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robbin Weyant, Director, Division of 

Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 

Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop A–46, 

Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone: (404) 

718–2000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 

(the Act) authorizes the Secretary to 

regulate the possession, use, and 

transfer of select agents and toxins that 

have the potential to pose a severe 

threat to public health and safety. These 

regulations are set forth at 42 CFR part 

73. 

Criteria used to determine whether a 

select agent or toxin should be included 

under the provisions of these 

regulations are based on: 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS