43156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. 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 September 19, 

2011. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action 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).) 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

Dated: June 1, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17742 Filed 7–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0215; FRL–9435–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Missouri; 

Final Disapproval of Interstate 

Transport State Implementation Plan 

Revision for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is taking final action to 

disapprove the portion of the 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) (CAA section 110(a)(1) and 

(2)) submittal from the State of Missouri 

intended to address the CAA section 

relating to the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) that 

prohibit a state from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. This final 

action to disapprove the ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ portion of the Missouri SIP 

submittal received by EPA on December 

28, 2009, only relates to those 

provisions and does not address the 

other portions of Missouri’s December 

28, 2009, submission. The rationale for 

this action and additional detail on this 

disapproval were described in EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register on March 18, 2011. 

The effect of this action will be the 

promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Missouri 

no later than two years from the date of 

disapproval. EPA’s proposed Transport 

Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA 

intends to implement for Missouri. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on August 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0215. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, in the Air Planning 

and Development Branch, of the Air and 

Waste Management Division, 901 North 

5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

EPA requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. The Regional Office 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth Kramer, Environmental 

Scientist, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: 

(913) 551–7186; fax number: (913) 551– 

7844; e-mail address: 

kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 19, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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).) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. These sections provide additional 

information on this final action: 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Administrative Requirements 

I. Background 

On March 18, 2011 (76 FR 14835), 

EPA proposed to disapprove a portion 

of the ‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP (CAA 

110(a)(1) and (2)) submittal from the 

State of Missouri relating to the 

interstate transport element of 

infrastructure (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). EPA received no 

comments on the proposed disapproval. 

For additional detail on EPA’s rationale 

this final action, see the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the 

thirteen required elements that 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

These ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions which adversely 

affect another state in the ways 

contemplated in the statute. The section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), portion of Missouri’s SIP 

must prevent sources in the State from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (I) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states and interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states and (II) 

interfere with provisions to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

other states or interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

On December 28, 2009, EPA received 

a SIP revision from the State of Missouri 

intended to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) including the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

this final rulemaking, EPA is 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43157 

disapproving only the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

portion of the submittal that pertains to 

prohibiting sources in Missouri from 

emitting pollutants that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. The 

elements on which we are taking action 

today are severable portions of the 

submittal. EPA intends to address the 

additional portions of the submittal in a 

subsequent action. 

The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as EPA’s 

analysis of the State’s submission, are 

explained in detail in the proposal. In 

summary, EPA proposed to disapprove 

the Missouri submittal because: (1) It 

described a number of rules Missouri 

had adopted to reduce PM2.5 precursors 

(sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides), but 

did not include any analysis to show 

that these measures would prohibit the 

interstate impacts described in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); and (2) it relied on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule provisions in 

the Missouri SIP, even though those 

provisions do not address impacts on 

the 2006 PM2.5 standards. We also noted 

that Missouri’s conclusion with respect 

to these interstate impact provisions 

was inconsistent with the preliminary 

modeling for EPA’s proposed Transport 

Rule (see 75 FR 45210, August 2, 2010). 

The reader should refer to the March 18, 

2011 proposed rulemaking (76 FR at 

14837–8) for a detailed explanation of 

EPA’s rationale for this determination. 

In addition, EPA has now completed the 

modeling for the final Transport Rule 

and, as indicated by the technical 

support documents (TSDs) for this 

action, Missouri in fact significantly 

contributes to downwind nonattainment 

in another state and interferes with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in another state. Please see the 

TSDs for the final modeling and 

contribution analysis as they relate to 

this action. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove a portion of the submission 

from the State of Missouri intended to 

demonstrate that Missouri has 

adequately addressed the elements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that 

require Missouri’s SIP to include 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

pollutant emissions from sources within 

the State from significantly contributing 

to nonattainment in or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state. EPA has 

determined that the Missouri 

submission does not contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from within the State that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other downwind states. As 

noted in the Background above, the final 

modeling for EPA’s Transport Rule 

indicates that Missouri in fact 

significantly contributes to downwind 

nonattainment in another state and 

interferes with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

Any remaining elements of the 

submittal, including language to address 

other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

regarding interference with measures 

required in the applicable SIP for 

another state designed to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and protect visibility, are not addressed 

in this action. EPA is disapproving only 

the provisions which relate to the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the 

submittal. EPA will act on those other 

provisions in a subsequent action. 

Also, under section 179(a) of the 

CAA, final disapproval of a submittal 

that addresses a requirement of a Part D 

Plan (42 U.S.C.A. 7501–7515), or is 

required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

section 7410(k)(5) (SIP Call), starts a 

sanctions clock. The provisions in the 

submittal that we are disapproving were 

not submitted to meet either of those 

requirements. Therefore, no sanctions 

are triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

FIP no later than 2 years from the date 

of the disapproval unless the state 

corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. 

EPA’s final Transport Rule and 

related FIP, if finalized in the manner 

proposed, may address these interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the State of 

Missouri for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

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, 

EPA’s role is to act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because this 

SIP disapproval under section 110 of the 

CAA will not in-and-of itself create any 

new information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This SIP 

disapproval under section 110 of the 

CAA will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
43158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. EPA has determined that 

the disapproval action does not include 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action disapproves 

pre-existing requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely disapproves certain state 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Today’s final disapproval does not have 

federalism implications. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is 

disapproving would not 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. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under Section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This SIP disapproval 

under section 110 of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain state requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

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 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through the Office 

of Management and Budget, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. EPA 

believes that this action is not subject to 

requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA 

because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it 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. 

Congressional Review 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 

60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43159 

1The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was 

signed by the Administrator and publically 

disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA 

did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP 

submittals, the submittals for the 2006 24-hour 

NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three 

years from the September 21, 2006, signature date. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–17740 Filed 7–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1012–201130; FRL– 

9438–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Georgia; 

Disapproval of Interstate Transport 

Submission for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove the portion of Georgia’s 

October 21, 2009, submission which 

was intended to meet the requirement to 

address interstate transport for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is 

responding to comments received on 

EPA’s January 26, 2011, proposed 

disapproval of the aforementioned 

portion of Georgia’s October 21, 2009, 

submission. On October 21, 2009, the 

State of Georgia, through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD), provided a letter to EPA certifying 

that the Georgia state implementation 

plan (SIP) meets the interstate transport 

requirements with regard to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the 

interstate transport requirements under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) prohibit 

a state’s emissions from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. The effect of 

today’s action will be the promulgation 

of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

for Georgia no later than two years from 

the date of disapproval. The proposed 

Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP 

that EPA intends to implement for 

Georgia. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective August 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–1012. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information 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 through 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: For 

information regarding the Georgia SIP, 

contact Mr. 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. Mr. 

Farngalo’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9152; e-mail address: 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport 

requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), contact Mr. Steven 

Scofield, Regulatory Development 

Section, at the same address above. Mr. 

Scofield’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9034; e-mail address: 

scofield.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Responses to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that NAAQS. On 

December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24- 

hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m 3) to 35 μg/m 3, 

thus states were required to provide 

submissions to address section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the CAA (infrastructure SIPs) 

for this revised NAAQS. Georgia 

provided its infrastructure submission 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 

21, 2009. On January 26, 2011, EPA 

proposed to disapprove the portion of 

Georgia’s October 21, 2009, 

infrastructure submission related to 

interstate transport (i.e., 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 4584. A summary of 

the background for this final action is 

provided below. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements 

that infrastructure SIPs must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

States were required to provide 

submissions to address the applicable 

110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), by 

September 21, 2009.1

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance). 

EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance to make 

additional recommendations to states 

for making submissions to meet the 

requirements of section 110, including 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As identified in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to 

submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another state in the 

ways contemplated in the CAA. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct 

requirements related to the impacts of 

interstate transport. Specifically, the SIP 

must prevent sources in the state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

In the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained 

that submissions from states pertaining 

to the ‘‘significant contribution’’ and 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

must contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the state that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES