6376 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

change on the public is that applicants 

will have the option to request 

prioritized examination by paying 

appropriate fees, filing a complete 

application via the Office’s electronic 

filing system (EFS–Web) with any filing 

and excess claims fees due paid on 

filing, and limiting their applications to 

four independent claims and thirty total 

claims. 

An applicant who wishes to 

participate in the program must submit 

a certification and request to participate 

in the prioritized examination program, 

preferably by using Form PTO/SB/424. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that, under 5 

CFR 1320.3(h), Form PTO/SB/424 does 

not collect ‘‘information’’ within the 

meaning of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. Therefore, this rule making 

does not impose additional collection 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act which are subject to 

further review by OMB. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to respond to 

nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, Inventions and patents, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

PATENT CASES 

1. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2). 

2. Section 1.17 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1.17 Patent application and 

reexamination processing fees. 

* * * * * 

(c) For filing a request for prioritized 

examination under § 1.102(e)—$4,000. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 1.102 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1.102 Advancement of examination. 

(a) Applications will not be advanced 

out of turn for examination or for further 

action except as provided by this part, 

or upon order of the Director to expedite 

the business of the Office, or upon filing 

of a request under paragraph (b) or (e) 

of this section or upon filing a petition 

or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of 

this section with a showing which, in 

the opinion of the Director, will justify 

so advancing it. 

* * * * * 

(e) A request for prioritized 

examination under this paragraph may 

be filed only with an original utility or 

plant nonprovisional application under 

35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed via the Office’s 

electronic filing system (EFS-Web), that 

is complete as defined by § 1.51(b), with 

any fees due under § 1.16 paid on filing. 

A request for prioritized examination 

under this paragraph must be present 

upon filing and must be accompanied 

by the prioritized examination fee set 

forth in § 1.17(c), the processing fee set 

forth in § 1.17(i), and the publication fee 

set forth in § 1.18(d). Prioritized 

examination under this paragraph will 

not be accorded to a design application 

or reissue application, and will not be 

accorded to any application that 

contains or is amended to contain more 

than four independent claims, more 

than thirty total claims, or any multiple 

dependent claim. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 1, 2011. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2585 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9261–8] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Indiana and Ohio; Disapproval 

of Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the portions of 

submittals by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) and 

the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency (Ohio EPA) that pertain to 

requirements of the CAA to address 

interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour 

fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

not, however, currently taking action on 

the remainder of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals 

from IDEM and Ohio EPA concerning 

other basic or ‘‘Infrastructure’’ elements 

required under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0805, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Acting 

Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0805. 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6377 

1The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was 

signed by the Administrator and publically 

disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA 

did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP 

submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, 

three years from the September 21, 2006 signature 

date. 

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, 

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 at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Andy 

Chang, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the States’ 

submittals? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

States to submit basic or ‘‘Infrastructure’’ 

SIPs to address a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. As provided by section 

110(k)(2) of the CAA, within twelve 

months of a determination that a 

submitted SIP is complete under 

110(k)(1) of the CAA, the Administrator 

shall act on the plan. As authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, where 

portions of the State submittals are 

severable, within that twelve-month 

period EPA may approve the portions of 

the submittals that meet the 

requirements of the CAA, take no action 

on certain portions of the submittals, 

and disapprove the portions of the 

submittals that do not meet the 

requirements of the CAA. When the 

deficient provisions are not severable 

from all of the submitted provisions, 

EPA must propose disapproval of the 

submittals, consistent with section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA. 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the 

elements that such new Infrastructure 

SIPs must address, as applicable, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

pertains to interstate transport of certain 

emissions, also known as the CAA 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions. 

On December 18, 2006, EPA revised 

the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3

(see, 71 FR 61144).1 On September 25, 

2009, EPA issued its ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 

Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 

Guidance for States making submissions 

to meet the requirements of section 110, 

including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As identified in the 2009 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another State in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the State from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

States; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

States; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other States. 

In the 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated 

that SIP submissions from States 

pertaining to the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) should contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from within the State that 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

State. EPA further indicated that the 

State’s submission should explain 

whether or not emissions from the State 

have this impact and, if so, address the 

impact. EPA stated that the State’s 

conclusion should be supported by an 

adequate technical analysis. EPA 

recommended the various types of 

information that could be relevant to 

support the State SIP submission, such 

as information concerning emissions in 

the State, meteorological conditions in 

the State and the potentially impacted 

States, monitored ambient 

concentrations in the State, and air 

quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA 

indicated that States should address the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirement independently, which 

requires an evaluation of impacts on 

areas of other States that are meeting the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely 

areas designated nonattainment. Lastly, 

in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that 

States could not rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

because CAIR does not address this 

NAAQS. 

EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 

2005 (see, 70 FR 25162). CAIR required 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010). 

3 Indiana’s CAIR regulations were fully approved 

by EPA on November 29, 2010 (see, 75 FR 72956). 

Ohio’s CAIR regulations were fully approved by 

EPA on September 29, 2009 (see, 74 FR 48857). 

4Further, as explained above and in the 

Transport Rule proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010), the DC Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA 

found that EPA’s quantification of States’ 

significant contribution and interference with 

maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded 

the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect only 

temporarily. 

5The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program 

was effectively replaced by CAIR’s NOX ozone 

season trading program, and only addresses 

summertime NOX. PM2.5 and SO2 (a precursor to 

PM2.5) are not addressed. 

States to reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides that 

significantly contribute to, and interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS 

for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any 

downwind State. CAIR was intended to 

provide States covered by the rule with 

a mechanism to satisfy their section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address 

significant contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. Many States adopted the CAIR 

provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to 

demonstrate compliance with the CAIR 

requirements in satisfaction of their 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for those 

two pollutants. 

EPA was sued by a number of parties 

on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 

11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

its decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in 

their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, 

in response to EPA’s petition for 

rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. 2008). The Court thereby left 

CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily 

preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaces it 

with a rule consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed 

EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ 

consistent with its July 11, 2008 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing that 

action. Id. 

In order to address the judicial 

remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a 

new rule to address interstate transport 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the 

‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone’’ 

(Transport Rule).2 As part of the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

specifically examined the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that 

emissions from sources in a State must 

not ‘‘significantly contribute to 

nonattainment’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by other States. The modeling 

performed for the proposed Transport 

Rule shows that both Indiana and Ohio 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in downwind areas. 

IDEM and Ohio EPA made submittals 

on October 20, 2009, and September 4, 

2009, respectively, that were intended 

to demonstrate satisfaction of all 

Infrastructure SIP elements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Both States 

relied predominantly on their respective 

EPA-approved CAIR regulations to meet 

the interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Indiana further 

committed to amend its rule once the 

Federal CAIR is amended or replaced. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

States’ submittals? 

Indiana and Ohio each asserted in 

their submissions that they have met 

their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by a series of 

regulations, including their approved 

CAIR rules.3 However, CAIR was 

promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS were revised in 2006 and does 

not address interstate transport with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.4 Thus, as EPA’s 2009 

Guidance explicitly notes, States cannot 

rely on CAIR to comply with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, Indiana 

and Ohio provided no analyses to assess 

the quantity of emissions which can be 

permitted within the State consistent 

with the requirement to prohibit 

emissions which interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other States. 

Because the submittals from Indiana 

and Ohio relied predominantly on CAIR 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS while CAIR 

does not address that NAAQS, and 

because Indiana and Ohio provided no 

analysis or supplemental rules expressly 

addressing the requirement to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with attainment 

and maintenance of this standard, the 

submissions are deficient. Furthermore, 

Indiana and Ohio will not be able to 

permanently rely upon the emissions 

reductions predicted by CAIR, because 

EPA needs to address the concerns of 

the Court as outlined in its decision 

remanding CAIR. 

For these reasons, EPA cannot 

approve Indiana’s and Ohio’s SIP 

submissions pertaining to the 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also concludes 

that the elements of the Infrastructure 

SIP submittals from Indiana and Ohio 

addressing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are severable; therefore, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove those 

provisions which relate to the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration, while 

taking no action on the remainder of the 

Infrastructure SIP submittals from each 

respective State. 

In addition to relying on the State’s 

CAIR regulations, Indiana’s October 20, 

2009 submittal cited various programs 

that IDEM has adopted and 

implemented related to interstate 

transport. These measures include stack 

height requirements, acid deposition 

control regulations, and the Nitrogen 

Oxides Budget Trading Program (NOX

SIP Call). Although EPA’s 2009 

Guidance directed that a State’s 

submittal must be supported by an 

adequate technical analysis, no such 

analysis was provided by IDEM 

justifying that these measures are 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Furthermore, 

programs such as the Nitrogen Oxides 

Budget Trading Program have limited 

relevance to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.5 EPA finds that these measures 

are not sufficient to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

previously mentioned, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the provisions which 

relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstration, while taking no action 

on the remainder of the Infrastructure 

SIP submittal from Indiana. 

Similarly, Ohio also asserted in its 

September 4, 2009, submittal that other 

regulations in the State have been 

adopted and implemented in order to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, the State 

referenced rules pertaining to stack 

height requirements, acid rain permits 

and compliance, the Nitrogen Oxides 

Budget Trading Program (NOX SIP Call), 

and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 

Additionally, Ohio EPA cited instances 

where the existing SIP was revised to 

alleviate modeled violations in two 

neighboring States. Although EPA’s 

2009 Guidance directed that a State’s 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 6379 

6The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program 

was effectively replaced by CAIR’s NOX ozone 

season trading program, and only addresses 

summertime NOX. PM2.5 and SO2 (a precursor to 

PM2.5) are not addressed. The Clean Air Mercury 

Rule was vacated in 2008. 

submittal must be supported by an 

adequate technical analysis, no such 

analysis was provided by Ohio EPA 

justifying that these measures are 

sufficient to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Furthermore, 

programs such as the Nitrogen Oxides 

Budget Trading Program and the Clean 

Air Mercury Rule have limited 

relevance to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.6 EPA finds that these measures 

are not sufficient to meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

previously mentioned, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the provisions which 

relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstration, while taking no action 

on the remainder of the Infrastructure 

SIP submittal from Ohio. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(section 171—section 193 of the CAA), 

or is required in response to a finding 

of substantial inadequacy as described 

in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction 

clock. The provisions in the submittals 

we are disapproving were not submitted 

by Indiana or Ohio to meet either of 

those requirements. Therefore, if EPA 

takes final action to disapprove these 

submittals, no sanctions under section 

179 will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no 

later than two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. The proposed Transport Rule, 

when final, is the FIP that EPA intends 

to implement for the States of Indiana 

and Ohio. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove submittals 

from Indiana and Ohio intended to 

demonstrate that each respective State 

has adequately addressed the elements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. This action pertains only to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); the States’ 

submittals for the remainder of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure 

SIPs will be addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and, 

therefore, is not subject to review under 

the Executive Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by 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 not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval 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 action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

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 

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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997).This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions 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. 

National Technology Transfer 

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. 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. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 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 lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter. 

Dated: January 28, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2497 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1167] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2010– 

31151 beginning on page 77598 in the 

issue of Monday, December 13, 2010, 

make the following correction: 

§ 67.4 [Corrected] 

On page 77599, in § 67.4, in the table 

St. Charles County, Missouri, and 

Incorporated Areas, the 12th and 13th 

entries are corrected to read as set forth 

below: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS