Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4579 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0882 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0882, 

Marilyn Powers, Acting 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 previouslylisted 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–2010– 

0882. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

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 Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

e-mail at shandruk.irene@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; Virginia; 

Adoption of the Revised Lead Standards 

and Related Reference Conditions, and 

Update of Appendices,’’ that is located 

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

this Federal Register publication. Please 

note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

Dated: January 5, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1467 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2010–1025; FRL–9253–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; New 

Jersey and New York; Disapproval of 

Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Revision for the 

2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the New Jersey 

and the New York State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to 

address significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). On January 20, 

2010, New Jersey submitted a SIP 

revision to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA concerning 

interstate transport requirements, and 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA 

concerning infrastructure requirements. 

On March 23, 2010, New York 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

concerning interstate transport, and 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA 

concerning infrastructure SIP 

requirements. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the portion of 

the New Jersey and the New York SIP 

revisions that addresses the section 

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

prohibiting a State’s emissions from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

State. The rationale for the disapproval 

action of the SIP revision is described in 

this proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02– 

OAR–2010–1025, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (212) 637–3901. 

4. Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official business hours are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2010– 

1025. 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

4580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact 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 legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Fradkin 

(fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov), Air 

Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

I. What action Is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of New Jersey’s 

submittal? 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of New York’s 

submittal? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

We are proposing to disapprove 

portions of the submissions from the 

State of New Jersey and the State of New 

York that were to demonstrate that the 

States have adequately addressed 

elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Those elements 

require a State’s SIP to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from sources within a State 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in or interference with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other State. We are 

proposing to determine that the New 

Jersey and New York submissions do 

not contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the States that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in or 

interference with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other 

downwind States. The remaining 

elements of the submittal, including the 

section 110 infrastructure, and section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with measures required in the 

applicable SIP for another State 

designed to prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality and protect 

visibility, are not addressed in this 

action and will be acted on in a separate 

rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for this 

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.1 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 by section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, where the portions of the State 

submittals are severable, EPA may 

decide to approve only those severable 

portions of the submittals that meet the 

requirements of the CAA. When the 

deficient provisions are not severable 

from all of the submitted provisions, 

EPA must propose disapproval of the 

submittals, consistent with section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA. 

CAA section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that infrastructure SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued its 

‘‘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)’’ (2009 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2009 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 2009 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 by the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four 

distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. 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 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated 

that SIP submissions from States, 

pertaining to the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ and ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(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 further indicated that the 

State’s submission must explain 

whether or not emissions from the State 

have this impact and, if so, address the 

impact. EPA stated that the State’s 

conclusion must be supported by an 

adequate technical analysis. EPA 

recommended the various types of 

information that could be relevant to 

support the State SIP submission, such 

as information concerning emissions in 

the State, meteorological conditions in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4581 

2See ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

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

2010). 

3 In October, 1998, EPA finalized the ‘‘Finding of 

Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment 

Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional 

Transport of Ozone’’—commonly called the ‘‘NOX

SIP Call.’’ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). 

the State and the potentially impacted 

States, monitored ambient 

concentrations in the State, and air 

quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA 

indicated that States should address 

independently the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirement. This 

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, 

in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated 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. 

EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 

2005, (70 FR 25162). CAIR required 

States to reduce emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) that significantly contribute to, 

and interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in 

any downwind State. CAIR was 

intended to provide States covered by 

the rule with a mechanism to satisfy 

their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations to address significant 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. Many States adopted the CAIR 

provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to 

demonstrate compliance with the CAIR 

requirements in satisfaction of their 

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

two pollutants. 

EPA was sued by a number of parties 

on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 

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

the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

its decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIP) in their 

entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

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

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

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

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

thereby left CAIR in place in order to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR’’ until EPA 

replaces it with a rule consistent with 

the Court’s opinion. Id. at 1178. The 

Court directed EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s 

flaws’’ consistent with its July 11, 2008 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing that 

action. Id. 

In order to address the judicial 

remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a 

new rule to address interstate transport 

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

‘‘Federal Implementation Plans to 

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 

Particulate Matter and Ozone’’ 

(Transport Rule).2 As part of the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

specifically examined the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement 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 New Jersey and New 

York significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in downwind areas. 

On January 20, 2010, EPA received a 

SIP revision from the State of New 

Jersey that was to address the 

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

pertaining to interstate transport and 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) pertaining to 

infrastructure for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 23, 2010, EPA 

received a SIP revision from the State of 

New York that was to address the 

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

pertaining to interstate transport and 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) pertaining to 

infrastructure for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In this rulemaking, EPA 

is addressing only the requirements that 

pertain to prohibiting sources in New 

Jersey and New York from emitting air 

pollutants that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in other States. 

In its submission, the State of New 

Jersey provided an analysis showing 

that the State significantly contributed 

to nonattainment or interferes with the 

maintenance of the 2006 24 hour PM2.5

NAAQS in seven northeastern and MidAtlantic States (i.e. Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, and 

Pennsylvania). New Jersey included a 

list of measures that were recently 

adopted by the State to reduce PM2.5,

SO2, NOX, and volatile organic carbon 

(VOC) emissions. 

In its submission, the State of New 

York provided a list of measures from 

the attainment SIP revision for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by New York 

on October 27, 2009, including CAIR 

program rules, and the attainment SIP 

revision submitted by New York on 

February 8, 2008 for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS, that are expected to 

help achieve compliance with the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. New York also 

provided a commitment to the adoption 

of measures identified by EPA as 

needed as to address the interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

upon EPA’s completion of the 

rulemaking. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of New 

Jersey’s submittal? 

On January 20, 2010, New Jersey 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

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

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. New 

Jersey provided an analysis showing 

that the State significantly contributed 

to seven northeastern and Mid-Atlantic 

States (i.e. Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, and 

Pennsylvania). New Jersey based its 

assessment on a weight-of-evidence 

analysis approach using the results of 

four modeling analysis to determine 

significant contribution: EPA modeling 

performed for CAIR and the NOX SIP 

call,3 Regional Haze SIP modeling 

performed by the Northeast States for 

Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NECAUM), and State Collaborative 

Modeling performed by the Midwestern, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern States to 

estimate interstate impacts and assess 

future control programs for ozone and 

particulate matter standards. New Jersey 

included a list of measures that were 

recently adopted by the State to reduce 

PM2.5, SO2, NOX, and VOC emissions. In 

its SIP revision, New Jersey indicated 

that it was confident that these actions 

were more than adequate to address its 

contribution to downwind areas. New 

Jersey also provided a list of measures 

that it was either proposing or 

evaluating that would further reduce 

PM2.5 emissions. However, modeling 

conducted by EPA for the proposed 

Transport Rule demonstrates that 

emissions from New Jersey significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas. 

EPA’s 2009 Guidance directed that a 

State’s SIP submission pertaining to the 

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

must be supported by an adequate 

technical analysis. In the 2009 

Guidance, EPA recommended the 

various types of information that could 

be relevant to support a State’s SIP 

submission. EPA has determined that 

the New Jersey demonstration does not 

meet the requirements of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

4582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4Further, as explained above and in the 

Transport Rule proposal [75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

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

found that EPA’s quantification of States’ 

significant contribution and interference with 

maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded 

the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect only 

temporarily. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the State did 

not evaluate or demonstrate with a 

technical analysis that the emissions 

reduction measures provided in the SIP 

revision assure that New Jersey does not 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Additionally, the SIP submittal 

did not go through public notice and 

comment. 

The submitted provisions are 

severable. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove those provisions which 

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

demonstration and to take no action at 

this time on the remainder of the 

demonstration. 

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. 7501–515) or is required in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in 7410(k)(5) 

(SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The 

provisions in the submittal we are 

disapproving were not submitted to 

meet either of those requirements. 

Therefore, if EPA takes final action to 

disapprove this submittal, no sanctions 

will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a 

State implementation plan revision 

triggers 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 Transport Rule, 

when final, is the FIP that EPA intends 

to implement for the State. 

IV. What is EPA’s evaluation of New 

York’s submittal? 

On March 23, 2010, New York 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

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

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. New York indicated that 

emission reductions from measures 

proposed in the attainment SIP revision 

submitted by New York on October 27, 

2009 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

including CAIR program rules, are 

expected to help achieve compliance 

with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

New York further stated that all of the 

measures are expected to be adequate 

based on EPA’s prior CAIR assessment, 

the effects of New York’s attainment SIP 

revision for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

attainment SIP revision submitted by 

New York on February 8, 2008 for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, and the 

supporting effects of New York’s 

permitting programs. The State of New 

York also commits to the adoption of 

measures identified by EPA as needed 

as to address the interstate transport for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS upon EPA’s 

completion of the rulemaking. 

The modeling conducted by EPA for 

the proposed Transport Rule 

demonstrates that emissions from New 

York significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in downwind areas. EPA’s 2009 

Guidance directed that a State’s SIP 

submission pertaining to the 

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

must be supported by an adequate 

technical analysis. EPA recommended 

the various types of information that 

could be relevant to support a State’s 

SIP submission. The State did not 

evaluate or demonstrate with a technical 

analysis that the emission reduction 

measures provided in the SIP revision 

assure that New York does not 

contribute significantly to, or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The State’s submittal 

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 the continuing 

applicability of CAIR program 

requirements at both the Federal and 

State levels. However, 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.4

Thus, EPA’s 2009 Guidance explicitly 

notes that reliance on CAIR cannot be 

used to comply with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the respective 2006 

NAAQS. Because New York’s submittal 

relies on CAIR to address the 

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

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 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 EPA needs 

to address the concerns of the Court as 

outlined in its decision remanding 

CAIR. For this reason, EPA cannot 

approve New York’s SIP submission 

pertaining to the requirements of section 

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

CAIR for emission reduction measures. 

Based upon our evaluation, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the New York 

SIP revision because it does not meet 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. 

The submitted provisions are 

severable from each other. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove those 

provisions that relate to the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration and to 

take no action on the remainder of the 

demonstration at this time. 

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. 7501–7515) or is required in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in section 

7410(k)(5) of the Act (SIP call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The provisions in the 

submittal we are disapproving were not 

submitted to meet either of those 

requirements. Therefore, if EPA takes 

final action to disapprove this submittal, 

no sanctions will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a 

State implementation plan revision 

triggers 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 Transport Rule, 

when final, is the FIP that EPA intends 

to implement for the State. 

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 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to 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 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4583 

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 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 (SBA) 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-for-profit 

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 Clean Air Act will not in-andof 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 Clean Air Act 

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. 

We continue 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 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on Tribal governments or 

preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This 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 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘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 OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

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