Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75937 

of FCLAA (15 U.S.C. 1333) to require 

that nine new health warning 

statements appear on cigarette packages 

and in cigarette advertisements. Section 

201 also states that ‘‘the Secretary [of 

Health and Human Services] shall issue 

regulations that require color graphics 

depicting the negative health 

consequences of smoking’’ to 

accompany the nine new health 

warning statements. 

On November 12, 2010, FDA 

published a proposed rule seeking 

comment on these new requirements (75 

FR 69524). The proposed rule provides 

a 60-day comment period, which ends 

January 11, 2011. FDA proposed several 

options for color graphics that could 

accompany each of the nine health 

warning statements required by FCLAA. 

These documents are available in the 

docket and on FDA’s Web site (http:// 

www.fda.gov/cigarettewarnings). FDA 

seeks comment on these proposed 

images. 

II. Experimental Study 

In considering and developing 

appropriate color graphics depicting the 

negative health consequences of 

smoking to accompany the textual 

warning statements specified in section 

4(a)(1) of FCLAA (15 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1)), 

FDA assessed the graphic warnings that 

other countries have required for 

tobacco products, as well as scientific 

literature studying the impact of graphic 

warnings on smoking behavior and 

evaluating the communication 

effectiveness of such images. FDA 

worked with various experts in the 

fields of health communications, 

marketing research, graphic design, and 

advertising to develop the required 

warnings published with the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule explained that 

FDA was conducting research to: (1) 

Measure consumer attitudes, beliefs, 

and intended behaviors related to 

cigarette smoking in response to the 

proposed color graphics and their 

accompanying textual warning 

statements; (2) determine whether 

consumer responses to the proposed 

color graphics and their accompanying 

textual warning statements differ across 

various groups based on smoking status, 

age, or other demographic variables; and 

(3) evaluate the relative effectiveness of 

the proposed color graphics and their 

accompanying textual warning 

statements at conveying information 

about various health risks of smoking, 

and additionally, at encouraging 

smoking cessation and discouraging 

smoking initiation (75 FR 7604 

(February 22, 2010); 75 FR 52352 

(August 25, 2010)). The proposed rule 

stated that once the research is complete 

and final analyses of the results are 

available, FDA planned to place a report 

of the results of the analyses in the 

docket so the public has an opportunity 

to comment on it. 

FDA has now completed this research 

and analyzed the results. The 

Experimental Study Report describes 

FDA’s findings and analysis. FDA has 

placed the Experimental Study Report 

in the docket for the proposed rule and 

is providing notice and an opportunity 

to comment on it. 

III. Comments 

Interested persons may submit to the 

Division of Dockets Management (see 

ADDRESSES) either electronic or written 

comments regarding the Experimental 

Study Report and the related 

rulemaking documents. It is only 

necessary to send one copy of 

comments. It is no longer necessary to 

send two copies of mailed comments. 

Identify comments with the docket 

number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Margaret A. Hamburg, 

Commissioner of Food and Drugs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30685 Filed 12–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708, FRL–9235–7] 

RIN 2060–AP36 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration of 

final rule; request for public comment; 

notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: On March 3, 2010, EPA 

published final national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for existing compression ignition 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines. Subsequently, the 

Administrator received two petitions for 

reconsideration concerning one 

particular issue arising from the final 

rule. EPA is announcing our 

reconsideration of and requesting public 

comment on that one issue. Specifically, 

while EPA is not proposing at this time 

any specific changes to our regulations, 

EPA is requesting comment on our 

decision to amend the limitations on 

operation of emergency stationary 

engines to allow emergency engines to 

operate for up to 15 hours per year as 

part of an emergency demand response 

program. EPA plans to issue a final 

decision on this issue as expeditiously 

as possible. EPA is seeking comment 

only on this issue. EPA will not respond 

to any comments addressing any other 

issue or any other provisions of the final 

rule or any other rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 7, 2011, 

or 30 days after date of public meeting 

if later. 

Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public meeting 

by December 27, 2010, a public meeting 

will be held on January 6, 2011. If you 

are interested in attending the public 

meeting, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

(919) 541–7966 to verify that a meeting 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0708, 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. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person identified below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0708. 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
75938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Public Meeting: If a public meeting is 

held, it will be held at EPA’s campus 

located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in 

Research Triangle Park, NC or an 

alternate site nearby. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. EPA also 

relies on documents in Docket ID Nos. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0059, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0029, and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2005–0030, and incorporated those 

dockets into the record for this action. 

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 Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 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, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Melanie King, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 

541–2469; facsimile number (919) 541– 

5450; email address 

king.melanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for the 

reconsideration action? 

B. What entities are potentially affected by 

the reconsideration action? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

III. Discussion of the Issue 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

V. 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 of 1995 

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 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for 

the reconsideration action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 

307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 

7607(d)(7)(B)). This action is also 

subject to section 307(d) of the CAA (42 

U.S.C. 7607(d)). 

B. What entities are potentially affected 

by the reconsideration action? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 

Category NAICS1 Examples of regulated entities 

Any industry using a stationary reciprocating internal combustion 

engine.

2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 

622110 Medical and surgical hospitals. 

48621 Natural gas transmission. 

211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 

211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 

92811 National security. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your engine is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.6585. 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

C. 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 as 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. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI to only the following address: 

Ms. Melanie King, c/o OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404– 

02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75939 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

(a) Identify the action by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

(b) Follow directions. EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations part or 

section number. 

(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

(d) Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

(e) If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

(f) Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

(g) Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

(h) Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Docket. The docket number for this 

action is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0708. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this action will be 

posted on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Website 

(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA 

will post a copy of this action on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

II. Background 

On March 3, 2010, EPA promulgated 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

existing stationary compression ignition 

(CI) reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) (75 FR 9648). The final 

NESHAP for stationary RICE were 

promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ, which already contained 

standards applicable to new stationary 

RICE and some existing stationary RICE. 

The final CI RICE NESHAP is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

Regs/home.html#document

Detail?R=0900006480ab3523. 

Following promulgation of the March 

3, 2010, final rule, the EPA 

Administrator received a petition for 

reconsideration, dated April 30, 2010, 

from the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control (DE DNREC) pursuant to section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The EPA 

Administrator also received a petition 

for reconsideration, dated May 27, 2010, 

from CPower Inc., EnergyConnect Inc., 

EnerNOC Inc., and Innoventive Power 

LLC (EnerNOC, et al.) pursuant to 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. On 

August 2, 2010, EPA issued a letter to 

the counsels for the DE DNREC and 

EnerNOC, et al. granting the petitions 

for reconsideration and indicating that 

the Agency would issue a Federal 

Register notice regarding the 

reconsideration process. This action 

requests comment on issues raised in 

the petitions for reconsideration. 

In addition to the petitions for 

reconsideration, one petition for judicial 

review of the March 3, 2010, final 

NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE 

was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit by 

EnerNOC, et al. (Doc. No. 10–1090, D.C. 

Cir). On June 3, 2010, EPA filed an 

unopposed motion to hold the case in 

abeyance while the Agency considers 

the pending administrative petitions for 

reconsideration. On June 4, 2010, the 

Court granted EPA’s motion and ordered 

the case held in abeyance pending 

further order from the Court. The 

petitions for reconsideration are 

available for review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.

html#documentDetail?R=

0900006480af3dd6 and http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.

html#documentDetail?R=

0900006480afedbd. 

III. Discussion of the Issue 

On March 5, 2009, EPA proposed 

NESHAP for several categories of 

existing stationary RICE (74 FR 9698). 

That proposed rule made revisions to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The preexisting subpart ZZZZ stated that 

emergency stationary RICE did not 

include engines that supply power to an 

electric grid or otherwise provide power 

as part of a financial arrangement with 

another entity. The proposed rule did 

not change the definition, but specified 

certain use requirements for existing 

emergency stationary RICE. 

EPA received comments on the 

proposed rule recommending that 

emergency stationary RICE be allowed 

to participate in emergency demand 

response programs to ensure stability of 

the electric grid. Based on the 

comments, EPA determined that it 

would be appropriate to allow 

emergency engines to operate as part of 

emergency demand response programs 

for a limited number of hours of 

operation per year in situations where 

grid failure and a blackout are 

imminent. EPA included a provision in 

the March 3, 2010, final rule specifying 

that emergency engines could be 

operated for a maximum of 15 hours per 

year as part of a demand response 

program if the regional transmission 

organization or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator has 

determined there are emergency 

conditions that could lead to a potential 

electrical blackout, such as unusually 

low frequency, equipment overload, 

capacity or energy deficiency, or 

unacceptable voltage level. 

Following promulgation of the final 

rule, EPA received two petitions for 

reconsideration regarding the allowance 

for operation of emergency engines in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The petition from DE DNREC requested 

that EPA reconsider the decision to 

allow 15 hours of emergency demand 

response operation for emergency 

engines because of the adverse impacts 

of the increased emissions from these 

engines. According to the DE DNREC, 

the emergency demand response 

operation would likely occur on high 

ozone days, and would undercut the 

progress Delaware has made in reducing 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants, 

nitrogen oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ozone. The DE DNREC 

also stated that there was insufficient 

notice that EPA would amend the 

provisions for stationary emergency 

engines. 

The petition from EnerNOC, et al. 

requested that EPA revise the allowance 

for emergency demand response 

operation in the final rule to allow the 

engines to be operated for a maximum 

of 60 hours per year or the minimum 

hours required by the Independent 

System Operator (ISO) tariff, whichever 

is less. In the opinion of EnerNOC, et 

al., the final rule may prevent 

emergency engines from participating in 

emergency demand response programs 

since the engines may not be able to 

meet ISO tariff requirements that specify 

minimum hours of availability to 

participate. According to the petition 

from EnerNOC, et al., emergency 

engines have historically been called to 

operate for emergency demand response 

on a very limited basis. The EnerNOC, 

et al. petition provided a summary of 

the historical usage of engines in 

emergency demand response programs. 

The petitioners were of the opinion that 

emergency demand response programs 

provide a benefit to the environment by 

preventing rotating or wholesale 

blackouts, which would result in the 

operation of all emergency engines in 

the affected area. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
75940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

EPA seeks full public participation in 

arriving at its final decisions. At this 

time EPA is not proposing any specific 

revisions to our regulations allowing 15 

hours for emergency stationary RICE in 

emergency demand response programs 

in the final NESHAP for stationary 

RICE. However, EPA requests public 

comment on the regulations delineating 

the allowance to assess whether those 

regulations should be revised. EPA 

requests comment on whether or not 

engines should be allowed to participate 

in emergency demand response 

programs, while keeping their status as 

emergency engines under the 

regulations, and if they are allowed to 

participate, what, if any, limitations 

should be placed on the operation of 

emergency engines in emergency 

demand response programs. EPA 

specifically requests comment on 

whether emergency engines in 

emergency demand response programs 

should be limited to use during periods 

in which the regional transmission 

organization or equivalent balancing 

authority and transmission operator 

directs the implementation of operating 

procedures for voltage reductions of 5 

percent of normal operating voltage 

requiring more than 10 minutes to 

implement, voluntary load curtailments 

by customers, or automatic or manual 

load-shedding, in response to, or to 

prevent the occurrence of, unusually 

low frequency, equipment overload, 

capacity or energy deficiency, 

unacceptable voltage levels, or other 

such emergency conditions. EPA also 

requests comment on whether the 

limitation on use should be for periods 

in which the regional transmission 

authority or equivalent balancing 

authority has declared an Energy 

Emergency Alert Level 2 (EEA Level 2) 

as defined in the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation 

Reliability Standard EOP–002–3, 

Capacity and Energy Emergency. 

EPA is also requesting information on 

whether the operation of these engines 

in emergency demand response 

programs is needed to ensure the 

stability of the electric grid. EPA is 

seeking comment on whether the costs 

for meeting the requirements for nonemergency engines would prevent these 

engines from taking part in emergency 

demand response programs. 

In addition, EPA is requesting 

information on the environmental 

impact of the operation of these engines. 

EPA is interested in information on the 

typical frequency and duration of the 

operation of these engines in emergency 

demand response programs and whether 

their operation tends to occur on high 

ozone days. 

EPA recently published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to revise portions 

of the New Source Performance 

Standards for Stationary Compression 

Ignition and Stationary Spark Ignition 

Internal Combustion Engines. 75 FR 

32612 (June 8, 2010). In that action, EPA 

proposed revising the definition and use 

restrictions on emergency stationary 

internal combustion engines in 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, to 

correspond to the definition of 

emergency RICE and the restrictions on 

emergency RICE finalized in the March 

3, 2010, final NESHAP for existing 

stationary CI RICE. Therefore, the 

comments received on this issue in both 

proceedings may be relevant to one 

another. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. EPA is 

not proposing any new information 

collection activities (e.g., monitoring, 

reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this 

action. With this action, EPA is seeking 

additional comments on one aspect of 

the final NESHAP for existing stationary 

CI RICE (75 FR 9648, March 3, 2010). 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0548. 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 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this action on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s 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 this action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This action seeks comment on one 

aspect of the final NESHAP for existing 

stationary CI RICE without proposing 

any changes to the rule, and it does not 

impose any new requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

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. The 

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 

sections 202 or 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. This 

action requests comment on one aspect 

of the final NESHAP for existing 

stationary CI RICE without proposing 

any changes to the rule 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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 action 

seeks comment on one aspect of the 

final NESHAP for existing stationary CI 

RICE without proposing any changes to 

the rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75941 

F. 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). This action 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, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

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 Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is based solely on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. 

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 (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

J. 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 on minority or 

low-income populations. 

EPA has determined that this action 

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. This action seeks 

comment on one aspect of the final 

NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE 

without proposing any changes to the 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30627 Filed 12–6–10; 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–1164] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1164, to Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS