27622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Appendices to Margin Requirements for 

Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and 

Major Swap Participants; Extension of 

Comment Period—Commission Voting 

Summary and Statements of 

Commissioners 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Gensler and 

Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, 

Chilton and O’Malia voted in the 

affirmative; no Commissioner voted in 

the negative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10880 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0142; FRL–9304–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Adoption of Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Large 

Appliance Coatings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Maryland. This SIP revision includes 

amendments to Maryland’s regulation 

for Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes and meets the 

requirement to adopt Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for sources covered by EPA’s Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards 

for large appliance coatings. These 

amendments will reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from large appliance coating 

facilities. In the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register, EPA is approving 

the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0142, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0142, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously 

listed EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0142. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

website 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 www.regulations.gov, your email 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Maryland; 

Adoption of Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Large Appliance 

Coatings,’’ that is located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register publication. 

Dated: April 26, 2011. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11558 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0301; FRL–9304–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; South Dakota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of South 

Dakota to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. 

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

that each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27623 

SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of South Dakota submitted a 

certification of their Infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, dated 

February 1, 2008, which was 

determined to be complete on March 27, 

2008 (73 FR 16205). EPA does not 

propose to act on the State’s February 1, 

2008 submission to meet the 

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

the CAA, relating to interstate transport 

of air pollution, for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA approved the State’s 

interstate transport SIP submission on 

May 8, 2008 (73 FR 26019). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0301, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– 

0301. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What Infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. How did the State of South Dakota 

address the infrastructure elements of 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

Explain why you agree or disagree; 

Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest alternatives; 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
27624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘Guidance on 

SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Oct. 2, 

2007). 

2Certain rules cited by South Dakota—its title V 

program (ARSD 74:36:05), new source performance 

standards (ARSD 74:36:07), and national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (ARSD 

74:36:08)—are not required for inclusion into South 

Dakota’s SIP and are therefore not considered by 

EPA in this action. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 

FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) 

provides basic requirements for SIPs, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. These requirements are set 

out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ 

listed in section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submission may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

In a guidance issued on October 2, 

2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an 

existing SIP already meets the section 

110(a)(2) requirements, states need only 

certify that fact via a letter to EPA.1

On 3/27/08, EPA published a final 

rulemaking entitled, ‘‘Completeness 

Findings for section 110(a) State 

Implementation Plans; 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA 

made a finding for each state that it had 

submitted or failed to submit a complete 

SIP that provided the basic program 

elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary 

to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In particular, EPA found that 

the State of South Dakota had submitted 

a complete SIP to meet these 

requirements. 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

international pollution. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’) required under part D, and (ii) 

section 110(a)(2)(I) pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to the nonattainment NSR portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 

110(a)(2)(I). 

This action also does not address the 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In a separate 

action, EPA approved the State’s 

submission to meet the requirements of 

110 (a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS (73 FR 26019). 

IV. How did the State of South Dakota 

address the elements of the 

infrastructure provisions of Section 

110(a)(2)? 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The rules in the 

Administrative Rules of South Dakota 

(ARSD) Chapter 74:36:04 (Operating 

permits for minor sources), 74:36:05 

(Operating permits for part 70 sources), 

74:35:06 (Regulated air pollutant 

emissions), 74:36:07 (New source 

performance standards), 74:36:08 

(National emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants), 74:36:09 

(Prevention of significant deterioration), 

and 74:36:10 (New source review) 

provide enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, schedules for compliance 

and other related matters necessary to 

maintain South Dakota in attainment 

with the federal NAAQS. Authority to 

promulgate these rules is contained in 

South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 

34A–1–1, 34A–1–6, 34A–1–18, 34A–1– 

19. 

b. EPA analysis: South Dakota’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

subject to the following clarifications. 

First, this infrastructure element does 

not require the submittal of regulations 

or emission limitations developed 

specifically for attaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Furthermore, South Dakota has 

no areas designated as nonattainment 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result, 

the South Dakota SIP contains no 

emissions limitations specific to ozone 

and/or its precursors. Instead, South 

Dakota regulates emissions of ozone and 

its precursors through its SIP-approved 

major and minor source permitting 

programs.2 This suffices, in the case of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27625 

3Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 

1999). 

South Dakota, to meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

Second, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. A number of states have 

such provisions which are contrary to 

the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing SIP provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 3 and the Agency plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The rules in ARSD 

74:36:02 define the goals, NAAQS, air 

monitoring methods and monitoring 

requirements provided for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data and 

making these data available to EPA. 

Authority used to promulgate these 

rules is contained in SDCL 34A–1–6 and 

34A–1–15. 

b. EPA analysis: South Dakota’s air 

monitoring programs and data systems 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

(DENR) 2008 Ambient Air Monitoring 

Annual Network Plan was approved by 

EPA Region 8 on March 23, 2009. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: SDCL 34A–1–39 through 

34A–1–54 and 34A–1–62 provides 

DENR with the authority to provide 

enforcement of all South Dakota SIP 

measures and the regulations under 

ARSD Chapter 74:36:09 (Prevention of 

significant deterioration) and 74:36:10 

(New source review). 

b. EPA analysis: As explained above, 

in this action EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as 

the nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) program required by part D of the 

Act. In addition, South Dakota has no 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and is therefore not required at 

this point to have a corresponding 

nonattainment NSR program. In this 

action, EPA is evaluating the State’s 

PSD program as required by part C of 

the Act, and the State’s minor NSR 

program as required by 110(a)(2)(C). 

South Dakota’s SIP-approved PSD 

program incorporates by reference (with 

certain exceptions) the federal PSD 

program in 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 

2005 (72 FR 72617). As described in our 

notice of approval of the program (72 FR 

72617), South Dakota’s PSD program 

met the general requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) as of that date. 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation 

EPA notes a potential inconsistency 

between South Dakota’s February 1, 

2008 infrastructure SIP certification and 

EPA’s recently promulgated rule, 

‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans’’ 

(‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’), 75 FR 

82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). In the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its 

previous approval of South Dakota’s 

PSD program to the extent that it 

applied PSD permitting to greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions increases from 

GHG-emitting sources below thresholds 

set in EPA’s June 3, 2010 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(‘‘Tailoring Rule’’), 75 FR 31514. EPA 

withdrew its approval on the basis that 

the State lacked sufficient resources to 

issue PSD permits to such sources at the 

statutory thresholds in effect in the 

previously-approved PSD program. 

After the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, the 

portion of South Dakota’s PSD SIP from 

which EPA withdrew its approval had 

the status of having been submitted to 

EPA but not yet acted upon. In its 

February 1, 2008 certification, South 

Dakota relied on its PSD program as 

approved at that date—which was 

before December 30, 2010, the effective 

date of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule— 

to satisfy the requirements of 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). 

Given EPA’s basis for the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule, EPA proposes approval 

of the South Dakota infrastructure SIP 

for infrastructure element (C) if either 

the State clarifies (or modifies) its 

certification to make clear that the State 

relies only on the portion of the PSD 

program that remains approved after the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued on 

December 30, 2010, and for which the 

State has sufficient resources to 

implement, or the State acts to 

withdraw from EPA consideration the 

remaining portion of its PSD program 

submission that would have applied 

PSD permitting to GHG sources below 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In the 

alternative, if South Dakota does not 

take either action, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP to the 

extent it incorporates that portion of the 

previously-approved PSD program from 

which EPA withdrew its approval in the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the 

portion which would have applied PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Such disapproval, if 

finalized, would not result in a need for 

South Dakota to resubmit a SIP revision, 

sanctions, or a federal implementation 

plan (FIP). 

Regulation of Ozone Precursors 

In order for South Dakota’s SIPapproved PSD program to satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the program 

must also properly regulate ozone 

precursors. On November 29, 2005, EPA 

promulgated the phase 2 

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, which includes requirements 

for PSD programs to treat nitrogen 

oxides as a precursor for ozone (72 FR 

71612). The phase 2 implementation 

rule accordingly updated the federal 

program at 40 CFR 52.21 to meet these 

requirements, effective January 30, 

2006. This effective date is after the July 

1, 2005 date of incorporation of 40 CFR 

52.21 by the currently approved South 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
27626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4Note that this is the effective date of the 

modification of 52.21, not the initial date of 

applicability of the thresholds, which was January 

2, 2011. 

Dakota SIP. In other words, South 

Dakota’s current SIP-approved PSD 

program does not meet the requirements 

of the phase 2 ozone implementation 

rule. 

On June 14, 2010, the State submitted 

to EPA a SIP revision that (among other 

things) revises ARSD 74:36:09 

(Prevention of significant deterioration) 

to incorporate by reference the federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 

1, 2009. As a result of the revised 

incorporation date, the submitted PSD 

program meets the requirements of the 

phase 2 ozone implementation rule. 

EPA therefore proposes to concurrently 

approve the portion of the June 14, 2010 

submission revising ARSD 74:36:09, 

with the following exception. 

Consistent with the Tailoring Rule, 

the SIP PSD Narrowing Rule, and the 

discussion above, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the revision of ARSD 

74:36:09 in the June 14, 2010 

submission to the extent that the 

revision applies PSD permitting to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. The Tailoring Rule modified 

the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 

52.21, effective August 2, 2010, to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds.4 75 FR at 31606–07. This 

effective date is after July 1, 2009, the 

date of incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21 in 

South Dakota’s June 14, 2010 

submission. Therefore, in order to 

ensure consistency with the Tailoring 

Rule and the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 

it is necessary for EPA to propose to 

disapprove the revision to the extent it 

applies PSD permitting to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. As mentioned above, this 

disapproval will not result in a need for 

South Dakota to submit a SIP revision, 

sanctions, or a FIP. 

Minor New Source Review 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, which regulates 

emissions of ozone and its precursors. 

On September 6, 1995, EPA approved 

extensive changes to the State’s minor 

NSR program for incorporation into the 

SIP, and there was at the time no 

objection to the provisions of this 

program (60 FR 46222). Since then, the 

State and EPA have relied on the 

existing State minor NSR program to 

assure that new and modified sources 

not captured by the major NSR 

permitting programs do not interfere 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve South Dakota’s infrastructure 

SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the State’s existing minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. A number of states may have 

minor NSR provisions that are contrary 

to the existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

4. Interstate transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will (I) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or (II) interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other state 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: South Dakota submitted its 

Interstate Transport SIP to EPA on May 

25, 2007. 

b. EPA Analysis: EPA approved the 

State’s Interstate Transport provisions 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on May 8, 

2008 (73 FR 26019). EPA is taking no 

action relevant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

in this proposal. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP 

shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: South Dakota submitted its 

Interstate Transport SIP to EPA on May 

25, 2007. 

b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a) of the 

CAA requires notification to affected, 

nearby states of major proposed new (or 

modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and 

(c) pertain to petitions by affected states 

to the Administrator regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 of the CAA similarly 

pertains to international transport of air 

pollution. 

South Dakota’s SIP-approved PSD 

program incorporates by reference the 

Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. 

However, South Dakota separately 

implements public notice requirements 

by incorporating by reference (with 

certain modifications) 40 CFR 51.166(q). 

In particular, the SIP’s incorporation of 

51.166(q)(2)(iii), which requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to PSD, 

satisfies the notice requirement of 

section 126(a). 

South Dakota has no pending 

obligations under sections 126(c) or 

115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets 

the requirements of those sections. The 

SIP therefore meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources and authority: 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out the SIP (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of federal or 

state law from carrying out the SIP or 

portion thereof), (ii) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under section 

128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, 

where the state has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such SIP provision. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: SDCL 34A–1–4, 34A–1–7 

through 34A–1–10 provides DENR with 

adequate personnel to carry out South 

Dakota’s SIP and related issues. SDCL 

34A–1–57 through 34A–1–60, and 

DENR’s agreement with EPA for 103 and 

105 grants and associated matching state 

funds provides DENR with the funding 

necessary to carry out South Dakota’s 

SIP and related issues. SDCL 34A–1 

provides DENR with the legal authority 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27627 

to carry out South Dakota’s SIP and 

related issues. 

b. EPA Analysis: South Dakota’s SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

SDCL 34A–1–57 through 34A–1–60 

provides adequate authority for the 

State of South Dakota and the DENR to 

carry out its SIP obligations with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The State 

receives sections 103 and 105 grant 

funds through its Performance 

Partnership Grant along with required 

state matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out South Dakota’s 

SIP requirements. South Dakota’s 

resources meet the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E). Finally, SDCL 1– 

40–25.1 requires the Board of Minerals 

and Environment to be composed in 

accordance with section 128 of the 

CAA. 

7. Stationary source monitoring and 

reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires 

(i) the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) period reports on 

the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the Act, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The rules in ARSD Chapter 

74:36:04 (Operating permits for minor 

sources), 74:35:05 (Operating permits 

for part 70 sources), 74:37:11 

(Performance testing) and 74:36:13 

(Continuous emission monitoring 

systems) establish a system to monitor 

emissions from stationary sources and 

periodic emissions reports. Authority to 

promulgate these rules is contained in 

SDCL 34A–a–6 and SDCL 34A–1–12. 

b. EPA Analysis: South Dakota’s SIP 

provides for monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements for sources 

subject to minor and major source 

permitting. As mentioned above, the SIP 

contains no other, specific emissions 

limitations on ozone or its precursors. 

South Dakota’s SIP therefore meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide 

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The rules in ARSD Chapter 

74:36:03 (Air quality episodes) adopt by 

reference the criteria in 40 CFR 51.151 

as the air quality episode plan to 

address activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions of the South Dakota SIP. 

Authority to promulgate these rules is 

contained in SDCL 34A–1–6, 34A–1–15, 

and 34A–1–45. The episode criteria 

specified in this chapter for ozone are 

based on an 8-hour average ozone level 

at a monitoring site. These criteria have 

previously been approved by EPA as 

adequate to address ozone emergency 

episodes. 

b. EPA analysis: SDCL 34A–1–45 

provides DENR with general emergency 

authority comparable to that in section 

303 of the Act. The SIP also requires 

DENR to follow criteria in 40 CFR 

51.151 in proclaiming an emergency 

episode and to develop a contingency 

plan. The contingency plan, though, has 

not itself been incorporated into the SIP. 

However, South Dakota has not 

monitored any values above the priority 

cut point for ozone. See 40 CFR 

51.150(b)(5). The SIP therefore meets 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan (i) from time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this Act. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: SDCL 34A–1–6 provides 

DENR with the authority to revise South 

Dakota’s SIP in response to changes to 

the federal NAAQS, availability of 

improved methods for attaining the 

federal standards, or in response to an 

EPA finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

b. EPA analysis: South Dakota’s 

statutory provision at SDCL 34A–1–6 

gives DENR sufficient authority to meet 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 

Revision under Part D: Section 

110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP 

revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area must meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of this 

subchapter (relating to nonattainment 

areas). 

a. EPA analysis for Section 

110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 

timing requirement of section 172, not 

the timing requirement of section 

110(a)(1). This element is therefore not 

applicable to this action. EPA will take 

action on part D attainment plans 

through a separate process. 

11. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and visibility protection). 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: SDCL 34A–1–1 and 34–1– 

10 provide DENR with the authority to 

consult with local governments, other 

states, federal government, etc. SDCL 1– 

40–31 and 34A–1–9 provide DENR with 

the authority to collect and disseminate 

information and provide full public 

inspection and disclosure of all nonconfidential public records related to 

DENR and those activities within its 

jurisdiction. The public is notified of 

any concentrations that exceed the 

NAAQS through DENR’s Air Quality 

program website that contains the daily 

concentrations updated hourly from five 

sites covering 17 parameters from 

continuous analyzers and monitors 

located throughout the state. Four of 

these sites report hourly ozone levels to 

the website and to the AirNow EPA 

database. Through this site, the public is 

notified of high concentration periods. 

The rules in ARSD Chapter 74:36:09 

(Prevention of significant deterioration) 

adopt by reference federal regulations 

under 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 and 

provide DENR with regulations 

necessary to meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of the federal 

CAA related to PSD and visibility 

protection. South Dakota’s PSD rules 

were approved in South Dakota’s SIP on 

January 22, 2008. Authority to 

promulgate these rules is contained in 

SDCL 34A–1–6. 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
27628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA 

previously addressed the requirements 

of CAA section 127 for the South Dakota 

SIP. (45 FR 58528, Sept. 4, 1980.) 

As discussed above, the State has a 

SIP-approved PSD program that 

incorporates by reference the federal 

program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 

further evaluated South Dakota’s SIPapproved PSD program in this proposed 

action under IV.3, element 110(a)(2)(C). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus we 

find that there are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In conclusion, the 

South Dakota SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

12. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each 

SIP provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The rules in ARSD Chapter 

74:36:04 (Operating permit for minor 

sources), 74:36:05 (Operating permit for 

part 70 sources), 74:36:09 (Prevention of 

significant deterioration), and 74:36:10 

(New source review) provide DENR 

with the authority to perform air quality 

modeling for predicting effects on air 

quality of emissions of any NAAQS 

pollutant and submission of such data 

to EPA upon request. Authority to 

promulgate these rules is contained in 

SDCL 34A–1–6 and 34A–1–9. 

b. EPA Analysis: South Dakota’s SIP 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

In particular, South Dakota’s PSD 

program incorporates by reference the 

federal program at 40 CFR 52.21, 

including the provision at 40 CFR 

52.21(l)(1) requiring that estimates of 

ambient air concentrations be based on 

applicable air quality models specified 

in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, and 

the provision at 40 CFR 52.21(l)(2) 

requiring that modification or 

substitution of a model specified in 

Appendix W must be approved by the 

Administrator. As a result, the SIP 

provides for such air quality modeling 

as the Administrator has prescribed. 

13. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: The DENR has an 

approved title V operating permit 

program (61 FR 2720, Jan. 29, 1996) that 

requires major stationary sources to pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing 

and enforcing the title V permit. 

b. EPA Analysis: South Dakota’s 

approved title V operating permit 

program meets the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Final approval of the title V 

operating permit program became 

effective February 28, 1996. (See 61 FR 

2720, Jan. 29, 1996.) As discussed in the 

notice proposing approval of the title V 

program (60 FR 2917, Jan. 12, 1995), the 

State demonstrated that the fees 

collected were sufficient to administer 

the program. 

14. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. South Dakota’s response to this 

requirement: SDCL 34A–1–1, 34A–1–10 

provides DENR with the authority to 

provide for consultation and 

participation in South Dakota’s SIP 

development by local political 

subdivision affected by the SIP. 

Cooperation by DENR with other 

agencies provides for the consultation, 

advise, and cooperation with other state, 

local, industries, other states, interstate 

or inter local agencies, and the federal 

government, and with interested 

persons or groups on air pollution 

control issues. 

b. EPA Analysis: South Dakota’s 

submittal meets the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve in full the following section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for 

South Dakota for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), (M). EPA proposes to 

approve the section 110(a)(2)(C) 

infrastructure element in full in the 

event that South Dakota takes one of the 

actions described in the discussion of 

that element; in the alternative, EPA 

proposes to disapprove the section 

110(a)(2)(C) element to the extent 

described and to otherwise approve this 

element. EPA is taking no action on 

infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA also 

proposes to approve the portion of 

South Dakota’s June 14, 2010 SIP 

submission that revises South Dakota’s 

PSD program to incorporate by reference 

the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21 as 

of July 1, 2009, except to the extent that 

revision applies PSD permitting to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below the thresholds set out in 

the Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514. 

VI. 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 some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27629 

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, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 4, 2011. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11723 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0107; MO 

92210–0–0009–B2] 

RIN 1018–AV88 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing of the Altamaha 

Spinymussel and Designation of 

Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, notice of availability 

of draft economic analysis, and 

amended required determinations. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the October 6, 2010, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). We also 

announce the availability of a draft 

economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

and an amended required 

determinations section of the proposal. 

We are reopening the comment period 

to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the proposed rule, the associated 

DEA, and the amended required 

determinations section. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received on or before June 13, 2011. 

Comments must be received by 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. 

Any comments that we receive after the 

closing date may not be considered in 

the final decision on this action. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0107. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2008–0107; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; 

Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia 

Ecological Services Office, 105 

Westpark Dr., Suite D, Athens, GA 

30606; telephone 706–613–9493; 

facsimile 706–613–6059. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed listing 

and designation of critical habitat for 

the Altamaha spinymussel that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 6, 2010 (75 FR 61664), our DEA 

of the proposed designation, and the 

amended required determinations 

provided in this document. We will 

consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The distribution of the Altamaha 

spinymussel; 

(b) The amount and distribution of 

Altamaha spinymussel habitat; and 

(c) What areas occupied by the 

species at the time of listing that contain 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species we should include in the 

designation and why; and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts that may result from 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

from the proposed designation that are 

subject to these impacts. 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

(6) Information on the extent to which 

the description of economic impacts in 

the DEA is complete and accurate. 

(7) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and 

how the consequences of such reactions, 

if likely to occur, would relate to the 

conservation and regulatory benefits of 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

(8) Which areas would be appropriate 

as critical habitat for the species. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1