4742 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

16.2 Basic Standards 

16.2.1 Description of Express Mail 

Open and Distribute and Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute 

[Revise the second sentence of 16.2.1 

and add a new third sentence to clarify 

the requirement to leave containers 

unsealed and present a PS Form 3152 

as follows:] 

* * * Mailers prepare the mailings 

according to standards for the enclosed 

class of mail and enclose the mail in 

containers for expedited service as 

either Express Mail Open and Distribute 

or Priority Mail Open and Distribute. 

The containers must be presented 

unsealed, with the affixed barcoded 

address label and applicable tag, to the 

Business Mail Entry Unit or authorized 

USPS facility with a completed PS Form 

3152, Confirmation Services 

Certification, by the critical entry time 

for USPS shipment under 16.0. * * * 

* * * * * 

16.5 Preparation 

* * * * * 

16.5.4 Tags 161 and 190—Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute 

[Revise the first sentence of the 

introductory paragraph of 16.5.4 to 

remove the optional use of facsimiles as 

follows:] 

Tag 161 and Tag 190 provide a place 

to affix Priority Mail postage and the 

address label for the destination facility. 

* * * 

[Revise 16.5.4a by adding a new 

second sentence as follows:] 

a. * * * This tag also must be affixed 

to containers used for Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute shipments 

prepared under 16.5.1c or 16.5.1d. 

[Revise the second sentence in 16.5.4b 

to remove the option of a facsimile to 

read as follows:] 

b. * * * This tag also must be affixed 

to containers used for Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute shipments 

prepared under 16.5.1c or 16.5.1d. 

[Revise heading of 16.5.5 to read as 

follows:] 

16.5.5 Tray Boxes—Express Mail 

Open and Distribute and Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute 

[Revise 16.5.5 to read as follows:] 

As an alternative to sacks for Express 

Mail Open and Distribute and Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute shipments, 

unless prepared under 16.5.1c or 

16.5.1d, mailers may use USPS-supplied 

tray boxes for this service. Mailers must 

place a 1-foot or 2-foot letter tray into 

the appropriate size tray box. 

16.5.6 Address Labels 

[Revise the first sentence of 16.5.6 by 

removing Label 23 as follows:] 

In addition to Tag 157, Tag 161, or 

Tag 190, USPS-supplied containers and 

envelopes and mailer-supplied 

containers used for Express Mail Open 

and Distribute or Priority Mail Open 

and Distribute must bear an address 

label that states ‘‘OPEN AND 

DISTRIBUTE AT:’’ followed by the 

facility name. * * * 

* * * * * 

16.6 Enter and Deposit 

[Delete the heading 16.6.1, 

Verification and Entry, and move text 

under 16.6. Revise 16.6 to include the 

requirements to present PS Form 3152 

and to leave containers unsealed until 

verification and acceptance of contents 

as follows:] 

Mailers must prepare Express Mail 

Open and Distribute and Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute shipments under 

16.2 through 16.5. Shipments must be 

presented with PS Form 3152, 

Confirmation Services Certification, to a 

business mail entry unit (BMEU) or 

other location designated by the 

postmaster to accept both the enclosed 

mail and Priority Mail or Express Mail. 

Open and Distribute containers must 

not be sealed until the BMEU 

verification and acceptance of the 

contents has been completed. Mailers 

must present shipments to the BMEU 

with enough time for acceptance, 

processing, and dispatch before the 

facility’s critical entry time for Express 

Mail or Priority Mail. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1867 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0269; FRL–9107–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Legal Authority 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to clarify 

the contents of the applicable 

implementation plan for the State of 

California under the Clean Air Act. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to clarify 

that the statutory provisions submitted 

by California and approved by EPA in 

1972 supporting the State’s legal 

authority chapter of the original 

implementation plan were superseded 

by a subsequent approval by EPA in 

1980 of California’s revision to the legal 

authority chapter of the plan. EPA is 

proposing this action to clarify the 

status in the California plan of the 

statutory provisions submitted and 

approved in 1972. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0269, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

• E-mail: rios.gerardo@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios, Chief, 

Permits Office (AIR–3), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 4743 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office 

(AIR–3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3974: 

rios.gerardo@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. Background 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

In today’s action, under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), we are proposing to 

clarify that the statutory provisions 

submitted by California in 1972 

supporting the State’s legal authority 

chapter of the original implementation 

plan were superseded by a subsequent 

approval by EPA in 1980 of a revision 

to California’s legal authority chapter of 

the plan. 

II. Background 

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’), as amended in 1970, EPA 

promulgated national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for certain 

air pollutants, including photochemical 

oxidants, hydrocarbons, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

oxides, and particulate matter. The 1970 

Amended Act required each state to 

submit to EPA a plan which provides 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of the NAAQS within 

the state. These plans are referred to as 

state implementation plans (SIPs). 

The 1970 Amended Act also 

established content requirements for 

SIPs. Among other elements, the 1970 

Amended Act required SIPs to provide 

‘‘necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate * * * authority to carry 

out such implementation plan, * * *.’’ 

See section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) of the 1970 

Amended Act. In 40 CFR 51.11 (now 

codified at 40 CFR 51.230–51.232), EPA 

regulations further specify that ‘‘Each 

plan shall show that the State has legal 

authority to carry out the plan, 

including authority to (1) Adopt 

emission standards and limitations, 

* * *. (2) Enforce applicable laws, 

regulations, standards, * * *.’’ EPA 

regulations further specify: ‘‘The 

provisions of law or regulation which 

the State determines provide the 

authorities required under this section 

shall be specifically identified, and 

copies of such laws or regulations shall 

be submitted with the plan.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.11(c) (1972). In other words, the laws 

or regulations relied upon by the State 

to provide the necessary assurances of 

adequate legal authority must be 

identified in the plan, but copies of the 

actual laws or regulations themselves, 

while they must be submitted with the 

plan, need not be part of the plan itself. 

On February 21, 1972, Governor 

Ronald Reagan submitted the original 

California SIP to EPA. The original SIP 

consisted of 13 parts, the first of which 

was referred to as the ‘‘State General 

Plan.’’ The other parts contained airbasin-specific elements and appendices. 

The ‘‘State General Plan’’ was divided 

into eight chapters. Chapter 7 (‘‘Legal 

Considerations,’’ or, as referred to 

herein, the ‘‘legal authority’’ chapter) 

was submitted as part of the original SIP 

to meet the statutory and regulatory 

requirements described above in 

connection with legal authority. Chapter 

7 describes, among other things, the 

history of air pollution control in 

California, the legal authority of the 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

and the local air districts to adopt 

emission limitations, enforce applicable 

laws, prevent new construction, obtain 

emission information, require source 

monitoring, and describes various 

principles governing transportation and 

land use controls. Chapter 7 includes 

many citations to individual sections 

within the California Health & Safety, 

Penal, Civil Procedure, Government, 

and Vehicle codes, as well as citations 

to (then) recently approved legislation, 

and attorney general opinions as 

support for the assurance that adequate 

legal authority exists in the state to meet 

CAA and EPA SIP requirements. 

The state included an appendix to 

chapter 7 (entitled ‘‘Appendix II: State 

Statutes and other Legal Documents 

Pertinent to Air Pollution Control in 

California’’) in the plan (herein, 

‘‘appendix II’’) that included the specific 

sections of California code and other 

legal documents cited in chapter 7, but 

also included many sections of the 

California Health & Safety Code 

(CH&SC) that were not cited specifically 

in chapter 7. Appendix II was organized 

into 14 categories: CH&SC provisions 

related to air pollution and pertinent 

1971 amendments (not then yet 

codified), certain Penal Code sections, 

Senate Bill 678 (related to authority of 

attorney general to protect the 

environment), the California Emergency 

Services Act, an order approved by the 

Governor related to emergencies, certain 

California Code of Civil Procedure 

sections, certain Government Code 

sections, examples of continuous 

monitoring rules, the California Public 

Records Act, a Letter Opinion of the 

California Attorney General dated 

March 8, 1971 related to authority for 

regulating fuel composition, a Letter 

Opinion of the California Attorney 

General dated October 6, 1971 related to 

authority of the San Francisco Bay Area 

air pollution control district to prevent 

new construction, certain California 

Vehicle Code sections related to bus and 

commuter freeway lanes, SB 325 (1971) 

establishing a sales tax on gasoline, and 

various land use laws, including 

Assembly Bill (AB) 2070 (1970) related 

to land use planning requirements and 

the establishment of the Office of 

Planning and Research, certain 

California Government Code provisions, 

and AB 1301 (1970) related to 

consistency between zoning and general 

plans. 

In May 1972, EPA approved in part 

and disapproved in part the original 

California SIP. See 37 FR 10842 (May 

31, 1972) and 40 CFR 52.220(b). With 

respect to legal authority, EPA approved 

the submittal but found that the SIP did 

not meet certain requirements related to 

air pollution emergencies and 

availability of emission data. See 37 FR 

10842, at 10852 and 40 CFR 52.225. 

EPA’s approval included both chapter 7 

and the statutory and other documents 

contained in appendix II as described 

above. 

In response to EPA’s request and in 

response to the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, California 

undertook a comprehensive update to 

the California SIP. On March 16, 1979, 

the ARB submitted a revision to the 

legal authority chapter of the SIP, 

entitled ‘‘Chapter 3—Legal Authority, 

Revision to State of California 

Implementation Plan for the Attainment 

and Maintenance of Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (December 1978),’’ 

(also referred to herein as the revised 

‘‘legal authority’’ chapter). Much like the 

original legal authority chapter, the 

revised legal authority chapter provides 

an overview of air pollution control in 

California, generally describes the 

statutory responsibilities and authority 

of the ARB and the air pollution control 

districts, and addresses specific legal 

authorities for enforcement of the SIP, 

right of entry and source information 

gathering, public availability of data, 

emergency episodes, new source review, 

vehicular controls, and transportation 

and land use controls. While the general 

topics covered in the revised legal 

authority chapter were similar to those 

covered in the original legal authority 

chapter, the discussion is completely reorganized and updated to reflect, among 

other things, recodifications of statutory 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
4744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. C&R 

Vanderham Dairy, No. 1:05–CV–01593(OWW) (E.D. 

Cal.) (third-party litigation); 73 FR 9260 (February 

20, 2008) (EPA proposed rule approving changes to 

San Joaquin Valley new source review rules); and 

Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 08–70395 (9th Cir. filed 

January 28, 2008) (petition for review of three EPA 

actions). The particular provision at issue in these 

examples is CH&SC section 24265, which excludes 

certain categories of emissions sources, including 

equipment used in agricultural operations in the 

growing of crops or raising of fowls or animals, 

from the general grant of authority to local air 

districts to require permits for new and existing 

emissions sources. CH&SC section 24265 was not 

cited specifically in the legal authority chapter of 

the original SIP but was included within the large 

excerpt from the CH&SC submitted by the State of 

California in support of the original legal authority 

chapter. (CH&SC section 24265 was later re-codified 

as CH&SC section 42310.) As proposed in this 

action, it is clear that the statutory agricultural 

permitting exemption from the original SIP does not 

remain in effect as part of the current applicable 

California SIP. For the purposes of State law, 

effective January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 700 (2003) 

repealed the full permitting exemption for 

agricultural sources then in CH&SC 42310(e) and 

added a new section that provides a limited 

permitting exemption for minor agricultural 

sources. However, the California SIP has 

historically included, and continues to include, 

certain local district permitting rules that explicitly 

exempt agricultural sources or refer to the statutory 

agricultural exemption. EPA expects California to 

continue the process of revising local district 

permitting rules as necessary to amend the SIP 

consistent with the provisions of Senate Bill 700. 

2ARB described the nature and purpose of that 

agency’s comprehensive update of the California 

SIP during the late 1970’s as follows: ‘‘The [EPA] 

has formally requested that the [ARB] update the 

State of California Implementation Plan for 

Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, usually referred to simply as 

the ‘SIP.’ The original SIP document, submitted to 

EPA in 1972, has become obsolete largely because 

of the many modifications to federal, state, and 

local air pollution rules and regulations and 

substantial advancements in technical aspects of air 

pollution prediction and control. A new SIP 1978 

Working Document has been prepared as an initial 

response to the EPA request and contains an 

updated summary and description of the California 

SIP. * * * The SIP 1978 Working Document is a 

step towards replacing the obsolete 1972 SIP.’’ See 

page 1 of Chapter 1 (‘‘Introduction’’) (April 1978) of 

the SIP—78 Working Document. Therefore, the 

revised legal authority was intended by ARB, and 

approved by EPA, as a wholesale replacement of the 

original legal authority chapter, including the 

related statutory provisions and other materials 

submitted in support of the original chapter. 

3We view the revised legal authority chapter’s 

incorporation (as appendix 3–A) of the 1978 edition 

of California Air Pollution Control Laws as simply 

providing a general reference to where the statutory 

citations in the chapter could be located rather than 

as having the effect of a literal reading of the 

provisions into the chapter. 

4CAA section 301(a)(1) states: ‘‘The 

Administrator is authorized to prescribe such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out his 

functions under this chapter. * * *.’’ We believe 

that our rule proposed herein today is necessary to 

clarify the contents of the California SIP and 

thereby carry out the functions of EPA in 

connection with the state’s plan. 

5However, as noted in footnote #1 in this 

document, the California SIP has historically 

included, and continues to include, certain local 

district permitting rules that explicitly exempt 

agricultural sources or refer to the statutory 

agricultural exemption. EPA expects California to 

continue the process of revising local district 

provisions. Also, like the legal authority 

chapter in the original SIP, the revised 

legal authority chapter includes 

numerous citations to individual 

sections of the CH&SC (which had been 

re-numbered and re-codified since the 

time of the original SIP), certain 

citations to other California codes (e.g., 

Business and Professions Code, 

Administrative Code, Government Code 

and Vehicle Code) and an attorney 

general’s letter opinion. However, 

unlike the legal authority chapter in the 

original SIP, the revised legal authority 

chapter, as submitted in 1979, did not 

include physical copies of the actual 

statutory provisions nor the other 

documents cited in the chapter. Instead, 

the 1979 SIP revision simply 

incorporates by reference the 1978 

edition of California Air Pollution 

Control Laws as ‘‘appendix 3–A’’ to the 

chapter. Later in 1979, we proposed 

approval of the revised SIP ‘‘Chapter 3— 

Legal Authority’’ as an update and 

clarification of the 1972 SIP. See 44 FR 

38912 (July 3, 1979). The following year, 

we took final action, effective 

September 10, 1980, to approve the 

revised legal authority chapter. See 45 

FR 53136 (August 11, 1980) and 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(48). Since that time, EPA has 

not approved any other revision to the 

chapter that addresses legal authority in 

the California SIP. 

Recently, the status of the statutory 

provisions from the original SIP has 

come into question in the context of 

third party litigation, an EPA 

rulemaking action on a revision to new 

source review rules in the San Joaquin 

Valley, and a lawsuit filed against EPA 

challenging certain EPA actions on the 

premise that such actions were arbitrary 

and capricious if a certain statutory 

provision submitted and approved by 

EPA in connection with the original SIP 

remains in effect as part of the current 

applicable California SIP.1 Thus, we 

believe that clarification of the status of 

the statutory provisions (and other legal 

documents) submitted in connection 

with the original SIP is necessary and 

appropriate at this time. 

III. Proposed Action 

As shown from the State’s submittals 

and the regulatory history of EPA’s 

actions on the legal authority chapter, 

and revisions thereto, of the California 

SIP (as described in the previous section 

of this document), the statutory 

provisions and other legal documents 

submitted in support of the legal 

authority chapter in the original SIP are 

no longer part of the California SIP. The 

statutory provisions and other legal 

documents were superseded by our 

1980 approval of the revised legal 

authority chapter of the California SIP 

(codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(48)). Our 

conclusion in this regard follows from 

our finding, based on the nature and 

scope of the revised chapter and the 

mismatch between the statutory 

citations in the revised chapter and 

those contained in the original chapter, 

that the 1979 submittal of the revised 

legal authority chapter represented a 

wholesale replacement of the original 

chapter.2 We also note that the actual 

statutory provisions and other legal 

documents relied upon to support a 

state’s assurance of adequate legal 

authority need not be approved into the 

SIP under CAA section 110 or EPA’s SIP 

regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (although 

such provisions are required to be 

submitted with the plan). Thus, EPA 

could approve, consistent with CAA 

and EPA requirements, and did so in 

this instance, a wholesale revision to the 

original legal authority chapter without 

also approving the actual statutory 

provisions and other legal documents 

cited therein.3

To memorialize our interpretation of 

the effect of our 1980 approval of the 

revised legal authority chapter of the 

California SIP and thereby clarify the 

status of the statutory and other legal 

documents submitted in connection 

with the original California SIP’s legal 

authority chapter, we propose today 

under CAA section 301(a)(1) 4 to revise 

40 CFR 52.220(b)(12)(i). 

The relevant provision of the CFR, 40 

CFR 52.220(b)(12), currently lists certain 

CH&SC provisions related to variances 

that EPA deleted from the California SIP 

in 2004. See 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 

2004). In today’s action, we are 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 

52.220(b)(12) to clarify that none of the 

statutory provisions (and other legal 

documents) submitted in connection 

with chapter 7 (Legal Considerations) of 

the original California SIP remain in the 

SIP, not just the few provisions 

currently listed. We propose to revise 40 

CFR 52.220(b)(12) to codify the date 

(September 10, 1980) on which the 

statutory provisions (and other legal 

documents) were superseded in the 

California SIP. 

The effect of our action, if finalized as 

proposed, would be to clarify that the 

subject statutory provisions, including 

the statutory-based agricultural 

permitting exemption contained in 

CH&SC section 24265, have not been 

part of the California SIP since the 

effective date (September 10, 1980) of 

our 1980 approval of the revised legal 

authority chapter of the California SIP.5


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 4745 

permitting rules as necessary to amend the SIP 

consistent with the provisions of Senate Bill 700. 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

Under CAA section 301(a)(1) and for 

the reasons discussed above, EPA is 

proposing to clarify that the statutory 

provisions and other legal documents 

submitted in connection with the legal 

authority chapter of the original 1972 

California SIP were superseded by 

EPA’s approval of a revised legal 

authority chapter in 1980 (and codified 

at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(48)). To 

memorialize EPA’s interpretation of the 

effect of the 1980 final rule on the 

earlier submitted and approved 

statutory provisions and other legal 

documents, EPA is proposing to revise 

40 CFR 52.220(b)(12)(i) to read as 

follows: 

‘‘(i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 

and deleted without replacement, effective 

September 10, 1980, chapter 7 of part I and 

all of the statutory provisions and other legal 

documents contained in appendix II to 

chapter 7 (Legal Considerations).’’ 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document 

and will accept comments for the next 

30 days. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. 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 

proposes to clarify the effect of a 

previous approval by EPA of a state 

submittal as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed 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 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 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 52 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(12)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(12) * * * 

(i) Previously approved on May 31, 

1972 and deleted without replacement, 

effective September 10, 1980, chapter 7 

of part I and all of the statutory 

provisions and other legal documents 

contained in appendix II to chapter 7 

(Legal Considerations). 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 21, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1839 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0062; FRL–9107–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, State of 

California, San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District, New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 110(k)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to 

correct our May 2004 final approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan. EPA is also 

proposing to take action on three 

amended District rules, one of which 

was submitted on March 7, 2008 and the 

other two of which were submitted on 

March 17, 2009. Two of the submitted 

rules reflect revisions to approved 

District rules that provide for review of 

new and modified stationary sources 

(‘‘new source review’’ or NSR) within 

the District, and the third reflects 

revisions to an approved District rule 

that provides a mechanism by which 

existing stationary sources may be 

exempt from the requirement to secure 

a Federally-mandated operating permit. 

The NSR rule revisions relate to 

exemptions from permitting and from 

offsets for certain agricultural 

operations, to the establishment of NSR 

applicability and offset thresholds 

consistent with a classification of 

‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment for the ozone 

standard, and to the implementation of 

EPA’s NSR Reform Rules. With respect 

to the revised District NSR rules, EPA is 

proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval because, although 

the changes would strengthen the SIP, 

there are deficiencies in enforceability 

that prevent full approval. With respect 

to the operating permit rule, EPA is 

proposing a full approval. Lastly, EPA is 

proposing to rescind certain obsolete 

permitting requirements from the 

District portion of the California plan. 

If EPA were to finalize the limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

action, as proposed, then a sanctions 

clock, and EPA’s obligation to 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS