### 54 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

compilation because the disclosure is not being made in support of D’s tax return preparation business.

(p) Disclosure or use of information for quality, peer, or conflict reviews. (1) The provisions of section 7216(a) and § 301.7216–1 shall not apply to any disclosure for the purpose of a quality or peer review to the extent necessary to accomplish the review. A quality or peer review is a review that is undertaken to evaluate, monitor, and improve the quality and accuracy of a tax return preparer’s tax preparation, accounting, or auditing services. A quality or peer review may be conducted only by attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, and enrolled actuaries who are eligible to practice before the Internal Revenue Service. See Department of the Treasury Circular 230, 31 CFR part 10. Tax return information may also be disclosed to persons who provide administrative or support services to an individual who is conducting a quality or peer review under this paragraph (p), but only to the extent necessary for the reviewer to conduct the review. Tax return information gathered in conducting a review may be used only for purposes of a review. No tax return information identifying a taxpayer may be disclosed in any evaluative reports or recommendations that may be accessible to any person other than the reviewer or the tax return preparer being reviewed. The tax return preparer being reviewed will maintain a record of the review including the information reviewed and the identity of the persons conducting the review. After completion of the review, no documents containing information that may identify any taxpayer by name or identification number may be retained by a reviewer or by the reviewer’s administrative or support personnel.

(2) The provisions of section 7216(a) and § 301.7216–1 shall not apply to any disclosure necessary to accomplish a conflict review. A conflict review is a review undertaken to comply with requirements established by any federal, state, or local law, agency, board or commission, or by a professional association ethics committee or board, to either identify, evaluate, and monitor actual or potential legal and ethical conflicts of interest that may arise when a tax return preparer is employed or acquired by another tax return preparer, or to identify, evaluate, and monitor actual or potential legal and ethical conflicts of interest that may arise when a tax return preparer is considering engaging a new client. Tax return information gathered in conducting a conflict review may be used only for purposes of a conflict review. No tax return information identifying a taxpayer may be disclosed in any evaluative reports or recommendations that may be accessible to any person other than those responsible for identifying, evaluating, and monitoring legal and ethical conflicts of interest. No tax return information identifying a taxpayer may be disclosed outside of the United States or a territory or possession of the United States unless the disclosing and receiving tax return preparers have procedures in place that are consistent with good business practices and designed to maintain the confidentiality of the disclosed return information.

(3) Any person (including administrative and support personnel) receiving tax return information in connection with a quality, peer, or conflict review is a tax return preparer for purposes of sections 7216(a) and 6713(a). Tax return information disclosed and used for purposes of a quality, peer, or conflict review shall not be used or disclosed for any other

purpose.

(q) through (r) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7216–2(q) through (r).

(s) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to disclosures or uses of tax return information occurring on or after January 4, 2010.

(t) Expiration date. The applicability of this section expires on or before December 28, 2012.

Steven T. Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

Approved: December 24, 2009. Michael Mundaca, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E9–31115 Filed 12–29–09; 4:15 pm]

**BILLING CODE 4830–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0561–200929; FRL– 9098–8]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and**  **Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina:**  **Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point; Determination of Attaining Data**  **for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is determining that the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina, (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Greensboro, North Carolina’’) nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has attaining data for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This final rule is effective on January 4, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0561. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours 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.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Joel Huey, 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. Huey may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 9104 or via electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. For information relating to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), please


### 55 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

contact Nacosta Ward at (404) 562– 9140. Ms. Ward can also be reached at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Effect of This Action? III. When Is This Action Effective? IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action? V. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews? I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is determining that the Greensboro, North Carolina, nonattainment area has attaining data for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006– 2008 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data submitted during the calendar year 2009, which are available in the EPA Air Quality System database, but not yet certified, indicate that this area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale for EPA’s proposed action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51246) and will not be restated here. The comment period for the NPR closed on November 5, 2009. No public comments were received in response to the NPR.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this area to submit attainment demonstrations, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

III. When Is the Action Effective?

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal Register, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the approval. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction’’ and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.’’ As noted above, this determination of attainment suspends the requirements for the Greensboro, North Carolina, PM 2.5 nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In addition, this nonattainment area’s suspension from these requirements provide good cause to make this rule effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule suspends requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected parties, such as the State of North Carolina, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action?

EPA is determining that the Greensboro, North Carolina, nonattainment area has attaining data for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS during the period 2006–2008. This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for this area to submit attainment demonstrations, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as long as the Area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. V. What Are Statutory and Executive Order Reviews? A. General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 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. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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


### 56 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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). C. Petitions for 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 March 5, 2010. 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, pertaining to the determination of attaining data for the 1997 fine particulate matter standard for the Greensboro, North Carolina, PM2.5 nonattainment area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: December 15, 2009 J. Scott Gordon, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

■ Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart II—North Carolina**

■ 2. Section § 52.1781 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

**§ 52.1781 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.** 

* * * * *

(e) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of January 4,2010, the Greensboro-Winston SalemHigh Point, North Carolina nonattainment area has attaining data for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. E9–31083 Filed 12–31–09; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Parts 52 and 81**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0164–200916; FRL– 9099–1]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation**  **of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation**  **of the Shelby County, Tennessee Portion of the Memphis, TN-Arkansas**  **1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on February 26, 2009, from the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division, to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the bi-state Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Memphis Area’’) to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The bi-state Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area is composed of Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas. EPA’s approval of the redesignation request isbased on the determination that the bistate Memphis Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the bi-state Memphis Area has attained the 1997 8- hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Shelby County, Tennessee that contains the new 2006, 2009, 2017, and 2021 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for Shelby County, Tennessee. This action also approves the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan (under the CAA section 182(a)(1)). The State of Arkansas has submitted a similar redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Arkansas portion of this 1997 8-hour ozone area. EPA is taking action on Arkansas’ redesignation request, emissions inventory and maintenance plan through a separate rulemaking action. On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard. EPA later announced on September 16, 2009, that it may reconsider this revised ozone standard. The current action, however, is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for the bi-state Memphis Area under the 2008 standard will be addressed in the future.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: This rule will be effective February 3, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2009–0164. All documents in the docket are listed on thehttp:// 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 :**  Jane Spann or Twunjala Bradley, 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. Jane Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562–9029 or via electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. The telephone number for Ms. Bradley is (404) 562– 9352 and the electronic mail at bradley.twunjala@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**