4584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 of the CAA, 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter. 

Dated: January 4, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1624 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1012–201068; FRL– 

9257–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Georgia; Disapproval of Interstate 

Transport Submission for the 2006 

24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2009, the 

State of Georgia, through the Georgia’s 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD), provided a letter to EPA with 

certification that the Georgia 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 Georgia’s October 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–2010–1012 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–2010–1012, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

1012.’’ 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 

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 

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 at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Georgia SIP, 

contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Farngalo’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9152; e-mail address: 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport 

requirements under section 

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

Scofield, Regulatory Development 

Section, at the same address above. Mr. 

Scofield’s telephone number is (404) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4585 

1 Georgia’s October 21, 2009, certification letter 

also explained that Georgia’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 Georgia’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. 

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 Georgia’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 October 21, 2009, the State of 

Georgia, through GA EPD, provided a 

letter to EPA with certification that the 

Georgia SIP meets the interstate 

transport requirements with regard to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.1

Specifically, Georgia 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 

interfering 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 Georgia’s 

October 21, 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 the 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.2 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 section 

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. 

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 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

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

the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As identified in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in section 

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

submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another state in the 

ways contemplated in the 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 must 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

and/or ozone NAAQS 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

4586 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). 

4 Georgia explains that their October 21, 2009, 

submittal addresses interstate transport of 

pollutants that form ozone and particle pollution. 

EPA notes that the April 25, 2005, finding of failure 

to submit a plan to address interstate transport of 

pollutants that form ozone and particle pollution 

only addresses the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. 

5Further, as explained above and in the 

Transport Rule proposal, the D.C. 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. 

6Further, as explained above and in the 

Transport Rule proposal (75 FR 45210), the D.C. 

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. 

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 (D.C. 

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 (D.C. 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 

(D.C. 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)(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)(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 Georgia 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 Georgia’s 

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

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On October 21, 2009, the State of 

Georgia, through GA EPD, provided a 

letter to EPA with certification that 

Georgia’s SIP meets the interstate 

transport requirements with regard to 

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

submission, Georgia states that the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements are 

addressed through several regulations 

and legislation, including Georgia Rule 

391–3–1–.02(2)(sss)—Multi-pollutant 

Control for Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Georgia Rule 391– 

3–1–.02(2)(uuu)—SO2 Emissions from 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 

(Georgia Multi-pollutant Rule). 

Georgia’s October 21, 2009, submittal 

addresses the ‘‘significant contribution’’ 

and ‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

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

relying on Georgia’s CAIR SIP.4

Contrary to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance explicitly 

noting that reliance on CAIR cannot be 

used to comply with section 

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

NAAQS, Georgia’s submission indicates 

that it is meeting its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in part by virtue of its 

approved Georgia CAIR SIP. CAIR was 

promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS were revised in 2006 and does 

not address interstate transport with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.5

Because Georgia’s submission 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. Several states 

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 outlined in its decision 

remanding CAIR. For this reason, EPA 

cannot approve Georgia’s SIP 

submission pertaining to the 

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

because it relies on CAIR for emission 

reduction measures. 

Furthermore, EPA’s 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

directed that a state’s submission 

pertaining to the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by 

an adequate technical analysis. 

Additionally, EPA recommended the 

various types of information that could 

be relevant to support the state’s 

submission. While Georgia did refer to 

the Georgia Multi-pollutant Rule in its 

submission, it did not further evaluate 

or demonstrate with a technical analysis 

that this measure and their intention to 

rely to the Georgia CAIR SIP addresses 

the ‘‘significant contribution’’ and 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

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

directed by the guidance. 

The modeling conducted by EPA for 

the proposed Transport Rule 

demonstrates that emissions from 

Georgia significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in downwind areas. 

Specifically, EPA’s analysis shows that 

Georgia contributes to eleven counties 

containing downwind 24-hour PM2.5

nonattainment sites and three counties 

containing downwind 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance sites. 

While Georgia’s submittal indicates 

that its current SIP sufficiently 

addresses the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in part by virtue of the 

CSA and its approved CAIR SIP, EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Georgia’s current SIP does not meet 

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

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, Georgia did not 

provide sufficient analysis to 

demonstration to address the 

‘‘significant contribution’’ and 

‘‘interference with maintenance’’ 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As for 

CAIR, this rule was promulgated before 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised 

in 2006 and does not address interstate 

transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.6 Based upon our evaluation, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Georgia’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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4587 

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 Georgia’s October 21, 2009, 

submission, relating to section 

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

the preliminary determination that the 

Georgia SIP does not satisfy these 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Although EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the portion of Georgia’s 

October 21, 2009, submission, relating 

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

acknowledge the State’s efforts to 

address this requirement in its October 

21, 2009, submission. Unfortunately, 

without an adequate technical analysis 

EPA does not believe that states can 

sufficiently address the section 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The purpose of the 

Federal Transport Rule that EPA is 

developing and has proposed is to 

respond to the remand of CAIR by the 

Court and address the section 

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

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the affected 

states. 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 

section 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 Georgia 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

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