48478 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, because it 

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 Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove 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. 

G. 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 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 proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

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 OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The 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 Clean Air Act. 

J. 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 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 8, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–22806 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0359; FRL–8960–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, Alabama: Clean 

Air Interstate Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 

State of Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on March 7, 

2007. This action proposes to approve 

the portion of the March 7, 2007, 

submittal that addresses State reporting 

requirements under the Nitrogen Oxide 

(NOX) SIP Call and the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) found in 40 CFR 

51.122 and 51.125 as amended by the 

CAIR rulemakings. Specifically, in this 

action EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to Chapter 335–3–1 ‘‘General 

Provisions.’’ In previous rulemakings, 

EPA took action on the other portions of 

the March 7, 2007, SIP submittal, which 

included revisions to Chapters 335–3–5, 

and 335–3–8 (October 1, 2007, 72 FR 

55659) and Chapter 335–3–17 (March 

26, 2009, 74 FR 13118). Although the 

DC Circuit Court found CAIR to be 

flawed, the rule was remanded without 

vacatur and thus remains in place. 

Thus, EPA is continuing to approve 

CAIR provisions into SIPs as 

appropriate. CAIR, as promulgated, 

requires States to reduce emissions of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX that 

significantly contribute to, or interfere 

with maintenance of, the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for fine particulates and/or ozone in any 

downwind state. CAIR establishes 

budgets for SO2 and NOX for States that 

contribute significantly to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48479 

nonattainment in downwind States and 

requires the significantly contributing 

States to submit SIP revisions that 

implement these budgets. States have 

the flexibility to choose which control 

measures to adopt to achieve the 

budgets, including participation in EPAadministered cap-and-trade programs 

addressing SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions. This action is 

being taken pursuant to section 110 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2007–0359, 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–2007– 

0359,’’ 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

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–2007– 

0359.’’ 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 

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: Ms. 

Stacy Harder, 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. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9042. 

Ms. Harder can also be reached via 

electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov. 

For information pertaining to the 

Alabama State SIP, please contact Mr. 

Zuri Farngalo, by phone at (404) 562– 

9152, or electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR? 

III. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Alabama’s 

Submission? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 

revision submitted by ADEM, on March 

7, 2007, pertaining to rules for CAIR. 

The revisions include changes to 

Chapter 335–3–1 ‘‘General Provisions.’’ 

Specifically, ADEM is amending Section 

335–3–1–.14 ‘‘Emissions Reporting 

Requirements Relating to Budgets for 

NOx Emissions,’’ and adding a new 

Section 335–3–1–.16 ‘‘Emissions 

Reporting Requirements Relating to 

Budgets for SO2 and NOX Emissions.’’ 

These revisions became State effective 

on April 3, 2007. 

II. What Is the Regulatory History of 

CAIR? 

EPA published CAIR on May 12, 2005 

(70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA 

determined that 28 States and the 

District of Columbia contribute 

significantly to nonattainment and 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 

8-hour ozone in downwind States in the 

eastern part of the country. As a result, 

EPA required those upwind States to 

revise their SIPs to include control 

measures that reduce emissions of SO2, 

which is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, 

and/or NOX, which is a precursor to 

both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For 

jurisdictions that contribute 

significantly to downwind PM2.5

nonattainment, CAIR sets annual Statewide emission reduction requirements 

(i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual Statewide emission reduction requirements 

for NOX. Similarly, for jurisdictions that 

contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide 

emission reduction requirements or 

budgets for NOX for the ozone season 

(May 1st to September 30th). Under 

CAIR, States may implement these 

reduction requirements by participating 

in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade 

programs or by adopting any other 

control measures. 

EPA was sued by a number of parties 

on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 

11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

its decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIP) in their 

entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008). 

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The Court 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

48480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

thereby left CAIR in place in order to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by CAIR’’ 

until EPA replaces it with a rule 

consistent with the Court’s opinion. Id. 

at 1178. The Court directed EPA to 

‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with 

its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined 

to impose a schedule on EPA for 

completing that action. Id. 

According to 40 CFR 51.125, each 

state submitting a CAIR SIP revision 

must provide for emissions reporting 

requirements of SO2 and NOX emissions 

data. EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to Alabama’s Section 335–3– 

1–.14 and addition of Section 335–3–1– 

.16 to fulfill this requirement. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 51.121, these 

rule revisions allow the State to make 

the transition from the NOX budget 

trading program (NOX SIP Call) to the 

CAIR NOX ozone season trading 

program, beginning with the 2009 ozone 

season. Alabama’s NOX budget trading 

program does not apply to any ozone 

season after the 2008 ozone season. 

This proposed action is consistent 

with the Court’s decision in North 

Carolina v. EPA discussed above. While 

the Court identified several issues with 

CAIR, the rule was not vacated because 

of the loss of environmental benefit 

generated by the rule. As EPA works to 

remedy CAIR to satisfy the Court, CAIR 

remains in effect, including its trading 

programs. Currently, Alabama’s NOX

SIP Call trading program ends after the 

2008 ozone season, and so to continue 

the environmental benefits of the 

trading program, consistent with CAIR 

and the Court’s opinion, Alabama must 

revise its SIP, as proposed, to transition 

into the CAIR NOX trading program. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

aforementioned revisions, specifically, 

Chapter 335–3–1, Sections 335–3–1–.14, 

and 335–3–1–.16 into the Alabama SIP. 

These revisions were submitted by 

ADEM on March 7, 2007, and are 

consistent with EPA regulations, policy, 

and guidance. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

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 rule 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 11, 2009. 

J. Scott Gordon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–22904 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0032; FRL–8958– 

6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

Flexible Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing disapproval 

of submittals from the State of Texas, 

through the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to revise 

the Texas SIP to include a new type of 

NSR permitting program, Flexible 

Permits (the Texas Flexible Permits 

State Program or the Program). EPA 

proposes disapproval of the Texas 

Flexible Permits State Program because 

it does not meet the Minor NSR SIP 

requirements nor does it meet the NSR 

SIP requirements for a substitute Major 

NSR SIP revision. We are proposing 

action under section 110, part C, and 

part D, of the Federal Clean Air Act (the 

Act or CAA). EPA is taking comments 

on this proposal and intends to take a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2005–TX–0032 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell at 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number 

214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Stanley 

M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), Environmental Protection Agency, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS