4588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 CAA. 

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 (65 FR 67249, 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 

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 CAA 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 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 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 CAA. 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: January 14, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1627 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1013–201064; FRL– 

9257–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Alabama; 

Disapproval of Interstate Transport 

Submission for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2009, the 

State of Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), provided a letter 

to EPA with certification that Alabama’s 

state implementation plan (SIP) meets 

the interstate transport requirements 

with regard to the 2006 24-hour 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (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. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the portion of Alabama’s September 23, 

2009, submission which was intended 

to meet the requirement to address 

interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–1013 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–2010–1013, 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4589 

1Alabama’s September 23, 2009, certification 

letter also explained that Alabama’s current SIP 

sufficiently addresses other requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

however, today’s proposed action only relates to the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will address the other 

section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in relation to Alabama’s SIP in 

rulemaking separate from today’s proposed 

rulemaking. 

2The 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, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour 

NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three 

years from the September 21, 2006, signature date. 

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–2010– 

1013.’’ 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: For 

information regarding the Alabama 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: This 

section provides additional information 

by addressing the following questions: 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

submission for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

On September 23, 2009, the State of 

Alabama, through ADEM, provided a 

letter to EPA with certification that the 

Alabama SIP meets the interstate 

transport requirements with regard to 

the 2006 24-hour fine PM2.5 NAAQS.1

Specifically, Alabama certified that its 

current SIP adequately addresses the 

elements of CAA section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that 

implementation plans for each state 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

air pollutant emissions from sources 

within a state from significantly 

contributing to nonattainment in or 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS (in this case the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state. In 

today’s action, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the portion of Alabama’s 

September 23, 2009, submission related 

to interstate transport for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this submission does not meet the 

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

of the CAA for this NAAQS. EPA’s 

rationale for this proposed disapproval 

is provided in Section III of this 

rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

On December 18, 2006, EPA revised 

the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to submit ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs to 

address a new or revised NAAQS within 

3 years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. As provided by 

section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a 

determination that a submitted SIP is 

complete under 110(k)(1), the 

Administrator shall act on the plan. As 

authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, where portions of the state 

submittals are severable, within that 

12-month period EPA may decide to 

approve only those severable portions of 

the submittals that meet the 

requirements of the Act. When the 

deficient provisions are not severable 

from the other submitted provisions, 

EPA must propose disapproval of the 

submittals, consistent with sections 

110(k)(3) of the Act. 

Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements 

that such new 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, 2009.2

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

4590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone; Proposed Rule,’’ 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010). 

4Further, as explained above and in the 

Transport Rule proposal 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010), the DC Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA 

found that EPA’s quantification of states’ significant 

contribution and interference with maintenance in 

CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA. 

CAIR remains in effect only temporarily. 

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 statute. 

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 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. EPA 

described a number of considerations 

for states for providing an adequate 

demonstration to address interstate 

transport requirements in the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. 

First, EPA noted that the state’s 

submission should explain whether or 

not emissions from the state contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state and, if so, 

address the impact. EPA stated that the 

state’s conclusion should be supported 

by an adequate technical analysis. 

Second, EPA recommended the various 

types of information that could be 

relevant to support the state’s 

submission, such as information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and the potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient concentrations in 

the state, and air quality modeling. 

Third, EPA explained that states should 

address the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirement 

independently, which requires an 

evaluation of impacts on areas of other 

states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas 

designated nonattainment. Lastly, EPA 

explained that states could not rely on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS because CAIR does not address 

this NAAQS. Recognizing that the 

demonstration required may be a 

challenging task for the affected states, 

EPA also noted in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the 

Agency’s intention to complete a rule to 

address interstate pollution transport in 

the eastern half of the continental 

United States. 

EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 

2005 (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR required 

states to reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides that 

significantly contribute to, and interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS and/or ozone in any downwind 

state. CAIR was intended to provide 

states covered by the rule with a 

mechanism to satisfy their CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address 

significant contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in another state with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR 

provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to 

demonstrate compliance with the CAIR 

requirements in satisfaction of their 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for those 

two pollutants. 

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 (DC 

Circuit or Court) issued its decision to 

vacate and remand both CAIR and the 

associated CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) in their 

entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 836 (DC Circuit, July 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 Circuit, December 23, 2008). The 

Court 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. 

In order to address the judicial 

remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a 

new rule to address interstate transport 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the 

‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone’’ 

(Transport Rule).3 As part of the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

specifically examined the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements that 

emissions from sources in a state must 

not ‘‘significantly contribute to 

nonattainment’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by other states. The modeling 

performed for the proposed Transport 

Rule shows that Alabama significantly 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind 

areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s submission for section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On September 23, 2009, the State of 

Alabama, through ADEM, provided a 

letter to EPA with certification that 

Alabama’s SIP meets the interstate 

transport requirements with regard to 

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

submission, Alabama explains that 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is met through 

Alabama’s approved CAIR provisions. 

However, CAIR was promulgated 

before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were 

revised in 2006, and as mentioned 

above CAIR does not address interstate 

transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.4 EPA’s 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance explicitly notes 

that reliance on CAIR cannot be used to 

comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the respective 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because Alabama’s submittal relies on 

CAIR to address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS while CAIR does 

not address that NAAQS, this 

submission is deficient. 

EPA also notes that several states in 

their submission claim that controls 

planned for or already installed on 

sources within the state to meet the 

CAIR provisions satisfied section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS. However, states will not 

be able to permanently rely upon the 

emissions reductions predicted by 

CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to 

EPA and will not remain in force 

permanently. EPA is in the process of 

developing a new Transport Rule to 

address the concerns of the Court as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4591 

outlined in its decision remanding 

CAIR. For this reason, EPA cannot 

approve Alabama’s SIP submission 

pertaining to the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies on 

CAIR for emission reduction measures. 

Based upon our evaluation, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Alabama’s 

certification that its SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

CAA for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submitted provisions are severable from 

each other. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove those provisions which 

relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

demonstration and to take no action on 

the remainder of the demonstration at 

this time. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of Alabama’s September 23, 

2009, submission, relating to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Alabama SIP does not satisfy these 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Although EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the portion of Alabama’s 

September 23, 2009, submission, 

relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA 

does acknowledge the State’s efforts to 

address this requirement in its 

September 23, 2009, submission. 

Unfortunately, EPA does not believe 

that states can sufficiently address the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS by relying on 

CAIR. The purpose of the Federal 

Transport Rule that EPA is developing 

and has proposed is to support states 

efforts to address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not 

proposing to take any action on the 

remaining elements of the submission, 

including the section 110 infrastructure, 

and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion 

regarding interference with measures 

required in the applicable SIP for 

another state designed to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and protect visibility but instead will 

act on those provisions in a separate 

rulemaking. 

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 

§ 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions 

clock. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D, and therefore, 

if EPA takes final action to disapprove 

this submittal, no sanctions will be 

triggered. However, if this disapproval 

action is finalized, that final action will 

trigger 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. The proposed Federal 

Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP 

that EPA intends to implement to satisfy 

the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for 

Alabama for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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 act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

A. 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 

Order. 

B. 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 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D 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). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed 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 proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D 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 

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. 

EPA continues to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

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 proposes to 

disapprove 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. 

E. 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

4592 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / 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 CAA. 

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 (65 FR 67249, 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 CAA 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 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the 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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 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 CAA. 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: January 14, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1628 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015–201067; FRL– 

9257–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; North 

Carolina; Disapproval of Interstate 

Transport Submission for the 2006 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 21, 2009, the 

State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR), provided a letter to EPA with 

certification that North Carolina’s state 

implementation plan (SIP) meets the 

interstate transport requirements with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (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. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the portion of North Carolina’s 

September 21, 2009, submission which 

was intended to meet the requirement to 

address interstate transport for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–1015 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. 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–2010–1015, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS