21092 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

burdens. Included in the estimate is the

time for reviewing instructions,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. The

principal impact of the changes in this

final rule is a change in the time period

for filing a deposit under § 1.801 et seq.

(if needed).

OMB Number: 0651–0022.

Title: Deposit of Biological Materials

for Patent Purposes.

Form Numbers: None.

Type of Review: Routine submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or

Households, State or Local

Governments, Farms, Business or Other

For-Profit, Federal Agencies or

Employees, Not-for-Profit Institutions,

Small Businesses or Organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,300.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.0

hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 3,300 hours.

Needs and Uses: Information on

depositing of biological materials in

depositories is required for (1) Office

determination of compliance with the

patent statute where the invention

sought to be patented relies on

biological material subject to deposit

requirement, which includes notifying

interested members of the public where

to obtain samples of deposits, and (2)

depositories desiring to be recognized as

suitable by the Office.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether

the collection of information is

necessary for proper performance of the

functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy

of the agency’s estimate of the burden;

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

to respondents.

Interested persons are requested to

send comments regarding these

information collections, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent

Legal Administration, United States

Patent and Trademark Office,

Washington, DC 20231, or to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20503, (Attn: PTO Desk Officer).

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to nor shall a person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Courts, Freedom of

Information, Inventions and patents,

Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Small Businesses.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 37 CFR Part 1 is amended as

follows:

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN

PATENT CASES

I. The authority citation for 37 CFR

part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).

Section 1.136 is amended by revising

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 1.136 Extensions of time.

* * * * *

(c) If an applicant is notified in a

‘‘Notice of Allowability’’ that an

application is otherwise in condition for

allowance, the following time periods

are not extendable if set in the ‘‘Notice

of Allowability’’ or in an Office action

having a mail date on or after the mail

date of the ‘‘Notice of Allowability’’:

(1) The period for submitting an oath

or declaration in compliance with

§ 1.63;

(2) The period for submitting formal

drawings set under § 1.85(c); and

(3) The period for making a deposit

set under § 1.809(c).

Section 1.809 is amended by revising

paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 1.809 Examination procedures.

* * * * *

(b) The applicant for patent or patent

owner shall reply to a rejection under

paragraph (a) of this section by—

(1) In the case of an applicant for

patent, either making an acceptable

original, replacement, or supplemental

deposit, or assuring the Office in writing

that an acceptable deposit will be made;

or, in the case of a patent owner,

requesting a certificate of correction of

the patent which meets the terms of

paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 1.805, or

(2) Arguing why a deposit is not

needed under the circumstances of the

application or patent considered and/or

why a deposit actually made should be

accepted. Other replies to the

examiner’s action shall be considered

nonresponsive. The rejection will be

repeated until either paragraph (b)(1) of

this section is satisfied or the examiner

is convinced that a deposit is not

needed.

(c) If an application for patent is

otherwise in condition for allowance

except for a needed deposit and the

Office has received a written assurance

that an acceptable deposit will be made,

applicant will be notified and given a

period of time within which the deposit

must be made in order to avoid

abandonment. This time period is not

extendable under § 1.136(a) or (b) if set

forth in a ‘‘Notice of Allowability’’ or in

an Office action having a mail date on

or after the mail date of a ‘‘Notice of

Allowability’’ (see § 1.136(c)).

* * * * *

(e) Any amendment required by

paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) or (d)(4) of this

section must be filed before or with the

payment of the issue fee (see § 1.312).

Dated: April 18, 2001.

Nicholas P. Godici,

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for

Intellectual Property and Director of the

United States Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 01–10188 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket # RI040–7167a; FRL–6971–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Rhode Island; Plan for

Controlling Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves the Sections

111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the

Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management (RIDEM) on

August 23, 2000. This State Plan is for

implementing and enforcing provisions

at least as protective as the Emissions

Guidelines (EGs) applicable to existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators (HMIWIs) for which

construction commenced on or before

June 20, 1996.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on June 26, 2001 without further notice

unless EPA receives significant adverse

comment by May 29, 2001. If adverse

comment is received EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that this

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address your

written comments to: Mr. Steven Rapp,

Manager, Air Permits Unit, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA-New

England, Region 1, One Congress Street,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21093

Suite 1100 (CAP), Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Documents which EPA has

incorporated by reference for previous

rulemaking are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

You may examine copies of materials

the RIDEM submitted to EPA relative to

this action during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency-New

England, Region 1, Air Permits Unit,

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Suite

1100, One Congress Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023, and Rhode

Island Department of Environmental

Management, Office of Air Resources,

235 Promenade Street, Providence,

Rhode Island 02908–5767, (401) 222–

2808.

The interested persons wanting to

examine these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least 24 hours before the day of

the visit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Courcier at (617) 918–1659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking today?

II. Why Does EPA Want To Regulate Air

Emissions From HMIWIs?

III. When did EPA first publish these

requirements?

IV. Who must comply with the requirements?

V. Are any sources exempt from the

requirements?

VI. By what date must HMIWIs in Rhode

Island achieve compliance?

VII. What happens if an HMIWI does not/

cannot meet the requirements by the final

compliance date?

VIII. What options are available to operators

if they cannot achieve compliance within

one year of the effective date of the State

Plan?

IX. What Is a State Plan?

X. What did the state submit as part of its

State Plan?

XI. Why Is EPA Approving Rhode Island’s

State Plan?

XII. Why does EPA need to approve State

Plans?

XIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving Rhode Island’s State

Plan submitted on September 20, 2000

for the control of air emissions from

HMIWIs throughout the State. When

EPA developed the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for

HMIWIs, the Agency simultaneously

developed the Emission Guidelines

(EGs) to control air emissions from

existing HMIWIs (see 62 FR 48348–

48391, September 15, 1997). Rhode

Island developed a State Plan, as

required by sections 111(d) and 129 of

the Clean Air Act (the Act), to adopt the

EGs into its body of regulations, and

EPA is acting today to approve Rhode

Island’s State Plan for regulating

existing HMIWI units.

EPA is publishing this approval

action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial action and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve the State Plan

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. If EPA receives no significant,

material, and adverse comments by May

29, 2001, this action will be effective

June 26, 2001.

If EPA receives significant, material,

and adverse comments by the above

date, the Agency will withdraw this

action before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document in

the Federal Register that will withdraw

this final action. EPA will address all

public comments received in a

subsequent final rule based on the

parallel proposed rule published in

today’s Federal Register. EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

II. Why Does EPA Want To Regulate

Air Emissions From HMIWIs?

When burned, hospital waste and

medical/infectious waste emit various

air pollutants, including hydrochloric

acid, dioxin/furan, toxic metals (lead,

cadmium, and mercury) and particulate

matter. Mercury is highly hazardous and

is of particular concern because it

persists in the environment and

bioaccumulates through the food web.

Serious developmental and adult effects

in humans, primarily damage to the

nervous system, have been associated

with exposures to mercury. Harmful

effects in wildlife have also been

reported; these include nervous system

damage and behavioral and

reproductive deficits. Human and

wildlife exposure to mercury occur

mainly through eating of fish. When

inhaled, mercury vapor attacks also the

lung tissue and is a cumulative poison.

Short-term exposure to mercury in

certain forms can cause hallucinations

and impair consciousness. Long-term

exposure to mercury in certain forms

can affect the central nervous system

and cause kidney damage.

Exposure to particulate matter can

aggravate existing respiratory and

cardiovascular disease and increase risk

of premature death. Hydrochloric acid is

a clear colorless gas. Chronic exposure

to hydrochloric acid has been reported

to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis,

dermatitis, and photosensitization.

Acute exposure to high levels of

chlorine in humans may result in chest

pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis,

pulmonary edema, and death. At lower

levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the

eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and

lungs.

Exposure to dioxin and furan can

cause skin disorders, cancer, and

reproductive effects such as

endometriosis. These pollutants can

also affect the immune system.

III. When Did EPA First Publish These

Requirements?

The EPA proposed the EGs in the

Federal Register on June 20, 1996. On

September 15, 1997, according to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (Act), the EPA published the final

form of the EGs applicable to existing

HMIWIs. The EGs are at 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ce. See 62 FR 48348.

IV. Who Must Comply With the

Requirements?

All HMIWIs that commenced

construction on or before June 20, 1996

(‘‘existing HMIWIs’’) must comply with

these requirements.

V. Are Any Sources Exempt From the

Requirements?

The following incinerator source

categories are exempt from the federal

requirements for existing HMIWIs:

(1) Incinerators that burn only

pathological, low-level radiation, and/or

chemotherapeutic waste (all defined in

section 60.51c). However, the owner or

operator must notify the EPA

Administrator of an exemption claim

and the owner or operator must keep

records of the periods of time when only

pathological, low-level radioactive, and/

or chemotherapeutic waste is burned.

(2) Any unit required to have a permit

under section 3005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act.

(3) Incinerators that are subject to the

NSPS and/or EGs for Municipal Waste

Combustors.

(4) Existing incinerators, processing

operations, or boilers that co-fire

medical/infectious waste or hospital

waste with other fuels or wastes and

that combust less than ten percent or

less medical/infectious waste and

hospital waste by weight (on a calendar

quarter basis). However, the owner or

operator must notify the EPA

Administrator of an exemption claim

and the owner or operator must keep

21094 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

records of the amount of each fuel and

waste fired.

VI. By What Date Must HMIWIs in

Rhode Island Achieve Compliance?

All existing HMIWIs in the state of

Rhode Island must comply with these

requirements by October 20, 2000,

unless RIDEM grants an extension.

However, final compliance must be

achieved no later than September 16,

2002.

VII. What Happens if an HMIWI Does

Not/Cannot Meet the Requirements by

the Final Compliance Date?

Any existing HMIWI that fails to meet

the requirements by September 16, 2002

must shut down. The unit will not be

allowed to start up until the owner/

operator installs the controls necessary

to meet the requirements.

VIII. What Options Are Available to

Operators if They Cannot Achieve

Compliance by October 20, 2000?

If an existing HMIWI cannot achieve

compliance by October 20, 2000, the

operator must agree to meet certain

increments of progress until they

achieve compliance. The State Plan

details the increments of progress for

the affected HMIWIs.

IX. What Is a State Plan?

Section 111(d) of the Act requires that

pollutants controlled under NSPS must

also be controlled at existing sources in

the same source category. Once an NSPS

is issued, EPA then publishes an EG

applicable to the control of the same

pollutant from existing (designated)

facilities. States with designated

facilities must then develop State Plans

to adopt the EGs into their body of

regulations. States must also include in

their State Plans other elements, such as

inventories, legal authority, and public

participation documentation, to

demonstrate their ability to enforce the

State Plans.

X. What Did the State Submit as Part of

Its State Plan?

The State of Rhode Island submitted

its Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan to

EPA for approval on August 23, 2000

and supplemented it on September 28,

2000. The State adopted the EG

requirements into the Rhode Island Air

Pollution Control Regulation No. 39,

‘‘Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators’’ on August 1, 2000. The

State Plan contains:

(1) A demonstration of the State’s

legal authority to implement the State

Plan.

(2) Rhode Island Air Pollution Control

Regulation No. 39 as the enforceable

mechanism.

(3) An inventory of the sources on

page 7 of the State Plan.

(4) An emissions inventory on pages

7 through 9 of the State Plan.

(5) Emission limits, at least as

protective as the EGs, that are contained

in APC Reg No. 39.5.

(6) Provisions for compliance

schedules that are contained in APC

Reg. No. 39.3.

(7) Testing, monitoring, and

inspection requirements that are

contained in APC Reg. Nos. 39.6, 39.7,

39.8 and 39.11.

(8) Reporting and Recordkeeping

requirements that are contained in APC

Reg. No. 39.9.

(9) Operator training and qualification

requirements that are contained in APC

Reg. No. 39.10.

(10) Requirements for the

development of a Waste Management

Plan that are contained in APC Reg. No.

39.3.2.

(11) A record of the public notice and

hearing requirements.

(12) Provisions for state progress

reports to EPA that are contained on

page 2 of the State Plan.

(13) Title V permit application due

date requirements that are contained in

APC Reg. No. 39.3.1.

(14) A final compliance date of

September 15, 2002.

XI. Why Is EPA Approving Rhode

Island’s State Plan?

EPA has evaluated the HMIWI State

Plan submitted by Rhode Island for

consistency with the Act, EPA

guidelines and policy. EPA has

determined that Rhode Island’s State

Plan meets all requirements and,

therefore, EPA is approving Rhode

Island’s Plan to implement and enforce

the EGs, as it applies to existing

HMIWIs. EPA is not approving those

portions of Air Pollution Control

Regulation No. 39 that apply to HMIWIs

constructed after June 20, 1996.

EPA’s approval of Rhode Island’s

State Plan is based on our findings that:

(1) RIDEM provided adequate public

notice of public hearings for the

proposed rule-making that allows Rhode

Island to carry out and enforce

provisions that are at least as protective

as the EGs for HMIWIs, and

(2) RIDEM demonstrated legal

authority to adopt emission standards

and compliance schedules applicable to

the designated facilities; enforce

applicable laws, regulations, standards

and compliance schedules; seek

injunctive relief; obtain information

necessary to determine compliance;

require record keeping; conduct

inspections and tests; require the use of

monitors; require emission reports of

owners and operators; and make

emission data publicly available.

A detailed discussion of EPA’s

evaluation of the State Plan is included

in the technical support document

(TSD) located in the official file for this

action and available from the EPA

contact listed above. The State Plan

meets all of the applicable approval

criteria.

XII. Why Does EPA Need To Approve

State Plans?

Under section 129 of the Act, EGs are

not federally enforceable. Section

129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to

submit State Plans to EPA for approval.

Each state must show that its State Plan

will carry out and enforce the EGs. State

Plans must be at least as protective as

the EGs, and they become federally

enforceable upon EPA’s approval. The

procedures for adopting and submitting

State Plans are in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart B.

EPA originally issued the Subpart B

provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA

amended Subpart B on December 19,

1995, to allow the subparts developed

under Section 129 to include

specifications that supersede the general

provisions in Subpart B regarding the

schedule for submittal of State Plans,

the stringency of the emission

limitations, and the compliance

schedules. See 60 FR 65414.

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 21095

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule 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, because it

merely approves an existing state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s action does not create any

new requirements on any entity affected

by this State Plan. Thus, the action will

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

State Plan approvals under section

111(d) and section 129(b)(2) of the Clean

Air Act do not create any new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities. They

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Furthermore,

in developing the HMIWI emission

guidelines and standards, EPA prepared

a written statement pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act which it

published in the 1997 promulgation

notice (see 62 FR 48348). In accordance

with EPA’s determination in issuing the

1997 HMIWI emission guidelines, this

State Plan does not include any new

requirements that will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore,

because the Federal 111(d) Plan

approval does not impose any new

requirements and pursuant to section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

the Regional Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted on by the rule.

In developing the HMIWI emission

guidelines and standards, EPA prepared

a written statement pursuant to section

202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act

which it published in the 1997

promulgation notice (see 60 FR 48374 to

48378). The EPA has determined that

this State Plan does not include any

new Federal mandates above those

previously considered during

promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI

guidelines. The State Plan does include

an emission limitation for mercury that

will be more stringent than the limit

required by the EGs. However, that limit

is not the result of a Federal mandate.

In approving the State Plan, EPA is

approving pre-existing requirements

under State law and imposing no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from EPA’s approval of State Plan

provisions that may be more stringent

than the EG requirements, nor will

EPA’s approval of the State Plan

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, this action is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

21096 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

In approving or disapproving State

Plans under section 129 of the Clean Air

Act, EPA does not have the authority to

revise or rewrite the State’s rule, so the

Agency does not have authority to

require the use of particular voluntary

consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA

has not sought to identify or require the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards. Furthermore, Rhode Island’s

Plan incorporates by reference test

methods and sampling procedures for

existing HMIWI units already

established by the emissions guidelines

for HMIWIs at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart

Ce, and does not establish new technical

standards for HMIWIs. Therefore, the

requirements of the NTTAA are not

applicable to this final rule.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 June 26, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule 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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2). EPA

encourages interested parties to

comment in response to the proposed

rule rather than petition for judicial

review, unless the objection arises after

the comment period allowed for in the

proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 12, 2001.

Ira W. Leighton,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New

England.

40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart OO—Rhode Island

2. Subpart OO is amended by adding

a new § 62.9825 to read as follows:

§ 62.9825 Identification of Plan.

(a) Identification of Plan. Rhode

Island Plan for the Control of Designated

Pollutants from Existing Plants (Section

111(d) Plan).

(b) The plan was officially submitted

as follows:

(1) Control of air emissions from

existing hospital/medical/infectious

waste incinerators, submitted on August

2, 2000.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) Designated facilities. The plan

applies to existing facilities in the

following categories of sources:

(1) Hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerators.

(2) [Reserved]

3. Subpart OO is amended by adding

a new § 62.9990 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as

follows:

Air Emissions From Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

§ 62.9990 Identification of sources.

(a) The plan applies to the following

existing hospital/medical/infectious

waste incinerators that were still

operating as of the date of publication,

and to any other unit for which

construction commenced on or before

June 20, 1996:

(1) Eleanor Slater Hospital/Zambarano

Unit, Pascoag.

(2) Our Lady of Fatima Hospital,

North Providence.

(3) Rhode Island Hospital,

Providence.

(4) Roger Williams Hospital,

Providence.

(b) [Reserved].

[FR Doc. 01–10425 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL197–1a; FRL–6970–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is approving a negative

declaration submitted by the State of

Illinois which indicates there is no need

for regulations covering the industrial

wastewater category in the Chicago

ozone nonattainment area. The Chicago

ozone nonattainment area includes

Cook County, DuPage County, Aux

Sable and Goose Lake Townships in

Grundy County, Kane County, Oswego

Township in Kendall County, Lake

County, McHenry County and Will

County. The State’s negative declaration

regarding industrial wastewater category

sources was submitted to USEPA in a

letter dated December 23, 1999.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 26,

2001, unless USEPA receives adverse

written comments by May 29, 2001. If

adverse comment is received, USEPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

A copy of the negative declaration is

available for inspection at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886–6036

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randolph O. Cano, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), USEPA, Region 5,

Chicago, Illinois 60604,(312) 886–6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

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

USEPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the background for this action?