Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16365 

section 23–23–5 of the RIGL which 

provides for the RI DEM Director ‘‘to 

advise, consult, and cooperate with the 

cities and towns and other agencies of 

the State, Federal government, and other 

states and interstate agencies * * *’’ 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island all meet the 

requirements for Section 110(a)(2)(M) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

current SIPs for the States of 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island meet the 

infrastructure elements and the 

corresponding subsection of the CAA 

listed below for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard: 

Emission limits and other control 

measures (110(a)(2)(A)); 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (110(a)(2)(B)); 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C)); 

Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); 

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E)); 

Stationary source monitoring system 

(110(a)(2)(F)); 

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G)); 

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H)); 

Consultation with government 

officials (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J)); 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(110(a)(2)(J)); 

Air quality modeling data 

(110(a)(2)(K)); 

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L)); and 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities (110(a)(2)(M)). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this action and 

if that provision may be severed from 

the remainder of the action, EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

In addition, EPA may take final action 

on one or more of these state’s 

submittals separately, depending on the 

circumstances involved with each 

state’s submittal. 

IV. 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 proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6870 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0315, FRL–9285–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to correct 

errors in the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for the State of Washington 

regarding the scope of certain 

regulations incorporated by reference 

into the SIP. This correction would limit 

the applicability of certain regulations 

to pollutants for which National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) have been established and 

precursors to those NAAQS pollutants. 

It would thus ensure that these 

regulations are reasonably related to 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS in Washington. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0315, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16366 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Of course, SIP approved Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs must cover any 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50), 

which definition includes more than NAAQS 

pollutants and NAAQS precursors. 

2The excepted provisions have not been 

approved into the Washington SIP for any air 

pollutant. 

Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–107. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011– 

0315. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206) 

553–6357, e-mail address: 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the basis for the action that EPA 

is proposing? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

Section 109 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires EPA to promulgate 

regulations establishing national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for those air pollutants for which air 

quality criteria have been issued 

pursuant to Section 108 of the CAA 

(referred to as criteria or NAAQS 

pollutants). EPA has set NAAQS for six 

pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, ozone and lead at 40 CFR 

part 50. EPA has identified ammonia, 

volatile organic compounds, nitrogen 

oxides, and sulfur dioxide as precursors 

to one or more of these NAAQS 

pollutants. See CAA 302(g); 40 CFR 

51.1000. Section 110 of the CAA 

requires States to adopt and submit to 

EPA for approval State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) to implement, maintain, 

and enforce the NAAQS. In general, 

State and local regulations approved by 

EPA into the SIP under Section 110 of 

the CAA must reasonably relate to 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. See generally CAA 110; see 

also Memorandum from Michael A. 

James, EPA, to Regional Counsels, Re: 

Status of State/Local Air Pollution 

Control Measures Not Related to 

NAAQS, dated February 7, 1979 

(‘‘measures to control non-criteria 

pollutants [pollutants that are not 

NAAQS pollutants or their precursors] 

may not legally be made part of a 

SIP.’’).1

In several instances in the past, EPA 

has approved into the Washington SIP 

general air pollution regulations that 

cover a broader range of air pollutants 

than NAAQS pollutants or their 

precursors. To the extent EPA’s prior 

approvals of these general provisions 

did not distinguish between those 

pollutants that reasonably relate to 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS (that is, NAAQS pollutants and 

their precursors), such approvals were 

overly broad, approved in error, and 

should be corrected. 

EPA is therefore proposing to correct 

its previous approval of the following 

provisions of the Washington SIP to 

make clear that EPA’s approval of such 

regulations is limited to application of 

these requirements to air pollutants that 

are NAAQS pollutants or precursors to 

a NAAQS pollutant: 

Department of Ecology (Ecology): 

WAC 173–400–040 (except WAC 173– 

400–040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the 

second paragraph of (6) 2) (state effective 

9/20/93; EPA effective 6/2/95); 

Energy Facility Site Evaluation 

Council (EFSEC): WAC 463–39–005(1) 

(EFSEC’s incorporation by reference of 

WAC 173–400–040, except for WAC 

173–400–040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and 

the second paragraph of (6)) (state 

effective 9/21/95; EPA effective 7/22/ 

96); 

Northwest Clean Air Authority 

(NWCAA): NWCAA Sec. 104.1 

(NWCAA’s incorporation by reference of 

WAC 173–400–040 except for WAC 

173–400–040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and 

the second paragraph of (6)) (state 

effective 11/13/94; EPA effective 12/26/ 

95); 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

(PSCAA): PSCAA Reg. I, Sec. 304 

(except for Reg. 1, Sec. 304(e)) (state 

effective 3/11/99; EPA effective 9/30/ 

04); 

Southwest Clean Air Agency 

(SWCAA): SWCAA Sec. 400–040 

(except SWCAA Sec. 400–040(1)(c), 

(1)(d), (2), (4), and (6)(a)) (state effective 

9/21/95; EPA effective 4/28/97); 

Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 

(YRCAA): YRCAA Article V, Section 

5.06 (state effective 12/15/95; EPA 

effective 3/4/98); Section 5.12 (state 

effective 12/15/95; EPA effective 3/4/ 

98); Section 12.01 (YRCAA’s 

incorporation by reference of WAC 173– 

400–040 except WAC 173–400– 

040(1)(c), (1)(d), (2), (4) and the second 

paragraph of (6)) (state effective 12/15/ 

95; EPA effective 3/4/98). 

In a letter dated March 10, 2011, 

Ecology and SWCAA stated their 

support of EPA’s approval of this 

correction and narrowing of the 

Washington SIP. 

II. What is the basis for the action that 

EPA is proposing? 

Under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, 

whenever EPA determines that its 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), area designation, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16367 

3The one exception is within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also 

known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 

25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided State 

and local agencies in Washington authority over 

activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. 

redesignation, classification, or 

reclassification was in error, EPA may 

in the same manner as the approval, 

disapproval, or promulgation revise 

such action as appropriate without 

requiring any further submission from 

the State. Such determination and the 

basis thereof shall be provided to the 

State and public. 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is 

proposing to find that its approval of 

these State and local provisions was in 

error, and to clarify and, as necessary, 

narrow its approval of certain 

regulations in the Washington SIP so 

that EPA’s approval of those regulations 

as part of the Washington SIP is limited 

to their application to those pollutants 

that are reasonably related to attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS, that is, 

NAAQS pollutants and their precursors. 

EPA has previously similarly relied on 

section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove 

from other States’ SIPs provisions that 

do not relate to attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS or to 

narrow SIP provisions consistent with 

CAA requirements. See, e.g., 75 FR 2440 

(January 15, 2010) (removing from 

Kentucky SIP rule regulating hazardous 

air pollutants); 74 FR 27442 (June 10, 

2009) (removing from the Indiana SIP 

provisions relating to hazardous air 

pollutants); 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 

2008) (removing the word ‘‘odor’’ from 

the definition of air contaminant in the 

New York SIP); 70 FR 58311 (October 6, 

2005) (removing from the Idaho SIP a 

cross-reference to toxic air pollutants); 

66 FR 57391 (November 15, 2001) 

(removing from the Missoula CityCounty portion of the Montana SIP 

provisions relating to, among other 

things, fluoride emission standards); see 

also Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule, 75 FR 

82536, 82543–44 (Dec. 30, 2010) 

(relying on the authority of CAA 

110(k)(6) to narrow the scope of Federal 

approval of State Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP 

provisions to ensure that federally 

enforceable requirements of the PSD 

programs of these States did not apply 

at lower thresholds for greenhouse gases 

than those under Federal PSD 

requirements in the Tailoring Rule). 

Narrowing EPA’s approval of these 

regulations to NAAQS pollutants and 

their precursors will have no affect on 

Washington’s ability to demonstrate 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS or to meet any other 

requirement of the CAA. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely corrects EPA’s prior SIP 

approvals to be consistent with Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by the State’s 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Washington,3 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6872 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64 

[WC Docket No. 11–39; FCC 11–41] 

Implementation of the Truth in Caller 

ID Act of 2009 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

proposes rules to implement the Truth 

in Caller ID Act of 2009. The proposed 

rules prohibit caller ID spoofing done 

with the intent to defraud, cause harm, 

or wrongfully obtain anything of value. 

The Commission also seeks comments 

that will assist the Commission in 

preparing a statutorily required report to 

Congress on whether additional 

legislation is necessary to prohibit the 

provision of inaccurate caller 

identification information in 

technologies that are successor or 

replacement technologies to 

telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 18, 2011 and reply comments are 

due on or before May 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 11–39, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS