27290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

areas), fixed navigation obstructions, 

underwater cable hazards, and 

economic impacts. Analyzing the 

various impacts will require a thorough 

understanding of the interrelationships 

of shipping, other commercial and 

recreational uses, and port operations. 

IV. This PARS: Timeline, Study Area, 

and Process 

The Coast Guard’s Atlantic Area 

Command will conduct this PARS. The 

study will begin upon publication of 

this notice and should take 

approximately 12 months to complete. 

The study area will encompass the 

entire EEZ of the Atlantic Coast from 

Maine to Florida and will encompass 

coastwise routes and the approaches to 

all Atlantic coastal ports. 

As part of this study, we will analyze 

vessel traffic density, fishing vessel 

information, and agency and 

stakeholder experience in vessel traffic 

management, navigation, ship handling, 

and effects of weather. We encourage 

you to participate in the study process 

by submitting comments in response to 

this notice. 

We will publish the results of the 

PARS in the Federal Register. It is 

possible that the study may validate 

existing vessel routing measures and 

conclude that no changes are necessary. 

It is also possible that the study may 

recommend one or more changes to 

enhance navigational safety and the 

efficiency of vessel traffic. The 

recommendations may lead to future 

rulemakings or appropriate 

international agreements. 

Possible Scope of the Recommendations 

We are attempting to determine the 

scope of any safety problems associated 

with vessel transits in the study area. 

We expect that information gathered 

during the study will help us identify 

any problems and appropriate solutions. 

The study may recommend that we— 

• Maintain the current vessel routing 

measures; 

• Modify the existing traffic 

separation schemes; 

• Create one or more precautionary 

areas; 

• Create one or more inshore traffic 

zones; 

• Establish area(s) to be avoided; 

• Create deep-draft routes; 

• Establish Regulated Navigation 

Areas (RNA) with specific vessel 

operating requirements to ensure safe 

navigation near shallow water; and 

• Identify any other appropriate 

ships’ routing measures. 

• Use this study for future decisions 

on routing measures or other maritime 

traffic considerations. 

• Use this study to inform other 

agencies concerning the impacts of their 

future endeavors. 

Questions 

To help us conduct the port access 

route study, we request information that 

will help answer the following 

questions, although comments on other 

issues addressed in this notice are also 

welcome. In responding to a question, 

please explain your reasons for each 

answer and follow the instructions 

under ‘‘Public Participation and Request 

for Comments’’ above. 

1. What navigational hazards do 

vessels operating in the study area face? 

Please describe. 

2. Are there strains on the current 

vessel routing systems, such as 

increasing traffic density associated 

with future growth, e.g., impact of the 

Panama Canal expansion project? Please 

describe. 

3. Are modifications to existing vessel 

routing measures needed to address 

hazards and improve traffic efficiency in 

the study area? If so, please describe. 

4. What costs and benefits are 

associated with the measures listed as 

potential study recommendations? What 

measures do you think are most costeffective? 

5. What impacts, both positive and 

negative, would changes to existing 

routing measures or new routing 

measures have on the study area? 

6. Where do you transit? Where are 

your transit routes? What criteria are 

used in determining your transit routes? 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Dated: May 3, 2011. 

Robert C. Parker, 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Atlantic Area. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11483 Filed 5–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0255–201050; FRL– 

9303–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Kentucky; Ohio; HuntingtonAshland Nonattainment Area; 

Determinations of Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two 

determinations regarding the tri-state 

Huntington-Ashland, West VirginiaKentucky-Ohio fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) nonattainment Area (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Huntington-Ashland 

Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). First, EPA is proposing 

to determine that the Area has attained 

the 1997 annual average PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This proposed determination 

of attainment is based upon complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

period showing that the Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and data available to date for 2010 in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database that show the area continues to 

attain. If EPA finalizes this proposed 

determination of attainment, the 

requirements for the Area to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), a reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan, contingency 

measures, and other planning State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

related to attainment of the standard 

shall be suspended for so long as the 

Area continues to attain the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA is also 

proposing to determine, based on 

quality-assured and certified monitoring 

data for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period, that the Area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

regarding the tri-state HuntingtonAshland Area, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0255, 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) 562–9040. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0255, 

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: Lynorae Benjamin, 

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 normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27291 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office 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– 

0255. 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 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: In 

Region 3, Ellen Wentworth, Office of Air 

Program Planning, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103–2023. The telephone number is 

(215) 814–2034. Ms. Wentworth can 

also be reached via electronic mail at 

wentworth.ellen@epa.gov. In Region 4, 

Joel Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Huey’s telephone number is (404) 562– 

9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via 

electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. 

Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone 

at (404) 562–9061 or via electronic mail 

at waterson.sara@epa.gov. In Region 5, 

John Summerhays, Air Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604–3507. Mr. Summerhays’ 

telephone number is (312) 886–6067. 

Mr. Summerhays can also be reached 

via electronic mail at 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. Has the Huntington-Ashland area attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

A. Criteria 

B. Huntington-Ashland Area Air Quality 

C. How did EPA address air quality in 

Lawrence County? 

D. Has the Huntington-Ashland area met 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality 

standard? 

IV. What is the effect of these actions? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

In accordance with Section 179(c)(1) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 

7509(c)(1), and 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

Huntington-Ashland Area (which 

consists of portions in West Virginia, 

Kentucky, and Ohio) has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

proposal is based upon quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period that show that the Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and data 

available to date for 2010 that show the 

Area continues to attain. EPA is also 

proposing to determine, in accordance 

with EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

of April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), that the 

Huntington-Ashland Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

II. What is the background for these 

actions? 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the annual PM2.5

NAAQS’’ or ‘‘the annual standard’’). At 

that time, EPA also established a 24- 

hour standard of 65 μg/m3 (the ‘‘1997 

24-hour standard’’). See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA 

published its air quality designations 

and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS based upon air quality 

monitoring data from those monitors for 

calendar years 2001–2003. These 

designations became effective on April 

5, 2005. The Huntington-Ashland Area 

was designated nonattainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS during this 

designations process. See 40 CFR 81.349 

(West Virginia), 40 CFR 81.318 

(Kentucky), and 40 CFR 81.336 (Ohio). 

The Huntington-Ashland Area is 

composed of Cabell and Wayne 

Counties in their entireties and a 

portion of Mason County (Graham Tax 

District) in West Virginia; Boyd County 

in its entirety and a portion of Lawrence 

County in Kentucky; and a portion of 

Adams, a portion of Gallia, Lawrence, 

and Scioto Counties in Ohio. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 μg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations, and promulgated a 24- 

hour standard of 35 μg/m3 based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations (the ‘‘2006 24- 

hour standard’’). On November 13, 2009, 

EPA designated the HuntingtonAshland Area as attainment for the 2006 

24-hour standard (74 FR 58688). In that 

action, EPA also clarified the 

designations for the NAAQS 

promulgated in 1997, stating that the 

Huntington-Ashland Area was 

designated as nonattainment for the 

annual standard but attainment for the 

1997 24-hour standard. Thus, today’s 

action does not address attainment of 

either the 1997 or the 2006 24-hour 

standard. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

remanded this standard to EPA for 

further consideration. See American 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1West Virginia has a collocated monitor in place 

at the same site for quality assurance purposes. The 

primary monitor, and not the collocated monitor, is 

used to determine compliance with the PM2.5

NAAQS. Since the collocated monitor takes fewer 

readings than the primary monitor, its average 

annual values may be unrepresentatively high. See 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 3(d)(1). 

2The Lawrence County Hospital Site was shut 

down in February 2008. The Ironton DOT site began 

operation on the same day the Lawrence County 

Hospital Site ceased monitoring. 

3The Ironton DOT site did not begin operation 

until February 2008. 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual 

standards are essentially identical, 

attainment of the 1997 annual standard 

would also indicate attainment of the 

remanded 2006 annual standard. 

On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA 

promulgated its PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

Z, in which the Agency provided 

guidance for state and Tribal plans to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

This rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), 

specifies some of the regulatory 

consequences of attaining the standard, 

as discussed below. 

III. Has the Huntington-Ashland area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard? 

A. Criteria 

Today’s proposed rulemaking assesses 

whether (1) the Huntington-Ashland 

Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, based on the most recent three 

years of quality-assured data, and (2) 

whether the Area attained that NAAQS 

by its applicable attainment date of 

April 5, 2010. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

50.7, the 1997 annual primary and 

secondary PM2.5 standards are met when 

the annual arithmetic mean 

concentration, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, is less than or equal to 

15.0 μg/m3 at all relevant monitoring 

sites in the subject area. 

B. Huntington-Ashland Area Air Quality 

EPA has determined that the PM2.5

monitoring network for the HuntingtonAshland Area is adequate based on the 

following reasons. First, the number of 

monitors in the Area meets the 

minimum regulatory requirements given 

in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. Second, the 

monitoring is in accordance with state 

monitoring plans that have been 

reviewed and approved by the 

respective EPA regional offices. 

Table 1 shows the design values (i.e., 

the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations) for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the HuntingtonAshland Area monitors for the years 

2007–2009. All data considered have 

been quality-assured, certified, and 

recorded in AQS. The highest 3-year 

average annual concentration for 2007– 

2009 on this table was recorded in 

Cabell County, West Virginia at the 

Huntington site—54–011–0006, 

recording a 3-year average annual 

concentration of 14.3 μg/m3. 

EPA’s review of these data indicates 

that the Huntington-Ashland Area has 

met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Table 1 and the related discussion 

below and in the technical support 

document (TSD) show that, based on 

EPA’s analysis of data for 2007–2009, 

the Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard by its attainment date of April 

5, 2010. In addition, Table 2 and the 

related discussion below and in the TSD 

show that the Area continues to attain 

the standard based on data available to 

date for 2010. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

TABLE 1—2007–2009 ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA

Site name County Site No. 

Annual average 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Huntington ......................................................................................................................... Cabell ............... 54–011–0006 1 14.3

Ashland Primary (FIVCO) ................................................................................................. Boyd ................. 21–019–0017 12.4 

Lawrence County Hospital (LCH) ..................................................................................... Lawrence .......... 39–087–0010 2 13.3

Ironton Department of Transportation (DOT) 3 ................................................................. Lawrence .......... 39–087–0012 12.2 

C. How did EPA address the air quality 

in Lawrence County? 

Monitoring Network 

The LCH site was demolished on 

February 12, 2008, and a new site in the 

Lawrence County, Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland Area, known as the 

Ironton DOT site, began operation on 

the same day. As a consequence of the 

shutdown of the LCH site, the site was 

not able to meet the data completeness 

requirements for 2007–2009 because it 

was not operating for the entire 2007– 

2009 monitoring period. A year during 

which monitoring data is collected 

meets EPA data completeness 

requirements when at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. See 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b). The use 

of less than complete data is subject to 

the approval of EPA, which may 

consider factors such as monitoring site 

closures/moves, monitoring diligence, 

and nearby concentrations in 

determining whether to use such data 

(40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 

4.1(c)). The Ironton DOT site was a new 

site in 2008 and thus did not collect 

data for 2007 and part of the first quarter 

of 2008; however, the data are complete 

for the remainder of 2008 and 2009. 

Because this was a new monitor during 

the 2007–2009 period, these data are 

considered supplemental to the data 

provided from the other monitors in the 

Area. 

To evaluate air quality at the LCH site, 

EPA applied statistical analysis using 

data from other sites in the Area. The 

approach, summarized in this section 

and further described in the TSD, is 

appropriate for this Area but may or 

may not be suitable for other areas with 

less than complete data. EPA will 

evaluate the appropriateness of this 

analytical approach on a case-by-case 

basis for determinations regarding each 

area with less than complete data. 

The first step in the analysis was to 

assess the correlation of concentrations 

at the LCH site with concentrations at 

other sites in the Area. The monitor in 

the Area that had the highest correlation 

with the LCH site was the Ashland 

Primary site; therefore, subsequent 

analyses used data from this site. The 

second step was to develop a regression 

equation expressing the relationship 

between concentrations at the LCH and 

the Ashland Primary sites. This 

regression equation was used to 

estimate values at the LCH site on days 

during quarters with incomplete data 

when the LCH site did not measure 

concentrations because the site was no 

longer operating. A 2007–2009 design 

value for the LCH site was then 

calculated using these estimated values. 

Under this method, the 2007–2009 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27293 

4The Ironton DOT site began operation in 

February 2008 and thus did collect 75 percent for 

the first quarter of 2008. However, this was a new 

site and monitoring data did meet 75 percent 

completeness for the remainder of the quarter and 

for the subsequent quarters. As such, EPA does not 

consider the first quarter data to be incomplete. 

design value for the LCH site was 

estimated to be 13.3 μg/m3. 

This estimated design value was then 

analyzed using a statistical method that 

involved the use of regression residuals, 

referred to as the bootstrap method. In 

this analysis, EPA repeated the 

regression analysis 1,000 times with 

different values within the probability 

distribution of LCH concentrations that 

could be associated with given 

concentrations at the Ashland Primary 

site. From this analysis, as described in 

detail in the TSD, EPA determined that 

the upper end of the range of potential 

2007–2009 design values obtained did 

not exceed the NAAQS. No exceedances 

of the NAAQS resulted from application 

of the statistical analysis. Therefore, 

EPA concluded that for 2007–2009, the 

annual average concentrations of all of 

the monitors in the Huntington-Ashland 

Area are below the NAAQS. 

Although the LCH monitor does not 

have complete data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period, the historical 

certified data recorded at the monitor 

provide additional support for EPA’s 

proposed determination that the 

Huntington-Ashland Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

annual average design values for the two 

years preceding the demolition of the 

site (2006 and 2007) were below the 

NAAQS and the monitor met data 

completeness requirements. EPA is also 

approving the use of these data for 

consideration in this determination 

because it finds that West Virginia and 

Kentucky have exercised diligence in 

monitoring in the Huntington-Ashland 

Area. 

Determinations of attainment are 

based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured data. Nevertheless, any 

such assessment should consider 

additional quality-assured data, to the 

extent that quality-assured data exist. In 

accordance with Appendix N and 

standard EPA practice, this review of 

data is based on the three most recent 

years of complete data, generally 2007– 

2009. Quality-assured data are now 

available for 2010, which EPA used to 

compute preliminary design values. The 

Huntington site has a preliminary 2008– 

2010 design value of 13.1 μg/m3, the 

Ashland site has a preliminary 2008– 

2010 design value of 11.4 μg/m3, and 

the Ironton DOT site has a preliminary 

2008–2010 design value of 12.2 μg/m3. 

On the basis of this review, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Huntington-Ashland Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and is 

soliciting public comments on its 

proposed determination. 

TABLE 2—2008–2010 ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA

Site name County Site No. 

Annual average 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Huntington ......................................................................................................................... Cabell ............... 54–011–0006 13.1 

Ashland Primary (FIVCO) ................................................................................................. Boyd ................. 21–019–0017 11.4 

Ironton DOT 4 .................................................................................................................... Lawrence .......... 39–087–0012 12.2 

D. Has the Huntington-Ashland area 

met the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality 

standard? 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

monitoring data for PM2.5, consistent 

with the requirements contained in 40 

CFR part 50 and recorded the data in the 

EPA AQS database, for the HuntingtonAshland Area from 2007 through the 

present time. 

On the basis of that review, EPA 

proposes to determine that this Area has 

attained and continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 

quality-assured data for the 2007–2009, 

which demonstrates attainment by April 

5, 2010, and 2008–2010 monitoring 

periods. In addition, based on EPA’s 

review of the data for 2007–2009, and in 

accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations, EPA 

proposes to determine that the Area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by its applicable attainment date of 

April 5, 2010. 

IV. What is the effect of these actions? 

If EPA’s proposed determination of 

attainment, based on the most recent 

three years of quality-assured data, is 

made final, the requirements for the 

Huntington-Ashland Area to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS would 

be suspended for so long as the 

Huntington-Ashland Area continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). Notably, as 

described below, any such 

determination would not be equivalent 

to the redesignation of the HuntingtonAshland Area to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If this proposed determination of 

attainment is finalized and EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, that the Area has violated the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for 

the suspension of the specific 

requirements would no longer exist for 

the Huntington-Ashland Area, and the 

Area would thereafter have to address 

the applicable requirements. See 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). 

Finalizing this proposed action would 

not constitute a redesignation of the 

Area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of 

the CAA. Further, finalizing this 

proposed action does not involve 

approving maintenance plans for the 

Area as required under section 175A of 

the CAA, nor would it find that the Area 

has met all other requirements for 

redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the 

proposed action, the designation status 

of the Huntington-Ashland Area would 

remain nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that the Area meets the 

CAA requirements for redesignation to 

attainment and takes action to 

redesignate the Huntington-Ashland 

Area. 

In addition, if EPA’s separate and 

independent proposed determination 

that the Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard by its applicable 

attainment date (April 5, 2010) is 

finalized, EPA will have met its 

requirement pursuant to section 

179(c)(1) of the CAA to make a 

determination based on the Area’s air 

quality data as of the attainment date 

whether the Area attained the standard 

by that date. 

These two actions described above are 

proposed determinations regarding the 

Huntington-Ashland Area’s attainment 

only with respect to the 1997 annual 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s actions do not 

address the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

These actions propose to make 

determinations of attainment based on 

air quality, and would, if finalized, 

result in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements, and it would not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: • Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); • Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Are 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.); • Do 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); • Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); • Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Are 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 • Do 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, these proposed 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS determinations for the 

Huntington-Ashland Area do 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

Dated: April 26, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Dated: April 6, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11355 Filed 5–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109; FRL–8871–3] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Revocation of the Significant 

New Use Rule on a Certain Chemical 

Substance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke a 

significant new use rule (SNUR) 

promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

for a chemical substance identified 

generically as substituted 

ethoxyethylamine phosphonate, which 

was the subject of premanufacture 

notice (PMN) P–95–1950. EPA issued a 

‘‘non-5(e)’’ SNUR (i.e. SNUR on a 

substance that is not subject to a TSCA 

section 5(e) consent order), designating 

certain activities as significant new uses 

based on the concern criteria. EPA has 

received and reviewed new information 

and test data for the chemical substance 

and proposes to revoke the SNUR. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2011–0109. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The 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 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the 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 docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS