27382 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

The USPTO’s guidance materials 

concerning the subject matter eligibility 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 

including the above-mentioned 

memorandum, do not constitute 

substantive rulemaking and do not have 

the force and effect of law. These 

guidance materials set out examination 

policy on rejections with respect to the 

Office’s interpretation of the subject 

matter eligibility requirements of 35 

U.S.C. 101 in view of decisions by the 

U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(Federal Circuit). The guidance 

materials were developed as a matter of 

internal Office management and are not 

intended to create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable 

by any party against the Office. 

Rejections will continue to be based 

upon the substantive law, and it is these 

rejections that are appealable. Failure of 

Office personnel to follow the USPTO’s 

guidance materials is not, in itself, a 

proper basis for either an appeal or a 

petition. 

Additionally, the USPTO has 

produced new life science examples. A 

copy of the examples is available on the 

USPTO’s Internet Web site, again on the 

patent examination guidance and 

training materials Web page (http://

www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-andregulations/examination-policy/

examination-guidance-and-trainingmaterials). The examples provide 

exemplary subject matter eligibility 

analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 of 

hypothetical claims and claims drawn 

from case law. The examples are 

intended as a teaching tool to assist 

examiners and the public in 

understanding how the Office would 

apply the eligibility guidance in certain 

fact-specific situations. 

The USPTO further solicited topics 

for study under the Topic Submission 

for Case Studies Pilot Program. See 

Request for Submission of Topics for 

USPTO Case Studies, 80 FR 79277 (Dec. 

21, 2015). The case studies will include 

a review of consistency of the 

application of subject matter eligibility 

analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 across the 

examining corps to determine the 

quality of the work product and indicate 

where improvements can be made to 

further improve consistency. 

The July 2015 Update included an 

Appendix 3 containing select eligibility 

decisions from the Supreme Court and 

the Federal Circuit. This chart of 

decisions assists examiners in 

identifying the types of subject matter 

courts have previously found to be 

ineligible. Appendix 3 will continue to 

be updated with Federal Circuit 

decisions having opinions (precedential 

or non-precedential). While nonprecedential decisions are not binding 

precedent, the opinions provide 

guidance and persuasive reasoning as 

outlined in Fed. Cir. R. 32.1(d). 

Appendix 3 will also continue to be 

updated with Federal Circuit decisions 

without opinion (Fed. Cir. R. 36) on 

appeals originating from the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board. Federal Circuit 

decisions affirming a district court 

decision without opinion (Fed. Cir. R. 

36) will no longer be added to Appendix 

3 because they provide little benefit to 

examiners or the public. 

As discussed previously, the 

memorandum and life science examples 

are available to the public on the 

USPTO’s Internet Web site. The USPTO 

is now seeking public comment. The 

comment period is open-ended, and 

comments will be accepted on an 

ongoing basis. When it is determined 

that the period will close, advance 

notification will be made on the public 

comment Web page. The USPTO is 

particularly interested in public 

comments addressing the progress the 

USPTO is making in the quality of 

correspondence regarding subject matter 

eligibility rejections. 

Dated: May 2, 2016. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10724 Filed 5–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0022; FRL–9946–11– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Permitting of Greenhouse Gases 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a 

revision to the Louisiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Louisiana on December 21, 

2011. This revision outlines the State’s 

program to regulate and permit 

emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) 

in the Louisiana Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. 

We are proposing to approve those 

provisions to the extent that they 

address the GHG permitting 

requirements for sources already subject 

to PSD for pollutants other than GHGs. 

We are proposing to disapprove those 

provisions to the extent they require 

PSD permitting for sources that emit 

only GHGs above the thresholds 

triggering the requirement to obtain a 

PSD permit since that is no longer 

consistent with federal law. The EPA is 

proposing this action under section 110 

and part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0022, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– 

2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, 

(214) 665–2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment with 

Ms. Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665– 

7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 27383 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

On January 2, 2011, GHGs became 

subject to regulation under the Clean 

Air Act and thus regulated under the 

PSD permitting program. See 75 

FR17004, April 2, 2010. To establish a 

process for phasing in the permitting 

requirements for stationary sources of 

GHGs under the CAA PSD and title V 

programs, on June 3, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(referred to as the Tailoring Rule). See 

75 FR 31514. The Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 

adopted revisions to the Louisiana 

Administrative Code on April 20, 2011, 

to address the PSD permitting 

requirements for sources with GHG 

emissions. These revisions, which 

included content from the Tailoring 

Rule, were submitted to the EPA on 

December 21, 2011, for inclusion in the 

Louisiana SIP. Specifically, the LDEQ 

submitted new definitions for ‘‘carbon 

dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e),’’ 

‘‘greenhouse gases (GHGs)’’ and 

revisions to the existing definitions of 

‘‘major stationary source’’ and 

‘‘significant’’ at LAC 33:III.509(B). The 

submittal also included revisions to the 

general permitting program 

requirements at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) to 

limit the regulation of GHGs under 

Louisiana’s SIP to match any future 

changes in federal law or decisions by 

the Supreme Court or U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The 

December 21, 2011 submittal also 

included revisions to the Louisiana title 

V program at LAC 33:III.502 which is 

not a part of the SIP requirements under 

section 110 of the Act and will be 

addressed by the EPA in a separate 

action at a later date. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which 

began on January 2, 2011, the EPA 

limited application of PSD and title V 

requirements to sources only if they 

were subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ 

due to their emissions of pollutants 

other than GHGs. These sources are 

referred to as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Under 

its understanding of the CAA at the 

time, the EPA believed the Tailoring 

Rule was necessary to avoid a sudden 

and unmanageable increase in the 

number of sources that would be 

required to obtain PSD and title V 

permits under the CAA because the 

sources emitted GHGs over applicable 

major source and major modification 

thresholds. 

In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which 

began on July 1, 2011, the PSD and title 

V permitting requirements under the 

CAA applied to some sources that were 

classified as major, and, thus, required 

to obtain a permit, based solely on their 

GHG emissions or potential to emit 

GHGs, and to modifications of otherwise 

major sources that required a PSD 

permit because they increased only 

GHG emissions above the level in the 

EPA regulations. We generally describe 

the sources covered by PSD during Step 

2 of the Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 

sources.’’ 

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court issued a decision in Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 

S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application 

of stationary source permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. The 

Supreme Court held that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the 

specific purpose of determining whether 

a source is a major source (or a 

modification thereof) and thus require 

the source to obtain a PSD or title V 

permit. The Court also said that the EPA 

could continue to require that PSD 

permits for emissions of pollutants other 

than GHGs contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling 

effectively upheld PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway 

sources’’ and invalidated PSD 

permitting requirements for Step 2 

sources. In accordance with the 

Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 

2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. 

Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment 

vacating the regulations that 

implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring 

Rule, but not the regulations that 

implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. 

The amended judgment preserves, 

without the need for additional 

rulemaking by the EPA, the application 

of the BACT requirement to GHG 

emissions from Step 1 or ‘‘anyway 

sources.’’ With respect to Step 2 

sources, the D.C. Circuit’s judgment 

ordered that the EPA regulations under 

review (including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated ‘‘to the 

extent they require a stationary source 

to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse 

gases are the only pollutant (i) that the 

source emits or has the potential to emit 

above the applicable major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase from a 

modification.’’ 

The EPA promulgated a final rule on 

August 19, 2015, removing the portions 

of the PSD permitting provisions for 

Step 2 sources from the federal 

regulations that the D.C. Circuit 

specifically identified as vacated (40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 

52.21(b)(49)(v)). See 80 FR 50199. We 

no longer have the authority to conduct 

PSD permitting for Step 2 sources, nor 

can we approve provisions submitted by 

a state for inclusion in their SIP 

providing this authority. 

A. Evaluation of the Louisiana 

Automatic Rescission Provisions 

Louisiana’s December 21, 2011 SIP 

submission submittal adds automatic 

rescission provisions to the State’s PSD 

regulations at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14). The 

automatic rescission provisions provide 

that in the event that there is a change 

in federal law, or the D.C. Circuit or the 

U.S. Supreme Court issues an order 

which limits or renders ineffective the 

regulation of GHGs under title I of the 

CAA, then the corresponding provisions 

of the Louisiana PSD program shall be 

limited or rendered ineffective to the 

same extent. 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

Louisiana automatic rescission 

provisions. In assessing the 

approvability of automatic rescission 

provisions, the EPA considers two key 

factors: (1) Whether the public will be 

given reasonable notice of any change to 

the SIP that occurs as a result of the 

automatic rescission provisions, and (2) 

whether any future change to the SIP 

that occurs as a result of the automatic 

rescission provisions would be 

consistent with the EPA’s interpretation 

of the effect of the triggering action on 

federal GHG permitting requirements. 

See, e.g., 79 FR 8130 (February 11, 2014) 

and 77 FR 12484 (March 1, 2012). These 

criteria are derived from the SIP 

revision procedures set forth in the CAA 

and federal regulations. 

Regarding public notice, CAA section 

110(l) provides that any revision to a 

SIP submitted by a State to EPA for 

approval ‘‘shall be adopted by such 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing.’’ In accordance with CAA 

section 110(l), LDEQ followed 

applicable notice-and-comment 

procedures prior to adopting the 

automatic rescission provisions. Thus, 

the public is on notice that the 

automatic rescission provisions in the 

Louisiana PSD program will enable the 

Louisiana PSD program and the 

Louisiana SIP to update automatically to 

reflect any order by a federal court or 

any change in federal law that limits or 

renders ineffective the regulation of 

GHGs under the CAA’s PSD permitting 

program. Additionally, the EPA 

interprets this provision to require the 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
27384 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

LDEQ to provide notice to the general 

public and regulated community of the 

changes to the Louisiana PSD program 

in the event that the automatic 

rescission provision is triggered. The 

EPA invites comment, particularly from 

the State, regarding this interpretation. 

The EPA’s consideration of whether 

any SIP change resulting from 

Louisiana’s automatic rescission 

provisions would be consistent with the 

EPA’s interpretation of the effect of the 

triggering action on federal GHG 

permitting requirements is based on 40 

CFR 51.105, which states that 

‘‘[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion 

thereof, will not be considered part of 

an applicable plan until such revisions 

have been approved by the 

Administrator in accordance with this 

part.’’ To be consistent with 40 CFR 

51.105, any automatic SIP change 

resulting from a court order or federal 

law change must be consistent with the 

EPA’s interpretation of the effect of such 

order or federal law change on GHG 

permitting requirements. We interpret 

this provision to mean that Louisiana 

will wait for and follow the EPA’s 

interpretation as to the impact of any 

federal law change or the D.C. Circuit or 

the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order 

before Louisiana’s SIP would be 

changed. In the event of a court decision 

or federal law change that triggers (or 

likely triggers) application of 

Louisiana’s automatic rescission 

provisions, the EPA intends to promptly 

describe the impact of the court 

decision or federal law change on the 

enforceability of its GHG permitting 

regulation. The EPA invites comment, 

particularly from the State, regarding 

this interpretation. 

B. Evaluation of the Submitted 

Revisions to the Louisiana PSD Program 

Prior to the court decisions, the State 

submitted amended PSD provisions to 

enable permitting Step 1 and Step 2 

sources and the GHG emissions from 

such sources on December 21, 2011. The 

EPA has an obligation under section 110 

of the CAA to act upon a submitted 

revision to a state’s SIP within 18 

months of receipt. The December 21, 

2011 SIP revisions have not been 

withdrawn; therefore, the EPA has an 

obligation to act on the submitted 

provisions. We have the authority under 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

portions of a SIP submittal that are not 

wholly approvable. Accordingly, we 

find it appropriate to propose partial 

approval under section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act of the submitted provisions that 

enable the State to permit GHG 

emissions from Step 1 sources 

consistent with federal requirements. 

Simultaneously, we are proposing 

disapproval of the provisions that 

enable the permitting of Step 2 sources 

under the PSD program. 

Our evaluation finds that the revised 

rules in Louisiana’s December 21, 2011 

SIP submission achieve the same result 

as the Step 1 permitting provisions in 40 

CFR 51.166 that remain applicable at 

this time. However, the state rules 

achieve this result in a manner that 

differs from the way the EPA’s 

regulations are presently written. The 

state has not enacted limitations on the 

meaning of the term ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ as reflected in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(iv). Instead, the State has 

adopted a significance level for GHGs 

whereby the net emissions increase of 

GHGs calculated on a mass basis equals 

or exceeds 0 tpy and the net emission 

increase of GHGs calculated on a CO2e 

basis is 75,000 tons per year CO2e for 

new major stationary sources or major 

modifications, which applies to 

determine whether the BACT 

requirement applies to GHGs in PSD 

permitting. Although the Louisiana SIP 

submission is structured differently 

than the EPA’s federal rules, the 

primary practical effect of both is the 

same: The PSD BACT requirement does 

not apply to GHG emissions from an 

‘‘anyway source’’ unless the source 

emits GHGs at or above the 75,000 ton 

per year threshold. Therefore, we find 

this aspect of Louisiana’s SIP 

submissions to be approvable because it 

is consistent with the relevant 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166. 

It is important to note, however, that 

the EPA’s proposed approval is not 

based on determination by either EPA or 

the state that 75,000 tons per year CO2e 

is an appropriate de minimis level for 

GHGs. The EPA’s proposed approval of 

the significant emissions rate for GHGs 

in LDEQ’s rule is based only on the 

recognition that Louisiana’s rule applies 

the same applicability level for the GHG 

BACT requirement that is presently 

reflected in the EPA’s regulations. 

In establishing the significance level, 

the State rulemaking does not establish 

that 75,000 is a de minimis amount of 

GHG. Nothing in the state’s rulemaking 

record and nothing in this EPA action 

provide support to substantiate 75,000 

tons per year significance level as a de 

minimis level. See UARG, 134 S. Ct. 

2427, at 2449 (noting that the EPA had 

not established the 75,000 tons per year 

level in the Tailoring Rule as a de minis 

threshold below which BACT is not 

required for a source’s GHG emissions). 

Given the deficiencies in the 

justification for the GHG BACT 

applicability level in the existing EPA 

regulations, the EPA is planning to 

move forward in a separate, national 

rulemaking to propose a GHG 

Significant Emission Rate (SER) that 

would be justified as a de minis 

threshold level for applying the BACT 

requirement to GHG emissions under 

PSD. In the event that the EPA 

ultimately promulgates a final GHG 

SER, Louisiana, like all other SIPapproved states, may be obligated to 

undertake rulemaking to demonstrate 

consistency with federal requirements 

or may be subject to a SIP Call to correct 

a deficiency in the SIP-approved 

program. 

III. Proposed Action 

Section 110(k)(3) of the Act states that 

the EPA may partially approve and 

partially disapprove a SIP submittal if 

we find that only a portion of the 

submittal meets the requirements of the 

Act. We are proposing to approve the 

revisions to the Louisiana PSD 

permitting program submitted on 

December 21, 2011, that provide the 

State the authority to regulate and 

permit emissions of GHGs from Step 1 

sources in the Louisiana PSD program. 

The EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the revisions are 

approvable because the submitted rules 

are adopted and submitted in 

accordance with the CAA and are 

consistent with the laws and regulations 

for PSD permitting of GHGs. Therefore, 

under section 110 and part C of the Act, 

the EPA proposes to approve the 

following specific revisions to the 

Louisiana SIP for PSD permitting: 

• New provisions at LAC 

33:III.501(C)(14) adopted on April 20, 

2011 and submitted December 20, 2011; 

• New definitions of ‘‘carbon dioxide 

equivalent’’ and ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ at 

LAC 33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 

2011 and submitted December 20, 2011; 

and 

• Revisions to the definitions of 

‘‘major stationary source’’ paragraphs (a) 

and (b) and ‘‘significant’’ at LAC 

33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 

and submitted December 20, 2011. 

Upon promulgation of a final 

approval of these proposed revisions, 

the EPA would also remove the 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) under 

which the EPA narrowed the 

applicability of the Louisiana PSD 

program to regulate sources consistent 

with federal requirements. The 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) will no 

longer be necessary when we finalize 

approval of the state regulations into the 

Louisiana SIP. 

We are also proposing to disapprove 

the provisions submitted on December 

21, 2011, that would enable the State of 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 27385 

Louisiana to regulate and permit Step 2 

sources, under the Louisiana PSD 

program because the submitted 

provisions are no longer consistent with 

federal laws. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to disapprove revisions to the 

definitions at LAC 33:III.509 for ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ paragraph (c) 

‘‘significant’’ as it pertains to Step 2 

sources, as adopted on April 20, 2011 

and submitted December 20, 2011. 

Finalization of this proposed 

disapproval will not require the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan because the Louisiana PSD 

program would continue to regulate 

GHG emissions consistent with federal 

statutory and regulatory permitting 

requirements. We are proposing this 

disapproval under section 110 and part 

C of the Act; as such, we will also not 

impose sanctions as a result of a final 

disapproval. 

The EPA is also taking the 

opportunity to correct an omission in 

our proposed approval of revisions to 

the Louisiana Major New Source Review 

program on August 19, 2015. In that 

action we neglected to specifically 

identify the revisions submitted on 

December 20, 2005 to the PSD definition 

of ‘‘major stationary source’’ at LAC 

33:III.509(B) as part of our proposed 

action. In both the TSD associated with 

docket EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0131 and 

in the TSD accompanying today’s 

action, we have evaluated this 

submission and found the revised 

regulations to be consistent with federal 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(iii). 

As such, we are also proposing approval 

of the revisions to the definition of 

‘‘major stationary source’’ at LAC 

33:III.509(B) submitted on December 20, 

2005 as subparagraph (e), but was 

moved to subparagraph (f) in the 

December 20, 2011 submittal. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Louisiana regulations as 

described in the Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

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 

Act 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 

proposes approval of the portions of the 

submitted revisions to State law for the 

regulation and permitting of GHG 

emissions consistent with federal 

requirements and proposes disapproval 

of the portions of the state laws that do 

not meet Federal requirements for the 

regulation and permitting of GHG 

emissions. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. There is no burden imposed under 

the PRA because this action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions, and therefore will have 

no impact on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action proposes to disapprove 

submitted revisions that are no longer 

consistent with federal laws for the 

regulation and permitting of GHG 

emissions, and therefore will have no 

impact on small governments. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action proposes to 

disapprove provisions of state law that 

are no longer consistent with federal 

laws for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions; there are no 

requirements or responsibilities added 

or removed from Indian Tribal 

Governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it disapproves state permitting 

provisions that are inconsistent with 

federal laws for the regulation and 

permitting of GHG emissions. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action is not subject 

to Executive Order 12898 because it 

disapproves state permitting provisions 

that are inconsistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
27386 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10739 Filed 5–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS