Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65369 

4The definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(20) is identical to the definition of 

‘‘fugitive emissions’’ in 51.165(a)(1)(ix). 

applicability limitation (PAL) pollutant 

emissions from activities emitting sulfur 

dioxide from the combustion of fuel. 

These provisions are approvable 

because they are an appropriate method 

of determining compliance with a PAL 

for the narrow activity added by ADEC’s 

regulations. 

In the State’s July 1, 2014 submittal, 

Alaska repealed provisions in 18 AAC 

50.040(i), paragraphs (7), (8) and (9), 

that related to clean units and pollution 

control projects. The comparable 

Federal provisions were initially 

vacated by a court and then repealed by 

the EPA. Repeal of these provisions as 

a matter of state law does not affect the 

SIP because the EPA had not previously 

approved these provisions into the SIP 

and because they are no longer elements 

of the Federal major NNSR program. 

Alaska submitted revisions to two 

definitions in 18 AAC 50.990 related to 

major NNSR. On October 24, 2014, the 

State revised 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1) to 

adopt by reference the Federal 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) and also 

repealed the definition ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in 18 AAC 50.990(92) 

because the State has now adopted the 

Federal definition in 18 AAC 50.040(i). 

With these revisions, the State’s 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1) is consistent with 

the current Federal definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for major 

NNSR and is approvable. 

On July 1, 2014, Alaska revised its 

major NNSR regulations at 18 AAC 

50.040(i)(1)(B)(2) to reference the 

definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ in 18 

AAC 50.990(40). In turn, 18 AAC 

50.990(40) was revised to adopt by 

reference the Federal definition of 

‘‘fugitive emissions’’ at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(20).4 The definition of 

‘‘fugitive emissions’’ referenced in 18 

AAC 50.990(40) is consistent with the 

Federal definition of ‘‘fugitive 

emissions’’ for major NNSR and is 

approvable. 

We note that in the State’s October 24, 

2014 submittal, technical corrections 

were made to the revisions in 18 AAC 

50.040(i)(2), (4), (5) and (6) that were 

submitted on July 1, 2014. The effect of 

these corrections is that the State has 

submitted its repeal of 18 AAC 

50.040(i)(4) and no changes were made 

to the adoption by reference of Federal 

provisions at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(2), (5) 

and (6). The repealed provision at 18 

AAC 50.040(i)(4) adopted by reference 

an exemption for fugitive emissions in 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(4) that duplicates an 

exemption contained in the State’s 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

and its repeal is therefore approvable. 

In summary, revisions to Alaska’s 

major NNSR regulations in 18 AAC 

50.040(i) are approvable because the 

submitted revisions bring the State’s 

major NNSR program up to date with 

current Federal requirements and, as 

explained above, represent a 

strengthening of Alaska’s currentlyapproved major NNSR program. 

V. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA 

and consistent with the discussion 

above, the EPA proposes to approve the 

Alaska SIP revisions submitted on 

December 11, 2009, November 29, 2010, 

December 10, 2012, January 28, 2013, 

July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014 that 

update the adoption by reference of the 

Federal major NNSR program and revise 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ The EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that these 

SIP revisions are approvable because 

they are consistent with the CAA and 

the current EPA requirements regarding 

major NNSR. The EPA intends to 

address the remaining portions of the 

SIP submittals that are not related to 

major NNSR, and have not yet been 

addressed, in one or more separate 

actions. 

VI. 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 proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed 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 

it 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 the 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26181 Filed 11–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 88 

World Trade Center Health Program; 

Petition 005—Acoustic Neuroma; 

Finding of Insufficient Evidence 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for addition of 

a health condition. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Title XXXIII of the PHS Act is codified at 42 

U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm–61. Those portions of the 

Zadroga Act found in Titles II and III of Public Law 

111–347 do not pertain to the WTC Health Program 

and are codified elsewhere. 

2See Petition 005. WTC Health Program: Petitions 

Received. http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/received.html. 

3Anyanwu E, Campbell AW, High W [2002]. 

Brainstem auditory evoked response in adolescents 

with acoustic mycotic neuroma due to 

environmental exposure to toxic molds. Int J 

Adolesc Med Health 14(1):67–76. 

4OSHA, https://www.osha.gov/dts/

chemicalsampling/data/CH_220100.html. 

5This methodology, ‘‘Policy and Procedures for 

Adding Non-Cancer Conditions to the List of WTCRelated Health Conditions,’’ revised October 21, 

2014, is available on the WTC Health Program Web 

site, at http://www.cdc.gov/wtc/policies.html. 

6The substantial evidence standard is met when 

the Program assesses all of the available, relevant 

information and determines with high confidence 

that the evidence supports its findings regarding a 

causal association between the 9/11 exposure(s) and 

the health condition. 7The modest evidence standard is met when the 

Program assesses all of the available, relevant 

information and determines with moderate 

confidence that the evidence supports its findings 

regarding a causal association between the 9/11 

exposure(s) and the health condition. 8 9/11 agents are chemical, physical, biological, or 

other agents or hazards reported in a published, 

peer-reviewed exposure assessment study of 

responders or survivors who were present in either 

the New York City disaster area, the Pentagon site, 

or in Shanksville, Pennsylvania site as defined in 

42 CFR part 88. 

9Prochazka M, Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Edwards 

CG, Nise G, Plato N, Schwartzbaum JA, Forsse ́n UM 

SUMMARY: On September 2, 2014, the 

Administrator of the World Trade 

Center (WTC) Health Program received 

a petition to add acoustic neuroma 

(Petition 005) to the List of WTC-Related 

Health Conditions (List). The 

Administrator has not found sufficient 

scientific evidence to conduct an 

analysis of whether to add acoustic 

neuroma to the List. Accordingly, the 

Administrator finds that insufficient 

evidence exists to request a 

recommendation of the WTC Health 

Program Scientific/Technical Advisory 

Committee (STAC), to publish a 

proposed rule, or to publish a 

determination not to publish a proposed 

rule. 

DATES: The Administrator of the WTC 

Health Program is denying this petition 

for the addition of a health condition as 

of November 4, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 4674 

Columbia Parkway, MS: C–46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 

818–1629 (this is a toll-free number); 

email NIOSHregs@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory 

Authority 

Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 

Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–347), amended the Public 

Health Service Act (PHS Act) to add 

Title XXXIII 1 establishing the WTC 

Health Program within the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The WTC Health Program provides 

medical monitoring and treatment 

benefits to eligible firefighters and 

related personnel, law enforcement 

officers, and rescue, recovery, and 

cleanup workers who responded to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in 

New York City, at the Pentagon, and in 

Shanksville, Pennsylvania (responders), 

and to eligible persons who were 

present in the dust or dust cloud on 

September 11, 2001 or who worked, 

resided, or attended school, childcare, 

or adult daycare in the New York City 

disaster area (survivors). 

All references to the Administrator of 

the WTC Health Program 

(Administrator) in this notice mean the 

Director of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) or his or her designee. 

Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of 

the PHS Act, interested parties may 

petition the Administrator to add a 

health condition to the List in 42 CFR 

88.1. Within 60 calendar days after 

receipt of a petition to add a condition 

to the List, the Administrator must take 

one of the following four actions 

described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) and 

42 CFR 88.17: (i) Request a 

recommendation of the STAC; (ii) 

publish a proposed rule in the Federal 

Register to add such health condition; 

(iii) publish in the Federal Register the 

Administrator’s determination not to 

publish such a proposed rule and the 

basis for such determination; or (iv) 

publish in the Federal Register a 

determination that insufficient evidence 

exists to take action under (i) through 

(iii) above. 

B. Petition 005 

On September 2, 2014, the 

Administrator received a petition to add 

acoustic neuroma to the List (Petition 

005).2 The petition was submitted by a 

New York City police sergeant who 

worked at Ground Zero in the aftermath 

of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks. The petitioner stated that he 

had been diagnosed with acoustic 

neuroma and shared letters from his 

personal physicians confirming the 

diagnosis. The petition offered as 

evidence an article published in the 

International Journal of Adolescent 

Medicine and Health (IJAMH) linking 

exposure to toxic molds to ‘‘acoustic 

mycotic neuroma,’’ 3 and a link to an 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) Web page, 

linking benzene exposure to acoustic 

neuroma.4

C. Administrator’s Determination on 

Petition 005 

The Administrator has established a 

methodology for evaluating whether to 

add non-cancer health conditions to the 

List of WTC-Related Health Conditions.5

First, the Administrator determines 

whether published, peer-reviewed 

studies about the health condition 

among 9/11-exposed populations are 

available to assess evidence for a causal 

relationship and provide a basis for a 

decision on whether to add the 

condition to the List. If the studies 

provide sufficient evidence for analysis, 

the Administrator proceeds with an 

assessment of the information. A health 

condition may be added to the List if 

published, peer-reviewed direct 

observational or epidemiologic studies 

provide substantial support 6 for a 

causal relationship between 9/11 

exposures and the health condition in 

9/11-exposed populations. If only 

epidemiologic studies are available and 

they provide only modest support 7 for 

a causal relationship between 9/11 

exposures and the health condition, the 

Administrator may then evaluate 

studies of associations between the 

health condition and 9/11 agents.8 If 

that additional assessment establishes 

substantial support for a causal 

relationship between a 9/11 agent or 

agents and the health condition, the 

health condition may be added to the 

List. 

In accordance with section 

3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act and 42 CFR 

88.17, described above, the 

Administrator has reviewed the 

evidence presented in Petition 005. 

Neither the IJAMH article nor the OSHA 

information on benzene provide 

sufficient evidence of a causal 

relationship between acoustic neuroma 

and 9/11 exposures to establish a basis 

for a decision on whether to add 

acoustic neuroma to the List. The 

IJAMH article concerns a study 

population that is not related to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

Moreover, the study related to the 

development of acoustic neuroma 

among adolescents exposed to toxic 

mold; toxic mold is not considered a 

9/11 agent. With regard to the second 

reference provided by the petitioner, 

although the OSHA Web page includes 

a reference to another published study 

suggesting an association between 

occupational exposures to benzene (a 

recognized 9/11 agent) and acoustic 

neuroma,9 the study population was not 

9/11-exposed. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 65371 

[2010]. Occupational exposures and risk of acoustic 

neuroma. Occup Environ Med. 2010 

Nov;67(11):766–71. 

In addition to reviewing the evidence 

provided in Petition 005, the 

Administrator also conducted a search 

of the existing scientific/medical 

literature for evidence that could 

establish a causal relationship between 

9/11 exposures and acoustic neuroma, 

as well as the related conditions 

acoustic neurinoma, acoustic 

neurilemoma or vestibular 

schwannoma. He did not find any peerreviewed, published epidemiologic 

studies of 9/11-exposed populations 

which would support such a 

relationship. 

Because neither the evidence 

submitted by the Petitioner nor a search 

of published scientific/medical 

literature provided information 

regarding the occurrence of acoustic 

neuroma among 9/11-exposed 

populations, the Administrator has 

determined that requesting a 

recommendation from the STAC 

(pursuant to PHS Act, section 

3312(a)(6)(B)(i) and 42 CFR 

88.17(a)(2)(i)) is unwarranted. In prior 

actions, the Administrator requested a 

recommendation from the STAC when 

he determined that it would assist his 

evaluation; such as when, for example, 

the Administrator is in need of an 

interpretation of conflicting or 

inconclusive published scientific 

evidence. 

Similarly, the Administrator has 

determined that insufficient evidence 

exists to take further action, including 

either proposing the addition of acoustic 

neuroma to the List (pursuant to PHS 

Act, section 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 

88.17(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a 

determination not to publish a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register (pursuant to 

PHS Act, section 3312(a)(6)(B)(iii) and 

42 CFR 88.17(a)(2)(iii)). In order to 

publish such a proposed addition or a 

determination not to propose a rule, the 

Administrator would first need to find 

that enough scientific evidence is 

available to analyze whether 9/11 

exposures are associated with the health 

condition. Since the Administrator is 

unable to identify sufficient evidence to 

conduct an analysis of whether to add 

the health condition, the Administrator 

(pursuant to PHS Act, section 

3312(a)(6)(B)(iv) and 42 CFR 

88.17(a)(2)(iv)) is publishing a 

determination that he cannot take any of 

the other statutory and regulatory 

actions. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

request made in Petition 005 to add 

acoustic neuroma to the List of WTCRelated Health Conditions is denied. 

John Howard, 

Administrator, World Trade Center Health 

Program and Director, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, Department 

of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26043 Filed 11–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74 

[GN Docket No. 12–268; Report 3011] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in a Rulemaking Proceeding; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register of October 27, 2014 

(79 FR 63883), regarding Petitions for 

Reconsideration filed of Action in a 

rulemaking proceeding. The document 

contained the incorrect deadline for 

filing replies to an opposition to the 

Petition. This document revises the 

deadline for replies to an opposition to 

the Petition. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before November 12, 

2014. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before November 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.J. 

Glusman, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, (202) 418–1425, email 

AJ.Glusman@fcc.gov. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of October 27, 

2014, in FR Doc. 2014–25456, on page 

63883, in the second column, correct 

the DATES section to read: 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before November 12, 

2014. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before November 24, 2014. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26116 Filed 11–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS