Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20293 

described below, any such 

determination would not be equivalent 

to the redesignation of the Area to 

attainment for the annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

If this proposed rulemaking is 

finalized and EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, that 

the Area has violated the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of 

the specific requirements would no 

longer exist for the Birmingham Area, 

and the Area would thereafter have to 

address the applicable requirements. 

See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). 

Finalizing this proposed action would 

not constitute a redesignation of the 

Area to attainment of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, finalizing 

this proposed action does not involve 

approving a maintenance plan for the 

Area as required under section 175A of 

the CAA, nor would it find that the Area 

has met all other requirements for 

redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the 

proposed action, the designation status 

of the Birmingham Area would remain 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA 

determines that the Area meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment and takes action to 

redesignate the Area. 

This action is only a proposed 

determination of attaining data that the 

Birmingham Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s action 

does not address the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

If the Birmingham Area continues to 

monitor attainment of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the requirements for the 

Birmingham Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will remain 

suspended. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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). In 

addition, this proposed 1997 annual 

average PM2.5 NAAQS data 

determination for the Birmingham Area 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: April 4, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8702 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029–201103; FRL– 

9293–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and 

Designations of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina and 

South Carolina: 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 Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, North Carolina-South 

Carolina 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 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, 

North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state 

Charlotte Area’’) is comprised of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle 

Creek Townships) Counties in North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County 

in South Carolina. If this proposed 

determination is made final, the 

requirement for the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina to submit 

an attainment demonstration and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) analyses, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plans, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, shall be suspended for 

as long as the Area continues to meet 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0029 by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029,’’ 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Contingency measures associated with a 

maintenance plan (such as if the States opt to 

redesignate this Area to attainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS) would still be required. 

2As noted above, at this time the proposed 

determination of attainment, if finalized, would 

suspend only those requirements related to 

attainment that are currently applicable to the bistate Charlotte Area. 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0029. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http://

www.regulations.gov or by e-mail 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Spann or Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or via electronic e-mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Mr. Farngalo may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–9152 

or via electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Today’s 

proposal is based upon complete, 

quality assured, quality controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the years 2008–2010 showing that the 

bi-state Charlotte Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is in the process of 

establishing a new 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and expects to finalize the 

reconsidered NAAQS by July 2011. 

Today’s action, however, relates only to 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Requirements for the bi-state Charlotte 

Area under the 2011 NAAQS will be 

addressed in the future. 

II. What is the effect of this action? 

If this determination is made final, 

under the provisions of EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule (see 40 CFR 

51.918), it would suspend the 

requirement to submit attainment 

demonstrations and associated RACM 

analyses, RFP plans, contingency 

measures,1 and any other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The clean data 

determination would continue until 

such time, if any, that EPA subsequently 

determines that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The clean data determination 

is separate from any future designation 

determination or requirements for the 

bi-state Charlotte Area based on the 

revised or reconsidered ozone NAAQS, 

and would remain in effect regardless of 

whether EPA designates the bi-state 

Charlotte Area as a nonattainment area 

for purposes of a future revised or 

reconsidered 8-hour ozone NAAQS.2

Furthermore, as described below, a final 

clean data determination is not 

equivalent to the redesignation of the bistate Charlotte Area to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If this 

rulemaking is finalized and EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, that the bi-state Charlotte Area 

has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of 

the specific requirements, set forth at 40 

CFR 51.918, would no longer exist, and 

the bi-state Charlotte Area would 

thereafter have to address pertinent 

requirements. 

As mentioned above, finalizing this 

proposed action would not constitute a 

redesignation of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) 

of the CAA. Finalizing this proposed 

action does not involve approving 

maintenance plans for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area as required under section 

175A of the CAA, or affirm that the Area 

has met all other requirements for 

redesignation. The designation status of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area would 

remain nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that it meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. The States of North Carolina 

and South Carolina are currently 

working on a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan to change the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s status from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will 

consider North Carolina and South 

Carolina’s redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the bi-state 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20295 

Charlotte Area in a rulemaking separate 

from today’s proposed action. 

This proposed action, if finalized, is 

limited to a determination that the bistate Charlotte Area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As noted 

above, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 

38894), and are set forth at 40 CFR 

50.10. On March 12, 2008, EPA 

promulgated revised 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Subsequently, on January 19, 

2010, EPA published a proposed rule to 

reconsider the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (75 FR 2938) and to propose a 

revised ozone NAAQS. Today’s 

proposed determination for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, and any final 

determination, will have no effect on, 

and is not related to, any future 

designation determination that EPA may 

make based on the revised or 

reconsidered ozone NAAQS for the Bistate Charlotte Area. 

If this proposed determination is 

made final and the bi-state Charlotte 

Area continues to demonstrate 

attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the obligation for the States of 

North Carolina and South Carolina to 

submit for the bi-state Charlotte Area an 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated RACM analyses, RFP plans, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will 

remain suspended regardless of whether 

EPA designates the bi-state Charlotte 

Area as a nonattainment area for 

purposes of the revised or reconsidered 

ozone NAAQS. Once the bi-state 

Charlotte Area is designated for the 

revised or reconsidered ozone NAAQS, 

it will have to meet all applicable 

requirements for that designation. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38894), EPA 

promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 

for both the primary and secondary 

standards. These NAAQS are more 

stringent than the previous 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Under EPA regulations 

at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is attained when the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ambient 

air quality ozone concentration is less 

than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 

ppm when rounding is considered). 

Ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the 3-year period must meet a data 

completeness requirement. The ambient 

air quality monitoring data 

completeness requirement is met when 

the average percent of days with valid 

ambient monitoring data is greater than 

90 percent, and no single year has less 

than 75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of part 50. 

Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I, ‘‘Comparisons with the 

Primary and Secondary Ozone 

Standards’’ states: 

‘‘The primary and secondary ozone 

ambient air quality standards are met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site when the 

3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 

ppm. The number of significant figures in the 

level of the standard dictates the rounding 

convention for comparing the computed 3- 

year average annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration with the level of the standard. 

The third decimal place of the computed 

value is rounded, with values equal to or 

greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a 

computed 3-year average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest 

value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.’’ 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published its air quality designations 

and classifications for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based upon air quality 

monitoring data from those monitors for 

calendar years 2001–2003. These 

designations became effective on June 

15, 2004. The bi-state Charlotte Area is 

comprised of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle 

Creek Townships) Counties in North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County, 

South Carolina and was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 81. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

relevant air quality data? 

EPA has reviewed the three most 

recent years of complete, certified, 

quality assured and quality controlled 

ambient air monitoring data for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, consistent with 

the requirements contained in 40 CFR 

part 50, as recorded in the EPA Air 

Quality System (AQS) database for the 

bi-state Charlotte Area. Based on that 

review, EPA has preliminarily 

concluded that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS during the 2008–2010 

monitoring period. Under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 50.10, the 1997 

8-hour primary and secondary ozone 

ambient air quality NAAQS are met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the three-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 

8-hour average concentration is less 

than or equal to 0.08 ppm, as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. 

Table 1 shows the design values (the 

metrics calculated in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, appendix I, for 

determining compliance with the 

NAAQS) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area 

monitors for the years 2008–2010. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES FOR COUNTIES IN THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE, NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA NONATTAINMENT

AREA FOR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

Location AQS site ID 2008 (ppm) 2009 (ppm) 2010 (ppm) 

2008–2010 

Design 

value (ppm) 

Lincoln County (NC) ................ 1487 Riverview Rd. (37–109–0004) ......................... 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.072 

Mecklenburg County (NC) ....... 1130 Eastway Dr. (37–119–0041) ............................ 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.078 

Mecklenburg County (NC) ....... 400 Westinghouse Blvd. (37–119–1005) .................. 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.073 

Mecklenburg County (NC) ....... 29 N @ Mecklenburg Cab Co. ( 37–119–1009) ....... 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.082 

Rowan County (NC) ................ 301 West St. & Gold Hill Ave. (37–159–0021) ......... 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077 

Rowan County (NC) ................ 925 N Enochville Ave. (37–159–0022) ..................... 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.077 

Union County (NC) .................. 701 Charles St. (37–179–0003) ................................ 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.072 

Table 2 shows the data completeness 

percentages for the 1997 8-hours ozone 

NAAQS for the Atlanta Area monitors 

for the years 2008–2010. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—COMPLETENESS PERCENTAGES FOR COUNTIES IN THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE, NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA

NONATTAINMENT AREA OR THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

Location AQS site ID 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010 (%) 

2008–2010 

Completeness average (%) 

Lincoln County (NC) ........... 1487 Riverview Rd. (37–109–0004) ............................... 97 98 96 97 

Mecklen- .............................

burg County (NC) ...............

1130 Eastway Dr (37–119–0041) ................................... 100 97 99 99 

Mecklen- .............................

burg County (NC) ...............

400 Westinghouse Blvd. (37–119–1005) ....................... 100 97 99 99 

Mecklen- .............................

burg County (NC) ...............

29 N @ Mecklenburg Cab Co. ( 37–119–1009) ............ 98 98 98 98 

Rowan County (NC) ........... 301 West St & Gold Hill Ave. (37–159–0021) ................ 93 91 95 93 

Rowan County (NC) ........... 925 N Enochville Ave. (37–159–0022) ........................... 99 97 93 96 

Union County (NC) ............. 701 Charles St. (37–179–0003) ..................................... 98 96 98 97 

EPA’s review of these data indicate 

that the bi-state Charlotte Area has met 

and continues to meet the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

2008–2010 complete, quality-assured, 

quality-controlled and certified 

monitoring data. As provided in 40 CFR 

51.918, if EPA finalizes this 

determination, it would suspend the 

requirements for the States of North and 

South Carolina to submit, for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, an attainment 

demonstrations and associated RACM 

analyses, RFP plans, contingency 

measures, and any other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as long as the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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). In 

addition, this proposed 1997 8-hour 

ozone clean NAAQS data determination 

for the bi-state Charlotte Area does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8705 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2006–0130–201111(b); 

FRL–9293–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: Florida; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to convert a 

conditional approval of provisions in 

the Florida State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to a full approval under the federal 

Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 17, 2009, 

the State of Florida, through the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, submitted a SIP revision in 

response to the conditional approval of 

its New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting program. The revision 

includes changes to certain parts of the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

construction permit program in Florida, 

including the definition of ‘‘new 

emissions unit,’’ ‘‘regulated air 

pollutant’’ and ‘‘significant emissions 

rate’’ as well as recordkeeping 

requirements. In addition, Florida 

provided a clarification that the 

significant emissions rate for mercury in 

the Florida regulations is intended to 

apply as a state-only provision. EPA has 

determined that this revision addresses 

the conditions identified in the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1