Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16715 

88.292(a), 89.52(c), and 90.102(a) result 

in the elimination of the manganese 

limits for Group B discharges which 

include surface runoff and discharges 

during precipitation events less than or 

equal to the 10 year/24 hour storm 

event. The addition of 87.102(e); 

88.92(e); 88.187(e); 88.292(e); and 

90.102(e) establish three specific 

categories of discharges that can be 

adequately treated using passive 

treatment technologies. They are: where 

pH is always greater than 6.0 and 

alkalinity always exceeds acidity; where 

acidity is always less than 100mg/l, iron 

is always less than 10mg/l, manganese 

is always less than 18mg/l, and flow is 

always less than 3 gpm; and where net 

acidity is always less than 300mg/l. The 

regulations do not limit applicability to 

only these three categories. The 

proposed regulations also establish 

construction and performance criteria 

for the treatment systems. 

Supporting Documentation: 

Pennsylvania also provided references 

to OSM’s regulations, excerpts from 40 

CFR part 434, references to past 

correspondence with EPA on this issue, 

and a 1994 Pennsylvania report entitled 

‘‘Best Professional Judgment Analysis 

for the Treatment of Post-Mining 

Discharges from Surface Mining 

Activities.’’ 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 

732.17(h), we are seeking your 

comments on whether the submission 

satisfies the applicable program 

approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we 

approve the amendment, it will become 

part of the Pennsylvania program. 

Electronic or Written Comments 

If you submit written comments, they 

should be specific, confined to issues 

pertinent to the proposed regulations, 

and explain the reason for any 

recommended change(s). We appreciate 

any and all comments, but those most 

useful and likely to influence decisions 

on the final regulations will be those 

that either involve personal experience 

or include citations to and analyses of 

SMCRA, its legislative history, its 

implementing regulations, case law, 

other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or 

regulations, technical literature, or other 

relevant publications. We cannot ensure 

that comments received after the close 

of the comment period (see DATES) or 

sent to an address other than those 

listed above (see ADDRESSES) will be 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking and considered. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. We will not consider anonymous 

comments. 

Public Hearing 

If you wish to speak at the public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 

p.m., local time April 11, 2011. If you 

are disabled and need reasonable 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will arrange the location and time of the 

hearing with those persons requesting 

the hearing. If no one requests an 

opportunity to speak, we will not hold 

the hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at a public 

hearing provide us with a written copy 

of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If there is only limited interest in 

participating in a public hearing, we 

may hold a public meeting rather than 

a public hearing. If you wish to meet 

with us to discuss the submission, 

please request a meeting by contacting 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings 

are open to the public and, if possible, 

we will post notices of meetings at the 

locations listed under ADDRESSES. We 

will make a written summary of each 

meeting a part of the administrative 

record. 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: January 31, 2011. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, Appalachian Region. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7107 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1117] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Raritan River, Arthur Kill and Their 

Tributaries, Staten Island, NY and 

Elizabeth, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operation 

regulations governing the operation of 

the Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge at 

mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill between 

Staten Island, New York and Elizabeth, 

New Jersey. This proposed rule would 

provide relief to the bridge owner from 

crewing their bridge by allowing the 

bridge to be operated from a remote 

location while continuing to meet the 

present and future needs of navigation. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
16716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2010–1117 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast 

Guard District; telephone (212) 668– 

7165, e-mail gary.kassof@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–1117), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http:// 

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–1117’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– 

1117’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Basis and Purpose 

The Arthur Kill (AK) Railroad Bridge 

at mile 11.6, across Arthur Kill, has a 

vertical clearance of 31 feet at mean 

high water, and 35 feet at mean low 

water in the closed position. The 

existing drawbridge operating 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.72. 

Beginning in 2009, Consolidated Rail 

Corporation (Conrail) conducted a year 

of successful remote operation tests of 

the AK Railroad Bridge without any 

objections from marine users. A draw 

operator was on scene at all times to 

ensure compliance with drawbridge 

operating regulations cited above. In 

September 2010, Conrail formally 

requested that the drawbridge operating 

regulation be revised to permit remote 

operation of the Arthur Kill AK Railroad 

Bridge. 

Conrail, on October 20, 2010 and at 

the request of the Coast Guard, 

presented its proposal to remotely 

operate the bridge to the New York 

Harbor Operation Committee. 

Discussions between Conrail, the Coast 

Guard, and the New York Harbor 

Operations Committee ensued with no 

objections to the remote operation 

raised by the committee members. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge 

would operate the same way as stated in 

the existing regulation, except that it 

will be operated remotely from the 

Lehigh Valley drawbridge at mile 4.3 

across Newark Bay or at the bridge 

locally. 

The revised regulation would require 

a sufficient number of closed circuit TV 

cameras, approved by the Coast Guard, 

to be maintained at the bridge to enable 

the remotely located bridge tender to 

have a full view of the waterway and all 

vessel traffic. 

In addition, VHF–FM radiotelephone 

channels 13 and 16 would be monitored 

to facilitate vessel to bridge 

communication from both the remote 

and the local control location. 

Directional microphones and signal 

horns would also be installed at the 

bridge to receive and deliver signals to 

vessels. 

In the event that the remote operation 

equipment fails to operate in any way, 

a bridge tender will be dispatched to the 

bridge to arrive no more than 45 

minutes following the equipment 

failure. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16717 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. This 

conclusion is based upon the fact that 

the bridge will continue to operate 

according to the existing regulations 

except that it could be controlled from 

either a remote location or locally. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. The bridge will 

continue to operate according to 

existing regulations except that it will 

be controlled from either a remote 

location or locally. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Mr. Joe Arca, 

First Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Program Manager, at 

joe.m.arca@uscg.mil or 212–668–7165. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this proposed rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
16718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.702 to read as follows: 

§ 117.702 Arthur Kill 

(a) The draw of the Arthur Kill (AK) 

Railroad Bridge shall be maintained in 

the full open position for navigation at 

all times, except during periods when it 

is closed for the passage of rail traffic. 

(b) The bridge owner/operator shall 

maintain a dedicated telephone hot line 

for vessel operators to call the bridge in 

advance to coordinate anticipated 

bridge closures. The telephone hot line 

number shall be posted on signs at the 

bridge clearly visible from both the up 

and downstream sides of the bridge. 

(c) Tide constrained deep draft vessels 

shall notify the bridge operator, daily, of 

their expected times of vessel transits 

through the bridge, by calling the 

designated telephone hot line. 

(d) The bridge shall not be closed for 

the passage of rail traffic during any 

predicted high tide period if a tide 

constrained deep draft vessel has 

provided the bridge operator with an 

advance notice of their intent to transit 

through the bridge. For the purposes of 

this regulation, the predicted high tide 

period shall be considered to be from 

two hours before each predicted high 

tide to a half-hour after each predicted 

high tide taken at the Battery, New 

York. 

(e) The bridge operator shall issue a 

manual broadcast notice to mariners of 

the intent to close the bridge for a 

period of up to thirty minutes for the 

passage of rail traffic, on VHF–FM 

channels 13 and 16 (minimum range of 

15 miles) 90 minutes before and again 

at 75 minutes before each bridge 

closure. 

(f) Beginning at 60 minutes prior to 

each bridge closure, automated or 

manual broadcast notice to mariners 

must be repeated at 15 minute intervals 

and again at 10 and 5 minutes prior to 

each bridge closure and once again as 

the bridge begins to close, at which 

point the appropriate sound signal will 

be given. 

(g) Two 15 minute bridge closures 

may be provided each day for the 

passage of multiple rail traffic 

movements across the bridge. Each 15 

minute bridge closure shall be separated 

by at least a 30 minute period when the 

bridge is returned to and remains in the 

full open position. Notification of the 

two 15 minute closures shall follow the 

same procedures outlined in paragraphs 

(e) and (f) above. 

(h) A vessel operator may request up 

to a 30 minute delay for any bridge 

closure in order to allow vessel traffic to 

meet tide or current requirements; 

however, the request to delay the bridge 

closure must be made within 30 

minutes following the initial broadcast 

for the bridge closure. Requests received 

after the initial 30 minute broadcast will 

not be granted. 

(i) In the event of a bridge operational 

failure, the bridge operator shall 

immediately notify the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port New York. The 

bridge owner/operator must provide and 

dispatch a bridge repair crew to be on 

scene at the bridge no later than 45 

minutes after the bridge fails to operate. 

A repair crew must remain on scene 

during the operational failure until the 

bridge has been fully restored to normal 

operations or until the bridge is raised 

and locked in the fully open position. 

(j) When the bridge is not tended 

locally it must be operated from a 

remote location. A sufficient number of 

closed circuit TV cameras, approved by 

the Coast Guard, shall be operated and 

maintained at the bridge site to enable 

the remotely located bridge tender to 

have full view of both river traffic and 

the bridge. 

(k) VHF–FM channels 13 and 16 shall 

be maintained and monitored to 

facilitate communication in both the 

remote and local control locations. The 

bridge shall also be equipped with 

directional microphones and horns to 

receive and deliver signals to vessels. 

(l) Whenever the remote control 

system equipment is disabled or fails to 

operate for any reason, the bridge 

operator shall immediately notify the 

Captain of the Port New York. The 

bridge shall be physically tended and 

operated by local control as soon as 

possible, but no more than 45 minutes 

after malfunction or disability of the 

remote system. Mechanical bypass and 

override capability of the remote 

operation system shall be provided and 

maintained at all times. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

Daniel A. Neptun, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7049 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1036–201062; FRL– 

9286–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Georgia: Atlanta; 

Determination of Attainment for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Atlanta, Georgia 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) based on 

quality assured, quality controlled 

monitoring data from 2008–2010. The 

Atlanta, Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’) is comprised of 

Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, 

Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, 

Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, 

Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, 

Spalding and Walton Counties in 

Georgia. If this proposed determination 

is made final, the requirement for the 

State of Georgia to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) analysis, a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Atlanta, Georgia 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, shall be 

suspended for as long as the Atlanta 

Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–1036 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS