57186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

international application must include 

all of the following:

* * * * *

(3) A reproduction of the mark that is 

the same as the mark in the basic 

application and/or registration and that 

meets the requirements of § 2.52 of this 

title. 

(i) If the mark in the basic application 

and/or registration is depicted in black 

and white and the basic application or 

registration does not include a color 

claim, the reproduction of the mark in 

the international application must be 

black and white. 

(ii) If the mark in the basic application 

or registration is depicted in black and 

white and includes a color claim, the 

international application must include 

both a black and white reproduction of 

the mark and a color reproduction of the 

mark. 

(iii) If the mark in the basic 

application and/or registration is 

depicted in color, the reproduction of 

the mark in the international 

application must be in color. 

(iv) If the international application is 

filed on paper, the mark must be no 

more than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 

3.15 inches (8 cm) wide, and must 

appear in the box designated by the 

International Bureau on the 

International Bureau’s official form;

* * * * *

(9) The certification fee required by 

§ 7.6; 

(10) If the application is filed through 

TEAS, the international application fees 

for all classes, and the fees for all 

designated Contracting Parties 

identified in the international 

application (see § 7.7); 

(11) A statement that the applicant is 

entitled to file an international 

application in the Office, specifying that 

applicant: is a national of the United 

States; has a domicile in the United 

States; or has a real and effective 

industrial or commercial establishment 

in the United States. Where an 

applicant’s address is not in the United 

States, the applicant must provide the 

address of its U.S. domicile or 

establishment; and 

(12) If the international application is 

filed through TEAS, an e-mail address 

for receipt of correspondence from the 

Office.

* * * * *

■ 7. Amend § 7.14 by revising paragraph 

(e) to read as follows:

§ 7.14 Correcting irregularities in 

international application. 

(a) * * *

(e) Procedure for response. To be 

considered timely, a response must be 

received by the International Bureau 

before the end of the response period set 

forth in the International Bureau’s 

notice. Receipt in the Office does not 

fulfill this requirement. Any response 

submitted through the Office for 

forwarding to the International Bureau 

should be submitted as soon as possible, 

but at least one month before the end of 

the response period in the International 

Bureau’s notice. The Office will not 

process any response submitted to the 

Office after the International Bureau’s 

response deadline.

■ 8. Amend § 7.21 by revising 

paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(7), 

and (b)(8), and adding a new paragraph 

(b)(9), to read as follows:

§ 7.21 Subsequent designation.

* * * * *

(b) The Office will grant a date of 

receipt to a subsequent designation that 

is either filed through TEAS, or typed 

on the official paper form issued by the 

International Bureau. The subsequent 

designation must contain all of the 

following:

* * * * *

(7) The U.S. transmittal fee required 

by § 7.6; 

(8) If the subsequent designation is 

filed through TEAS, the subsequent 

designation fees (see § 7.7); and 

(9) If the subsequent designation is 

filed through TEAS, an e-mail address 

for receipt of correspondence from the 

Office.

* * * * *

■ 9. Amend § 7.23 by revising paragraph 

(a)(8) to read as follows:

§ 7.23 Requests for recording 

assignments at the International Bureau.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(8) The U.S. transmittal fee required 

by § 7.6.

* * * * *

■ 10. Amend § 7.25 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to 

extension of protection. 

(a) Except for §§ 2.130–2.131, 2.160–

2.166, 2.168, 2.173, 2.175, 2.181–2.186, 

and 2.197, all sections in part 2 of this 

chapter and all sections of part 10 of 

this chapter apply to a request for 

extension of protection of an 

international registration to the United 

States, including sections related to 

proceedings before the Trademark Trial 

and Appeal Board, unless stated 

otherwise.

* * * * *

■ 11. Amend § 7.31 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read as 

follows:

§ 7.31 Requirements for transformation of 

an extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application.

* * * * *

(a) The holder of the international 

registration must file a request for 

transformation within three months of 

the date of cancellation of the 

international registration and include:

* * * * *

Dated: September 17, 2004. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 04–21476 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[Region II Docket No. R02–OAR–2004–NJ–

0003, FRL–7818–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities; New 

Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a negative 

declaration submitted by the State of 

New Jersey. The negative declaration 

fulfills EPA’s promulgated Emission 

Guidelines for existing commercial and 

industrial solid waste incinerator 

(CISWI) sources. In accordance with the 

Emission Guidelines, states are not 

required to submit a plan to implement 

and enforce the Emission Guidelines if 

there are no existing CISWI sources in 

the state and if it submits a negative 

declaration letter in place of the State 

Plan.

DATES: This rule will be effective 

October 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal 

are available at the following addresses 

for inspection during normal business 

hours: 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Office of Air 

Quality Management, Bureau of Air 

Pollution Control, 401 East State Street, 

CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Air Docket, Room B–108, 1301

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 57187

Constitution Avenue (Mail Code 6102T), 

NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony (Ted) Gardella 

(Gardella.Anthony@epa.gov), Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–3892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following table of contents describes the 

format for the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section:

Table of Contents 

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

B. Why Is EPA Approving New Jersey’s 

Negative Declaration? 

C. What if an Existing CISWI Source Is 

Discovered After the Effective Date of EPA’s 

Final Action? 

D. What Comments Were Received on the 

Proposed Approval and How Has EPA 

Responded to Them? 

E. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

F. Statutory and Executive Order 

Revisions.

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

The EPA is approving a negative 

declaration submitted by the State of 

New Jersey dated March 4, 2004. This 

negative declaration finds that there are 

no existing facilities subject to 

regulation as commercial and industrial 

solid waste incinerators (CISWI) in the 

State of New Jersey. The negative 

declaration satisfies the federal 

Emission Guidelines requirements of 

EPA’s promulgated regulation entitled 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units’’ (65 FR 75338, 

December 1, 2000; and corrected at 66 

FR 16605, March 27, 2001). The 

negative declaration officially certifies 

to EPA that, to the best of the State’s 

knowledge, there are no CISWI sources 

in operation in the State of New Jersey.

In its March 4, 2004 letter, New Jersey 

further stated that its negative 

declaration was consistent with the 

EPA’s database of CISWI units which 

shows only one potential CISWI 

incinerator located at the Hoffman 

LaRoche (HLR) facility in Nutley, New 

Jersey. However, New Jersey stated that 

the HLR incinerator is regulated as a cofired combustor under EPA’s Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator 

(HMIWI) Federal Plan (title 40, part 62, 

subpart HHH of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (40 CFR 62, subpart HHH), 

promulgated on August 15, 2000) and 

therefore, exempt from the CISWI 

Emission Guidelines. EPA agrees with 

New Jersey that the HLR incinerator is 

considered a co-fired combustor under 

EPA’s HMIWI Federal Plan and, due to 

the nature of the waste combusted in the 

incinerator, is exempt from the CISWI 

Emission Guidelines. 

B. Why Is EPA Approving New Jersey’s 

Negative Declaration? 

EPA has evaluated the negative 

declaration submitted by New Jersey for 

consistency with the Clean Air Act 

(Act), EPA guidelines and policy. EPA 

has determined that New Jersey’s 

negative declaration meets all 

applicable requirements and, therefore, 

EPA is approving the State’s 

certification that there are no existing 

CISWI units in operation throughout the 

State. For additional details, see EPA’s 

proposed approval published in the 

Federal Register on July 16, 2004 (69 FR 

42641). 

C. What if an Existing CISWI Source Is 

Discovered After the Effective Date of 

EPA’s Final Action? 

Section 60.2530 of 40 CFR 60, subpart 

DDDD (page 75363 @ 65 FR 75338, 

December 1, 2001) requires that if, after 

the effective date of EPA’s final action 

on New Jersey’s negative declaration, an 

existing CISWI unit is found in the 

State, the Federal Plan (40 CFR 62, 

subpart III, promulgated on October 3, 

2003) implementing the Emission 

Guidelines would automatically apply 

to that CISWI unit until a State Plan is 

approved by EPA. 

D. What Comments Were Received on 

the Proposed Approval and How Has 

EPA Responded to Them? 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed approval ended on August 16, 

2004. There were no comments received 

on EPA’s proposed approval of New 

Jersey’s negative declaration. Therefore, 

EPA is approving New Jersey’s negative 

declaration. 

E. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

EPA has determined that New Jersey’s 

negative declaration meets all 

applicable requirements and, therefore, 

EPA is approving New Jersey’s 

certification that no CISWI units are in 

operation within the State of New 

Jersey. If any existing CISWI sources are 

discovered in the future, the Federal 

Plan implementing the Emission 

Guidelines would automatically apply 

to that CISWI unit until the State Plan 

is approved by EPA. 

F. Statutory and Executive Order 

Revisions 

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.’’

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

‘‘answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * * ‘‘44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). Because the final rule 

applies to New Jersey’s negative 

declaration letter for CISWI units, there 

are no companies affected by this 

approval and therefore, the Paper 

Reduction Act does not apply.

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 as a negative 

declaration no sources in the state are 

subject to the CISWI Emission 

Guidelines requirements. Therefore, 

because the Federal approval 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. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 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 

57188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 185 / Friday, September 24, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action 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 approves 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. 

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. 

EPA has concluded that this rule may 

have federalism implications. The only 

reason why this rule may have 

federalism implications is if in the 

future a CISWI unit is found within the 

State of New Jersey the unit will become 

subject to the Federal Plan until a State 

Plan is approved by EPA. However, it 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on state or local 

governments, nor will it preempt state 

law. Thus, the requirements of sections 

6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do 

not apply to this rule.

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 final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

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. 

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 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Acid gases, Carbon 

monoxide, commercial and industrial 

solid waste incinerators, 

Intergovernmental relations, Organics, 

Particulate matter, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 16, 2004. 

Jane M. Kenny, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

■ Part 62, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart FF—New Jersey

■ 2. Part 62 is amended by adding new 

§ 62.7604 and an undesignated heading 

to subpart FF to read as follows: 

Air Emissions From Existing 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerator Units

§ 62.7604 Identification of plan—negative 

declaration. 

Letter from the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, submitted March 4, 2004, 

certifying that there are no commercial 

and industrial solid waste incinerators 

in the State of New Jersey subject to part 

60, subpart DDDD of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 04–21496 Filed 9–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0286; FRL–7678–6]

Penoxsulam, 2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-

(5,8-dimethoxy[1,2,4] triazolo[1,5-

c]pyrimidin-2-yl)-6-

(trifluoromethyl)benzenesulfonamide; 

Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.