5710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 

22 States: Final Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). 

Available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule. 

2EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the SNFR. 

EPA had previously approved a section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of 

Kansas for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

on March 9, 2007 (75 FR 10608), and that SIP 

submission did not rely on the unlawful CAIR 

trading programs or on the conclusion that 

compliance with CAIR was sufficient to satisfy its 

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

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did 

not have the obligation to promulgate a FIP for 

Kansas under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and 

instead proposed a SIP Call for Kansas under 

section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763, January 6, 

2011). EPA proposed to find Kansas’ SIP 

substantially inadequate to meet the requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS based on the proposed conclusion that 

emissions from Kansas are significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another 

state. EPA has not taken final action yet on the 

proposed SIP Call. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 6, 2012. 

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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 18, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(405) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(405) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on August 26, 2011 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 4684, ‘‘Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ amended on August 18, 

2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2599 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9626–2] 

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin and Determination for 

Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport 

of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: A December 30, 2011 order of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule, also known as the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule.1 This 

document sets out EPA’s interpretation 

of the effect of the Court’s stay on the 

federal implementation plans finalized 

by EPA on December 15, 2011 (SNFR), 

which included the conclusion that 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states and required 

sources in five states to comply with the 

Transport Rule’s ozone season NOX

trading program.2

DATES: The effective date of this notice 

of intent is February 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets 

Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9252, email at 

stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 6, 2011, the EPA issued a 

final rule promulgating the Transport 

Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). The 

Transport Rule limits the interstate 

transport of emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

that contribute to harmful levels of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone in 

downwind states. The rule identified 

emissions within 27 states in the eastern 

United States that significantly affect 

the ability of downwind states to attain 

and maintain compliance with the 1997 

and 2006 fine particulate matter 

NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA established trading programs to 

reduce these emissions through Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) that 

regulate electric generating units (EGUs) 

in the 27 states. 

As explained in the preambles to the 

final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208) and 

the supplemental notice of final 

rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR 80761), EPA 

updated and improved its modeling 

platforms and inputs in response to 

public comments received on the 

proposed Transport Rule and 

subsequent Notices of Data Availability 

(NODAs), and performed other updates. 

Therefore, some of the results of the 

analysis performed for the final 

Transport Rule differed from the results 

of the analysis conducted for the 

Transport Rule proposal. Under the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA’s 

analysis did not identify Wisconsin, 

Iowa, and Missouri as states that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and/or interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in 

another state with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Under the final 

Transport Rule’s analysis, however, the 

results indicated that emissions from 

these states do interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS of 

another state. The results also showed 

that emissions from Missouri 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in 

another state. The analysis for the final 

rule also identified two ozone 

maintenance receptors, located in 

Allegan County, Michigan and Harford 

County, Maryland, which were not 

identified by modeling conducted for 

the proposed rule. The analysis 

indicated that five states—Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin— 

interfered with maintenance problems 

at these receptors. EPA did not include 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5711 

3EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas. See supra 

footnote 2. 

1The name of the NIOSH Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (OCAS) was changed to the 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

(DCAS) in March 2010. 2 42 U.S.C. 7384n(c)(2), 7384o(b)(1). 

these states in the final Transport Rule 

with respect to the 1997 ozone season 

NAAQS or finalize ozone season NOX

budgets for these states, but instead 

published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPR) (76 FR 

40662) to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

conclusion that these states significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in downwind states. EPA 

finalized the supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking on December 15, 

2011, which was published in the 

Federal Register on December 27, 2011 

(SNFR) (76 FR 80761). The SNFR found 

that emissions of NOX from sources in 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin either 

significantly contributed to 

nonattainment or interfered with 

maintenance in downwind states. The 

SNFR also finalized FIPs for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin that required sources within 

the states to comply with the Transport 

Rule.3

After publication of the final 

Transport Rule, various parties filed 

petitions for review of EPA’s action in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). On December 

30, 2011, upon the motions of various 

petitioners, the Court ordered the 

Transport Rule stayed pending the 

completion of its review. 

II. This Notice of Intent 

The Court did not explicitly address 

the effect of its order on the SNFR 

affecting Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 

Because the underlying programs of the 

Transport Rule have been stayed by the 

Court, there is no practical way for 

covered sources under the SNFR to 

comply with those programs. The SNFR 

employs the same methodology, 

modeling, and analysis as the final 

Transport Rule and extends the 

programs established in the Transport 

Rule to additional states. The agency 

will therefore treat the new rule in the 

same manner as the underlying 

Transport Rule, which has been stayed. 

EPA does not expect covered sources 

under the SNFR to comply with the 

provisions of that rule for the duration 

of the Court’s stay. 

Dated: January 26, 2012. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2328 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 81 

[Docket Number NIOSH–209] 

RIN 0920–AA39 

Guidelines for Determining Probability 

of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; 

Revision of Guidelines on NonRadiogenic Cancers 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In a notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on March 21, 2011, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) proposed to treat 

chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as 

a radiogenic cancer under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA) (76 FR 15268). Under this 

final rule, CLL will be treated as being 

potentially caused by radiation and 

hence as potentially compensable under 

EEOICPA. HHS reverses its decision to 

exclude CLL from such treatment. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support,1

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 

Columbia Parkway, MS–C46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513– 

533–6800 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Information requests can also 

be submitted by email to dcas@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Technical Review 

by the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. NIOSH Reconsideration of CLL 

C. Purpose of the Rule 

III. Summary of Final Rule 

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental, Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

J. Plain Writing Act of 2010 

I. Public Participation and Technical 

Review by the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 

On March 21, 2011, HHS published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (76 FR 

15268), proposing to treat CLL as a 

radiogenic cancer. HHS initially 

solicited public comments from March 

21, 2011, to June 20, 2011. Upon 

request, HHS extended the comment 

period to July 20, 2011 (76 FR 36891, 

June 23, 2011). 

HHS received comments from seven 

stakeholders, including the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

which was required by EEOICPA to 

provide a technical review of a 

proposed amendment to the probability 

of causation guidelines.2 All of the 

comments offered support for the 

inclusion of CLL under the coverage 

provided by EEOICPA. Specifically, the 

Advisory Board concurred with the 

NIOSH position that ‘‘given that the law 

requires the use of the upper 99 percent 

credibility level in making 

compensation decisions, the inclusion 

of CLL despite the limited evidence of 

radiogenicity, is considered appropriate 

by NIOSH.’’ Furthermore, the Advisory 

Board agreed that the risk model 

proposed by NIOSH is based on the best 

available science and methodological 

approaches to express the dose-response 

relationship between radiation exposure 

and CLL. In addition to the technical 

review submitted by the Advisory 

Board, three of the seven comments 

were personal stories submitted by 

family members of deceased energy 

employees who developed CLL, and the 

remaining three comments argued that 

to be fair to claimants, CLL should be 

included as a radiogenic cancer under 

Part B of EEOIPCA. There were no 

comments opposing this change. 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

The Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES