Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2313 

PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE 

PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE 

MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING 

THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION 

OF MARKS 

■ 24. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 7 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 25. Amend § 7.23 by revising 

paragraph (a)(5) and (6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 7.23 Requests for recording 

assignments at the International Bureau. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) A statement, signed and verified 

(sworn to) or supported by a declaration 

under § 2.20 of this chapter, that, for the 

request to record the assignment, either 

the assignee could not obtain the 

assignor’s signature because the holder 

no longer exists, or, after a good-faith 

effort, the assignee could not obtain the 

assignor’s signature; 

(6) An indication that the assignment 

applies to the designation to the United 

States or an international registration 

that is based on a U.S. application or 

registration; 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Amend § 7.24 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and (b)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 7.24 Requests to record security interest 

or other restriction of holder’s rights of 

disposal or release of such restriction 

submitted through the Office. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Where the restriction is the result 

of an agreement between the holder of 

the international registration and the 

party restricting the holder’s right of 

disposal, a statement, signed and 

verified (sworn to) or supported by a 

declaration under § 2.20 of this chapter, 

that, for the request to record the 

restriction, or release of the restriction, 

either the holder of the international 

registration could not obtain the 

signature of the party restricting the 

holder’s right of disposal because the 

party restricting the holder’s right of 

disposal no longer exists, or, after a 

good-faith effort, the holder of the 

international registration could not 

obtain the signature of the party 

restricting the holder’s right of disposal; 

* * * * * 

(7) An indication that the restriction, 

or the release of the restriction, of the 

holder’s right of disposal of the 

international registration applies to the 

designation to the United States or an 

international registration that is based 

on a U.S. application or registration; and 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Amend § 7.25 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to 

extension of protection. 

(a) Except for §§ 2.21 through 2.23, 

2.76, 2.88, 2.89, 2.130, 2.131, 2.160 

through 2.166, 2.168, 2.173, 2.175, 2.181 

through 2.186, and 2.197, all sections in 

parts 2 and 11 of this chapter shall 

apply to an extension of protection of an 

international registration to the United 

States, including sections related to 

proceedings before the Trademark Trial 

and Appeal Board, unless otherwise 

stated. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Amend § 7.31 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (4) and adding paragraph (a)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 7.31 Requirements for transformation of 

an extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application. 

If the International Bureau cancels an 

international registration in whole or in 

part, under Article 6(4) of the Madrid 

Protocol, the holder of that international 

registration may file a request to 

transform the goods and/or services to 

which the cancellation applies in the 

corresponding pending or registered 

extension of protection to the United 

States into an application under section 

1 or 44 of the Act. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Identify the goods and/or services 

to be transformed, if other than all the 

goods and/or services that have been 

cancelled; 

(4) The application filing fee for at 

least one class of goods or services 

required by § 2.6(a)(1) of this chapter; 

and 

(5) An email address for receipt of 

correspondence from the Office. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 6, 2015. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00267 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0446, FRL–9921–69– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a 

portion of the State Implementation 

Plan submission from the State of 

Oregon to address Clean Air Act 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The Clean Air Act requires 

that each State Implementation Plan 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

air emissions that will have certain 

adverse air quality effects in other 

states. The EPA is determining that 

Oregon’s existing State Implementation 

Plan contains adequate provisions to 

ensure that air emissions in Oregon will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

in any other state. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2011–0446. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Karl Pepple at: (206) 553–1778, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
2314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1This action does not address the two elements 

of the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in 

another state. We approved the Oregon SIP for 

purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on August 1, 2013 (78 

FR 46514). 

pepple.karl@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response To Comment 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On September 21, 2006, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

1997 24-hour primary and secondary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

The interstate transport provisions in 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each state 

to submit a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that prohibits emissions that will 

have certain adverse air quality effects 

in other states. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct 

elements related to the impacts of air 

pollutants transported across state lines. 

In this action, the EPA is addressing the 

first two elements of this section, 

specified at CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),1 for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The first element of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS contain 

adequate measures to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ of the 

applicable NAAQS in another state. The 

second element of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in the state from 

emitting pollutants that will ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ of the applicable 

NAAQS in any other state. 

On May 14, 2014, we proposed 

approval of the portion of Oregon’s June 

28, 2010, submission that addresses the 

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

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (79 FR 27528). An explanation 

of the CAA requirements and 

implementing regulations that are met 

by this SIP submission, a detailed 

explanation of the submission, and the 

EPA’s reasons for the proposed action 

were provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking on May 14, 2014, and will 

not be restated here (79 FR 27528). The 

public comment period for our 

proposed action ended on June 13, 

2014. 

II. Response To Comment 

The EPA received one anonymous 

adverse comment on the May 14, 2014, 

proposed approval (79 FR 27528). The 

EPA has evaluated the comment, as 

discussed below, and has determined 

that Oregon’s 2010 Interstate Transport 

SIP submission addressing the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with 

the CAA. Therefore the EPA is 

approving the Oregon 2010 Interstate 

Transport SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS. Following is the 

comment and the EPA’s response. 

Comment: ‘‘EPA’s analysis of 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

in down-wind states must be done for 

ALL NAAQS pollutants, not just the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This would ensure 

that Oregon’s PM2.5 emissions are not 

affecting the nonattainment or 

maintenance of ALL NAAQS in other 

States. The CAA specifically states that, 

‘Each such plan shall . . . contain 

adequate provisions (i) prohibiting . . . 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting 

ANY air pollutant in amounts which 

will (I) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State with 

respect to ANY such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard,’ 

(Emphasis on ‘any’). This was recently 

affirmed by the Supreme Court in EME 

Homer City v. EPA, ‘To tackle the 

problem, Congress included a Good 

Neighbor Provision in the Clean Air Act 

(Act or CAA). That provision, in its 

current phrasing, instructs States to 

prohibit in-state sources ‘‘from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will 

. . . contribute significantly’ to 

downwind States’ ‘‘nonattainment . . ., 

or interfere with maintenance,’’ of ANY 

EPA promulgated national air quality 

standard.’’ (Again, emphasis on ‘any’). 

For this reason the EPA can’t approve 

Oregon’s Interstate Transport SIP 

because it, and EPA’s analysis, doesn’t 

include an analysis which determines 

that Oregon doesn’t contribute to 

another State’s nonattainment or 

maintenance for ALL NAAQS 

pollutants.’’ 

Response: This comment addresses 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This provision, the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, requires 

each State Implementation Plan to 

prohibit ‘‘any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutants in amounts 

which will . . . contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

respect to any . . . primary or 

secondary [NAAQS].’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2)(D)(i). The recent Supreme 

Court decision in Environmental 

Protection Agency v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), 

addressed the requirements of this 

provision and reversed the prior DC 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision 

vacating the EPA’s Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule. The commenter quotes 

from the section of the Supreme Court 

decision that discusses the historical 

development (from 1963 onward) of the 

EPA’s interstate transport policy (the 

‘good neighbor’ provision). The quoted 

language essentially tracks the statutory 

text of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

which describes specific elements that 

must be included in State 

Implementation Plans to address 

pollution that is transported across state 

lines. As the Supreme Court decision in 

EME Homer City confirmed, pursuant to 

CAA section 110(a)(1), state plans to 

address these requirements must be 

submitted to the Administrator within 

three years of the promulgation or 

revision of a NAAQS. EME Homer City, 

134 S. Ct. at 1600. 

The EPA interprets the comment as 

stating that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions of Oregon’s 

2010 Interstate Transport SIP 

submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS should address, in addition to 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, any emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of all other NAAQS. The 

EPA disagrees. Because it is the 

promulgation or revision of a NAAQS 

that triggers the requirement to submit 

a SIP addressing the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA 

interprets the CAA as requiring each 

such SIP to address the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements only with 

respect to the specific NAAQS at issue. 

In other words, each CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission need 

only address the specific NAAQS which 

had been promulgated or revised by the 

EPA thereby triggering the SIP 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2315 

submission requirement. Because 

Oregon submitted this SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

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

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, it need 

only demonstrate that the SIP is 

adequate to prohibit emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. Any emissions 

that have such impacts with respect to 

other NAAQS must be addressed as 

appropriate in the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for 

those other NAAQS. In its May 14, 

2014, action, the EPA proposed to 

conclude that Oregon’s 2010 Interstate 

Transport SIP submission addressed the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 

27528). The commenter has offered no 

data or evidence to suggest that the 

submission does not do so. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving the portion of 

the June 28, 2010, SIP submission from 

Oregon that addresses the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is determining 

that Oregon’s existing SIP contains 

adequate provisions to ensure that air 

emissions from Oregon will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. This action 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

IV. 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, the 

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. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and does not provide the 

EPA with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 17, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: December 31, 2014. 

Michelle Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart MM—Oregon 

■ 2. In § 52.1990 is amended by adding 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1990 Interstate Transport for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

* * * * * 

(b) The EPA approves the portion of 

Oregon’s SIP submitted on June 28, 

2010 (cover letter dated June 23, 2010) 

addressing the requirements of CAA 

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

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00645 Filed 1–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0540; FRL–9920–54] 

Fosetyl-Al; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of Aluminum tris 

(O-ethylphosphonate) (fosetyl-Al) in or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER