80420 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to cease and desist from the unlawful 

conduct and post the required employee 

notice, as well as a remedial notice. In 

some instances additional remedies may 

be appropriately invoked in keeping 

with the Board’s remedial authority. 

(b) Any employer that threatens or 

retaliates against an employee for filing 

charges or testifying at a hearing 

concerning alleged violations of the 

notice-posting requirement may be 

found to have committed an unfair labor 

practice. See NLRA Section 8(a)(1) and 

8(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (4). 

§ 104.214 What other sanctions may be 

imposed for noncompliance? 

(a) Tolling of statute of limitations. 

When an employee files an unfair labor 

practice charge, the Board may find it 

appropriate to excuse the employee 

from the requirement that charges be 

filed within six months after the 

occurrence of the allegedly unlawful 

conduct, if the employer has failed to 

post the required employee notice, 

unless the employee has received actual 

or constructive notice that the conduct 

complained of is unlawful. See NLRA 

Section 10(b), 29 U.S.C. 160(b). 

(b) Knowing noncompliance as 

evidence of unlawful motive. If an 

employer has actual or constructive 

knowledge of the requirement to post 

the employee notice and fails or refuses 

to do so, the Board may consider such 

a willful refusal as evidence of unlawful 

motive in a case in which motive is an 

issue. 

Subpart C—Ancillary Matters 

§ 104.220 What other provisions apply to 

this part? 

(a) The regulations in this part do not 

modify or affect the interpretation of 

any other NLRB regulations or policy. 

(b)(1) This subpart does not impair or 

otherwise affect: 

(i) Authority granted by law to a 

department, agency, or the head thereof; 

or 

(ii) Functions of the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or 

legislative proposals. 

(2) This subpart must be implemented 

consistent with applicable law and 

subject to the availability of 

appropriations. 

(c) This part creates no right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, 

enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, or agents, or any 

other person. 

Signed in Washington, DC, December 16, 

2010. 

Wilma B. Liebman, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32019 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0891, FRL–9241–9] 

RIN 2060–AQ65 

Reasonable Further Progress 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

revise the Agency’s earlier 

interpretation of its rule regarding 

requirements for Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) that allowed certain 

emissions reductions from outside the 

nonattainment area to be credited 

toward meeting the RFP requirements 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Specifically, EPA is proposing that 

States may not take credit for emission 

reductions from outside the 

nonattainment area to meet the area’s 

RFP obligations. EPA is also taking 

comment on whether it would be 

appropriate for States to rely on 

emission reductions credit from outside 

the nonattainment area for RFP 

obligations. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 7, 2011. 

Public Hearings. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

January 6, 2011, we will hold a public 

hearing. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional information 

on the comment period and the public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0891, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0891, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Mail Code: 2822T. Please 

include two copies if possible. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0891, Environmental 

Protection Agency in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room hours of operation will 

be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (EST), Monday through 

Friday, Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0891. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80421 

1See Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2 

(70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further general information on this 

rulemaking, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, (C539–01), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number 

(919) 541–2363, fax number (919) 541– 

0824 or by e-mail at dail.lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected directly 

by this action include State, local, and 

Tribal governments. Entities potentially 

affected indirectly by this rule include 

owners and operators of sources of 

emissions [volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)] that 

contribute to ground-level ozone 

concentrations. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed to be 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in 

the public docket. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ 

air/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl 

under ‘‘recent actions.’’ 

D. What information should I know 

about possible public hearing? 

EPA will hold a public hearing only 

if a party notifies EPA by January 3, 

2011. Further details concerning a 

public hearing for this proposed rule 

will be published in a separate Federal 

Register notice. For updates and 

additional information on a public 

hearing, please check EPA’s Web site for 

this rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozonepollution/actions.html#impl. 

E. How is this notice organized? 

The information presented in this 

notice is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What information should I know about 

possible public hearings? 

E. How is this notice organized? 

II. Can emissions reductions from sources 

located outside the nonattainment area 

boundary be used to meet RFP 

requirements? 

A. Background 

B. NRDC’s Petition for Reconsideration of 

the August 2009 RFP Rule on Credits for 

Outside Reductions 

C. EPA’s Proposed Approach to Relying on 

Credits From Outside the Nonattainment 

Area to Meet the RFP Obligations and 

Response to the Request for 

Reconsideration 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

IV. Statutory Authority 

List of Subjects 

II. Can emissions reductions from 

sources located outside the 

nonattainment area boundary be used 

to meet RFP requirements? 

A. Background 

Under EPA’s Phase 2 1 Rule, certain 

emission reductions from sources 

located outside a nonattainment area 

could be credited toward meeting the 

1997 ozone NAAQS RFP requirement. 

In the preamble to that rule, EPA stated 

that credit could be taken for VOC and 

NOX emission reductions within 100 

kilometers (km) and 200 km, 

respectively, outside the nonattainment 

area under certain circumstances. In 

addition, if a regional NOX control 

strategy were in place in a State, NOX

reductions within that State beyond 200 

km could be credited toward meeting 

the RFP target. In all cases, areas had to 

include a demonstration that the 

emissions from outside the 

nonattainment area had an impact on 

ozone air quality levels within the 

nonattainment area. EPA explained that 

where data indicated that emissions 

reductions from sources outside a 

nonattainment area improved ozone air 

quality within the nonattainment area, it 

was appropriate to allow States to take 

RFP credit for such reductions from 

outside the nonattainment area. This 

interpretation was consistent with the 

policy EPA had established under the 1- 

hour ozone standard ‘‘Guidance for 

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and 

Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,’’ December 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
80422 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2The memorandum is available on the EPA 

Technology and Transfer Network (TTN) Policy and 

Guidance page for Title I at this Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. 

3 In addition, where State RFP plans rely on 

‘‘outside’’ reductions to meet the RFP obligations, 

such plans must include a technical demonstration 

showing that such outside emissions significantly 

affected the PM2.5 concentrations within the 

nonattainment area. And, the area outside the 

nonattainment area from which creditable 

reductions are taken must be within the State; areas 

outside the State but within 200 km would not be 

eligible for credit for RFP purposes. 

29, 1997.2 For a more complete 

discussion of EPA’s rationale for 

applying this interpretation in the Phase 

2 Rule, see 70 FR at 71647–49. 

On January 27, 2006, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed 

a petition for review of EPA’s Phase 2 

Ozone Implementation Rule in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the Court). NRDC 

challenged several aspects of the Phase 

2 Rule including EPA’s interpretation 

that formed the basis of its policy for 

allowing credit for reductions outside 

the nonattainment area, namely EPA’s 

interpretation that the intent of section 

182(c)(2)(C) is to reduce ambient ozone 

concentrations within an area rather 

than to reduce emissions within the 

nonattainment area. NRDC claimed that 

EPA’s interpretation and 

implementation of these provisions 

were both unlawful and arbitrary. NRDC 

also argued that the rule was arbitrary 

because it allowed the State to claim 

credit for emission reductions from 

selected outside-the-nonattainment-area 

sources without also adding emissions 

from other outside sources to the RFP 

baseline, even where those other 

sources impact air quality in the 

nonattainment area. 

Following the conclusion of briefing 

in this case, EPA published a final rule 

implementing the NAAQS for fine 

particulate matter (the PM2.5

Implementation Rule) where we 

adopted a different approach for 

crediting reductions from outside 

nonattainment areas (‘‘outside’’ 

reductions). See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 

2007). The PM2.5 Rule allows States to 

take credit for ‘‘outside’’ reductions of 

NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 

up to 200 km from the nonattainment 

area (and potentially VOC or ammonia 

as well) provided certain conditions are 

met, including that when taking RFP 

credit for emissions reductions achieved 

in ‘‘outside’’ areas, the baseline 

emissions inventory for the 

nonattainment area contain all, rather 

than a select few, sources in the outside 

area.3 The primary objective of this 

policy was to reflect the net emission 

reductions in the ‘‘outside’’ area that 

could affect the nonattainment area 

rather than crediting only reductions 

from selected sources. 

Following publication of the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, EPA requested 

from the Court on July 17, 2007, a 

partial voluntary remand of the Phase 2 

Rule to reevaluate and consider whether 

to revise the RFP interpretation for 

ozone to assure consistency with the 

provisions in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule. In response to EPA’s motion for a 

partial voluntary remand of the ozone 

RFP policy, NRDC asked the Court to 

also vacate this provision. On November 

2, 2007, the Court issued an order that 

vacated and remanded the portion of the 

Phase 2 Rule that permitted credit for 

reductions of VOC and NOX from 

outside nonattainment areas. On August 

11, 2009 (74 FR 40074), EPA issued a 

final rule to revise the RFP policy in the 

Phase 2 Rule to be consistent with the 

interpretation in the PM2.5

Implementation rule. 

Meanwhile on July 10, 2009, the 

Court issued its decision on the other 

issues in the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule case. NRDC v. 

EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009). The 

Court examined the phrase ‘‘in the area’’ 

included in separate provisions relating 

to reductions from the application of 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) (CAA sections 172 

(1) and 182(b)(2)). In the Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA had explained that because an 

interstate emissions trading program 

[the NOX State implementation plan 

(SIP) call’s NOX budget program] would 

achieve beyond RACT-level NOX

reductions regionally, areas did not 

have to meet the RACT-level reductions 

required under CAA section 172(c)(1) 

solely from within the nonattainment 

area. The Court, however, concluded 

that the phrase ‘‘in the area’’ means that 

reductions must occur within the area 

and ‘‘reductions from outside the 

nonattainment area do not satisfy the 

requirement.’’ 571 F.3d at 1256. 

Although such region-wide reductions 

could potentially satisfy the statutory 

requirement that the reductions must be 

from sources within the nonattainment 

area, the Court found that EPA had not 

made a demonstration for all 

nonattainment areas within the SIP Call 

area showing that the regional emissions 

trading program did in fact produce 

sufficient reductions from inside each 

nonattainment area to represent RACTlevel reductions. Id. 

B. NRDC’s Petition for Reconsideration 

of the August 2009 RFP Rule on Credits 

for Outside Reductions 

Following the Court’s decision, on 

October 9, 2009, NRDC filed a petition 

with EPA for administrative 

reconsideration of the August 2009 final 

rule revising EPA’s interpretation in the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule on 

allowing credit toward meeting the RFP 

requirements using emissions 

reductions from outside of ozone 

nonattainment areas. In its petition, 

NRDC based its objections to the rule on 

the following grounds: (1) The Court’s 

decision on the RACT provisions in the 

Phase 2 Rule and its interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘sources in the area’’ requires 

that RFP emission reductions also be 

achieved only from sources within the 

nonattainment area; (2) EPA presented a 

new rationale, i.e., there is some 

ambiguity in the statutory provisions 

because they do not prohibit credits for 

reductions from outside the 

nonattainment area, for which it did not 

provide an opportunity for comment; (3) 

EPA offered a new and arbitrary 

rationale for its choice of the 100 and 

200 km distances for ‘‘outside’’ 

reductions; (4) EPA stated a new and 

arbitrary rationale, i.e., creditable 

‘‘outside’’ reductions must be reasonably 

expected to provide ozone air quality 

benefits comparable to those from 

reductions in the area, for evaluating 

‘‘outside’’ reductions; and (5) EPA relied 

on a new rationale when it explained 

that sources that are outside the 

nonattainment area are not necessarily 

‘‘nearby’’ for designations purposes and 

certain factors would need to be 

considered for judging whether an area 

is ‘‘nearby.’’ 

On May 13, 2010, EPA granted 

reconsideration of the rule based on 

NRDC’s petition and stated it would 

initiate rulemaking to address the 

reconsideration. EPA is addressing the 

reconsideration through this proposed 

rulemaking. NRDC’s first objection is 

addressed in the following section and 

EPA believes that the proposed action 

makes NRDC’s other objections moot. 

Therefore, EPA is not addressing any of 

those subsequent points here. 

C. EPA’s Proposed Approach to Relying 

on Credits From Outside the 

Nonattainment Area to Meet the RFP 

Obligations and Response to the 

Request for Reconsideration 

EPA is proposing to set aside its 

earlier interpretation of the RFP 

provisions in the August 2009 final rule 

and no longer permit States to rely on 

credit for emission reductions from 

outside the ozone nonattainment area to 

meet such an area’s RFP obligations. In 

light of the Court’s decision in NRDC 

discussed previously, and upon 

consideration of NRDC’s petition for 

reconsideration, EPA believes that the 

language in the baseline emissions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80423 

provision for determining the emissions 

reductions required for RFP purposes 

(CAA sections 182(b)(1)(B) and 

182(c)(2)(B)) is almost identical to the 

language in the RACT provision (section 

172(c)(1)) addressed by the Court, and 

thus compels a similar interpretation. 

All three sections contain the phrase ‘‘in 

the area’’ and in examining the RACT 

provision the Court found that language 

compelled that the reductions must 

come from within the nonattainment 

area, and that reductions from outside 

the nonattainment area would not 

satisfy the statutory requirement for 

reductions ‘‘in the area.’’ We see no basis 

for interpreting that same clause in the 

RFP provisions in a different manner in 

light of the Court’s decision. 

EPA is therefore proposing that for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS States may not take 

credit for VOC or NOX reductions 

occurring outside the nonattainment 

area for purposes of meeting the section 

182(b) and (c) RFP requirements. This 

includes the 15 percent VOC plan 

requirement for Moderate and above 

ozone nonattainment areas in section 

182(b)(1) and the additional 3 percent 

per year requirement for Serious and 

above ozone nonattainment areas in 

section 182(c)(2)(B). 

EPA recognizes that not allowing 

credit for emissions reductions outside 

the nonattainment area will make it 

more challenging for some areas, such 

as nonattainment areas adjacent to the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, namely, Coachella Valley, West 

Mojave Desert and Ventura County in 

California, to meet the RFP 

requirements, and may limit the extent 

to which regional programs can be 

creditable toward RFP. For ozone 

nonattainment areas that are not able to 

meet the 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B)(i) 

RFP requirements, the CAA allows for a 

lesser amount of RFP if certain 

conditions are met. For an area to 

qualify for a less than the required 15 

percent emissions reduction, that State 

must demonstrate that, in the area, New 

Source Review (NSR) provisions are 

applicable in the same manner and to 

the same extent as in an Extreme area, 

RACT is required for all existing major 

sources, and the RFP plan includes all 

feasible measures that can be 

implemented in light of technological 

achievability. For purposes of applying 

this provision, a major source is defined 

as a source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 5 tons per year 

of VOC. Similarly, for Serious and above 

areas to qualify for less than the 

required 3 percent each year of 

reductions in emissions to meet their 

RFP obligations, a State must show that 

the SIP includes all feasible measures 

that can be implemented in the area in 

light of technological achievability. In 

both instances, the State must also 

demonstrate that the SIP for the area 

includes measures that are achieved in 

practice by sources in the same source 

category in nonattainment areas of the 

next higher classification. See 

182(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 182(c)(2)(B)(ii). 

Despite the Court’s opinion in NRDC, 

there may remain valid policy reasons 

for giving States incentive to focus on 

obtaining emission reductions that are 

the most beneficial and cost effective for 

attaining the ozone standards. Also, 

there may be cases where the most 

beneficial and cost-effective reductions 

are from sources located outside the 

nonattainment area boundaries. In these 

cases, there may be good reason to 

credit the emission reductions toward 

meeting RFP requirements. To this end, 

EPA is also taking comment on allowing 

credit for reductions outside the 

nonattainment area to satisfy the RFP 

requirements for the 1997 and 2010 

ozone NAAQS. If EPA finalizes this 

proposal to provide that credit cannot 

be taken for emission reductions from 

outside the nonattainment area, States 

that previously submitted plans that 

relied on such credit will need to 

submit new RFP demonstrations for 

those areas. 

EPA requests comments on the 

proposal and the implications for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘non-significant regulatory 

action’’ because it does not raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The CAA 

imposes the obligation for States to 

submit SIPs, including RFP, to 

implement the ozone NAAQS. In this 

proposal, EPA is merely providing an 

interpretation of those requirements; 

thus there is no information collection 

burden. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations 40 CFR parts 50 and 

51 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0594. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an Agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

regulation subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the 

Agency certifies the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of these proposed regulations on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined in the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and 

(3) a small organization that is any notfor-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impact of these proposed revisions to 

the regulations on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposal will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (URMA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or Tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
80424 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and local officials in the development of 

regulator policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ Policies that have 

‘‘Federalism implications’’ are 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.’’ This 

action does not have Federalism 

implications. It 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. This proposed 

rule, if made final, would modify the 

rules for implementing the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to these proposed 

regulation revisions. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13121 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA is 

soliciting comments on this proposal 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and 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 action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). They do not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

Tribes, since no Tribe has to develop a 

SIP under these proposed regulatory 

revisions. Furthermore, these proposed 

regulation revisions do not affect the 

relationship or distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. The 

CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish 

the relationship of the Federal 

government and Tribes in developing 

plans to attain the NAAQS, and these 

revisions to the regulations do nothing 

to modify that relationship. This 

proposed regulation revision does not 

have Tribal implications. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because this proposed 

revision addresses whether allowing 

outside the nonattainment area emission 

reduction credits for purposes of RFP 

obligations will adequately ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and meet the obligations 

of the CAA. The NAAQS are 

promulgated to protect the health and 

welfare of sensitive population, 

including children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (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(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed revision to the 

regulations does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The CAA imposes the 

obligation for States to submit SIPs, 

including RFP, to implement the ozone 

NAAQS. In this proposal, EPA is merely 

providing an interpretation of those 

requirements. The proposed 

interpretation, if promulgated, would no 

longer permit States to rely on credit for 

emission reductions from outside a 

nonattainment area to meet such an 

area’s RFP obligations, which are 

designed to protect all segments of the 

general population. As such, they do not 

adversely affect the health or safety of 

minority or low-income populations 

and are designed to protect and enhance 

the health and safety of these and other 

populations. 

K. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(E) and 

307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the 

Administrator determines that this 

action is subject to the provisions of 

section 307(d). Section 307(d)(1)(V) 

provides that the provisions of section 

307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as 

the Administrator may determine.’’ 

VII. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 109; 110; 172; 

181 through 185B; and 301(a)(1) of the 

CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 

U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7502; 42 U.S.C. 

7511–7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1)). This 

notice is also subject to section 307(d) 

of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 50 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone, Particulate. 

40 CFR Part 51 

Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Nitrogen oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 80425 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32139 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[ET Docket No. 10—152; FCC 10–194] 

Satellite Television Extension and 

Localism Act of 2010 and Satellite 

Home Viewer Extension and 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

comment the submission of additional 

information concerning the 

methodological changes for the digital 

ILLR model with respect to the 

calculation of diffraction loss close to an 

obstacle or leading up to and following 

a pair of obstacles; and a factual or 

scientific basis for explaining the 

additional losses in the line of sight 

range above and beyond the free space 

loss and two-ray-loss. The Commission 

is particularly interested in information 

on any other techniques for improving 

the degree to which the model 

accurately represents the propagation of 

a digital television signal from a 

transmitter to a specific receive site and 

any new data that may be available for 

improving the model’s predictions. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 21, 2011, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

February 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–2925, 

e-mail: Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov or Robert 

Weller, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–7397, TTY (202) 

418–2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 10–97, 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:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: [Optional: Include the email address only if you plan to accept 

comments from the general public]. 

Include the docket number(s) in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk or CD–ROM 

submissions needed/requested by your 

Bureau or Office. Do not include the 

Office of the Secretary’s mailing address 

here.] 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this 

document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET 

Docket No. 10–152, FCC 10–194, 

adopted November 22, 2010, and 

released November 23, 2010. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Summary of Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In the Report and Order, FCC 10– 

194, adopted November 22, 2010 and 

released November 23, 2010, in this 

proceeding, the Commission adopted a 

new digital TV ILLR model that 

complies with the requirements and 

provisions of the Satellite Television 

Extension and Localism Act of 2010 

(STELA). This model will provide a 

method for accurately, reliably and 

presumptively estimating the signal 

strength of digital television stations at 

individual locations for purposes of 

determining whether a subscriber to a 

satellite television service is eligible for 

delivery of distant network signals from 

that service. With this model in place, 

the Commission seeks to further 

investigate and consider the suggestions 

in the comments for possible 

modifications to the digital ILLR model 

that would further improve the accuracy 

and improve the accuracy and reliability 

of its predictions. The Commission 

would adopt such modifications in a 

subsequent Report and Order in this 

proceeding. 

2. In this regard, the Commission 

invites the submission of additional 

information concerning the 

methodological changes suggested in 

the comments by Mr. Shumate for the 

digital ILLR model with respect to (1) 

calculation of diffraction loss close to an 

obstacle or leading up to and following 

a pair of obstacles and (2) a factual or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS