[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21035-21037]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07903]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88613; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
for Certain Changes and Corrections to the NYSE Rule 9000 Series

April 9, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on April 7, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes certain changes and corrections to the NYSE
Rule 9000 Series (Code of Procedure). The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes certain changes and corrections to the NYSE
Rule 9000 Series (Code of Procedure), as follows.
Proposed Rule Change
    In 2013, the Commission approved the Exchange's adoption of the
Rule 8000 (Investigations and Sanctions) and Rule 9000 Series relating
to investigation, discipline, sanction, and other procedural rules
modeled on the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'').\4\ The Exchange's affiliates NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American''), NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''), and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') have since each adopted versions of the Rule
8000 and Rule 9000 Series.\5\ The Exchange proposes certain changes in
order to further harmonize its disciplinary rules with the disciplinary
rules of its affiliates as well as to correct inconsistencies in the
Rule 9000 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045 (March 5,
2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02).
    \5\ In 2016, NYSE American adopted its Rule 8000 and Rule 9000
Series based on the NYSE and FINRA Rule 8000 and Rule 9000 Series.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77241 (February 26, 2016),
81 FR 11311 (March 3, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30). In 2018, the
Commission approved NYSE National's adoption of the NYSE National
Rule 10.8000 and Rule 10.9000 Series based on the NYSE American and
FINRA Rule 8000 and Rule 9000 Series. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 83289 (May 17, 2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23, 2018) (SR-
NYSENat-2018-02). In 2019, NYSE Arca adopted the NYSE Arca Rule
10.8000 and 10.9000 Series based on the NYSE American Rule 8000 and
Rule 9000 Series. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85639
(April 12, 2019), 84 FR 16346 (April 18, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-15)
(``Release No. 85639'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, Rule 9110 (Application) sets forth the types of proceedings
to which the Rule 9000 Series applies and provides that, in performing
the functions under the Rule 9000 Series, the Chief Regulatory Officer
(``CRO'') and Regulatory Staff shall function independently of the
commercial interests of the Exchange and the commercial interests of
the member organizations. In order to strengthen and further safeguard
the regulatory independence of the Exchange's CRO and Regulatory Staff,
the Exchange proposes to add the following sentence to the end of the
subsection:

    No member of the Board of Directors or non-Regulatory Staff may
interfere with or attempt to influence the process or resolution of
any pending investigation or disciplinary proceeding.

    The proposed sentence is based on the version of Rule 9110(a)
adopted by the Exchange's affiliates NYSE Arca and NYSE National, which
contains an identical sentence.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.9110(a); NYSE National Rule
10.9110(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Rule 9120 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions
applicable to the Rule 9000 Series. Under the definition of
``Interested Staff'' in Rule 9120(t)(B)(iii), the Exchange would add an
``s'' in parentheses after ``supervise'' to conform to NYSE Arca Rule
10.9120(t)(B)(iii).
    Third, Rule 9268 (Decision of Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing
Panel) sets forth the timing and contents of a decision of a Hearing
Panel or Extended Hearing Panel and the procedures for a dissenting
opinion, service of the decision, and requests for review. Subsection
(e)(2) provides that a majority decision with respect to an Exchange
member that is an affiliate of the Exchange shall constitute final
disciplinary action of the Exchange for purposes of SEC Rule 19d-
1(c)(1) and may not be reviewed pursuant to Rule 9310, which governs
review by the Exchange's Board of Directors.
    In order to conform Rule 9268(e)(2) with the changes proposed to
Rule 9310(a) discussed below, and in order to further harmonize the
Exchange's disciplinary rules with its affiliates, the Exchange
proposes to delete the phrase ``an Exchange member that is'' before
``an affiliate of the Exchange'' and add the phrase ``as such term is
defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act'' after ``an affiliate of
the Exchange.''
    The proposed change would conform Rule 9268(e)(2) with NYSE Arca
Rule 10.9268(e)(2), which contains the phrase ``an affiliate of the
Exchange as such term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange
Act.'' Utilizing the definition of affiliate set forth in in Rule 12b-2
under the Exchange Act would not diminish the current scope or
application of the Rule since the proposed definition of affiliate
would continue to encompass member and member organizations. Moreover,
the proposed change would add clarity and transparency to the
Exchange's rules by using a definition of affiliate in the

federal securities laws that encompasses both members and member
organizations, thereby avoiding potential confusion since Rule
9268(e)(2) currently uses ``member.''
    Fourth, Rule 9310 governs review by the Exchange's board of
directors. The Exchange proposes the following changes to Rule 9310.
    In the first sentence of Rule 9310(a)(1)(A), the Exchange proposes
to replace ``neither Party'' with ``none of the aforementioned
persons.'' The proposed change is based on the version of Rule
9310(a)(1)(A) adopted by the Exchange's affiliates, which prohibits the
persons set forth in the rule, and not just Parties, from requesting
review by the affiliate's board of directors of a decision concerning
an affiliate of that exchange.\7\ The proposed change would thereby
further ensure that decisions concerning an Exchange affiliate are
final and cannot be appealed to the Exchange Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE American Rule 9310(a)(1)(A); NYSE Arca Rule 10.
9310(a)(1)(A); & NYSE National Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the changes discussed above to Rule 9268(e)(2), the
Exchange would delete references to an Exchange member or member
organization and instead refer to an affiliate of the Exchange as that
term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act in Rules
9310(a)(1)(A), 9310(a)(1)(B)(i) and 9310(a)(1)(B)(ii).
    The proposed changes would harmonize Rule 9310 with NYSE Arca Rule
9310, which contains the phrase ``an affiliate of the Exchange as such
term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act,'' and with the
proposed changes to Rule 9268 discussed above, which would use the same
terms. Further, utilizing the definition of affiliate set forth in in
Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act would not diminish the current scope
or application of the rule since the proposed definition of affiliate
would continue to encompass member and member organizations. Finally,
by harmonizing Rule 9310 with Rule 9268, the proposal would add clarity
and transparency to the Exchange's rules and further ensure that final
determinations involving Exchange affiliates cannot be appealed to its
Board of Directors.
    Fifth, Rule 9560 (Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding) sets
forth procedures for expedited suspension hearings. The Exchange
proposes the following changes to Rule 9560.
    The Exchange proposes to delete ``Client'' in the Rule 9560's
heading. The word does not appear in the Rule 9560 heading adopted by
any of the Exchange's affiliates.\8\ The proposed change would work no
substantive change to Rule 9560, which would otherwise remain
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE American Rule 9560; NYSE Arca Rule 10.9560; & NYSE
National Rule 10.9560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add ``or Panelist'' after ``Hearing
Officer'' in three places in subsection (b)(2) and in two places in
subsection (c)(1) of Rule 9560. The proposed change would conform the
Exchange's rule with the analogous NYSE Arca and NYSE National
provisions.\9\ The proposed change to provide for the potential
disqualification of Panelists in addition to Hearing Officers would
contribute to fairer procedures consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the
Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.9560(b)(2) & (c)(1) & NYSE National
Rule 10.9560(b)(2) & (c)(1). See Release No. 85639, 84 FR at 16372,
n. 69 (noting that the NYSE would submit a rule filing to harmonize
Rule 9560 with NYSE Arca Rule 10.9560 providing for the recusal of
both Hearing Officers and Panelists in expedited suspension
hearings).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rule 9560(b)(2), the Exchange proposes two changes that would
conform to the rules of the Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca. First, the
Exchange would delete the ``(a)'' following the reference to Rule 9233.
The reference to subsection (a) does not appear in NYSE Arca Rule
10.9560(b)(2). The Exchange also believes that the correct reference
should be to the entire rule. Second, the Exchange proposes to add a
reference to Rule 9234, which governs recusal and disqualification of
Panelists, following the reference to Rule 9233. The proposed change
would reflect the addition of Panelists to Rule 9560 and conform to
NYSE Arca Rule 10.9560(b)(2), which also refers to NYSE Arca Rule
10.9234.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to replace ``Chairman of the Hearing
Panel'' with ``Hearing Officer'' in subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1)
and (e) of Rule 9560.
    Rule 9560 was adopted in 2017 based on Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe BZX'') Rule 8.17 and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
Rule 9400 in order for the Exchange to have consistent rules for
issuing cease and desist orders on an expedited basis to halt certain
disruptive and manipulative quoting and trading activity.\11\ Both the
Cboe BZX and Nasdaq rule use the phrase ``Chairman of the Hearing
Panel'' in subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1) and (e), which the
Exchange adopted without change. ``Chairman of the Hearing Panel'' is
not defined in the Exchange's rules and is only used in Rule 9560. Rule
9120(r) defines ``Hearing Officer'' as ``an employee of FINRA who is an
attorney and who is appointed by the Chief Hearing Officer to act in an
adjudicative role and fulfill various adjudicative responsibilities and
duties described in the Rule 9200 Series regarding disciplinary
proceedings, the Rule 9550 Series regarding expedited proceedings, and
the Rule 9800 Series regarding temporary cease and desist proceedings
brought against member organizations and covered persons.'' The
Exchange believes that the correct reference in Rules 9560(c)(1),
(c)(2), (d)(1) and (e) should be ``Hearing Officer.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80807 (May 30,
2017), 82 FR 25856 (June 5, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-21); see generally
Cboe BZX Rules 12.15 & 8.17 & Nasdaq Rule 2170 & 9400.
    \12\ The Exchange proposes to make similar changes to NYSE Arca
Rules 10.9560(c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1) and (e) that refer to ``Chief
Hearing Officer'' and that should refer instead to ``Hearing
Officer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that
these changes provide for fair procedures for the disciplining of
members and persons associated with members, the denial of membership
to any person seeking membership therein, the barring of any person
from becoming associated with a member thereof, and the prohibition or
limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to
services offered by the Exchange or a member thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the proposed changes would add clarity,
transparency and consistency to the Exchange's disciplinary rules. The
Exchange believes that market participants would

benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing potential
confusion. Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
would also make the Exchange's disciplinary rules more consistent with
the rules of its affiliates, thereby ensuring that persons subject to
the Exchange's jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can
more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rules. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes are designed to provide a
fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated
with members, the denial of membership to any person seeking membership
therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated with a
member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of
any person with respect to access to services offered by the Exchange
or a member thereof, thereby furthering the objectives of Section
6(b)(7) of the Act.\16\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that adding
text to Rule 9110 to strengthen and further safeguard the regulatory
independence of the Exchange's CRO and Regulatory Staff and providing
for the recusal of Panelists in addition to Hearing Officers in
expedited proceedings under Rule 9560 would continue to provide fair
procedures for the suspending and disciplining of members and
associated persons consistent with and in furtherance of the objectives
of the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with amending the Exchange's disciplinary rules to further
harmonize those rules with the disciplinary rules of its affiliates and
to correct inconsistencies.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-33 and should be submitted on
or before May 6, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07903 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13832-13833]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05168]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4303-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nevada; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4303-DR), dated February 17,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective February 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 17, 2017, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Nevada resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, and
mudslides during the period of January 5-14, 2017, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Nevada.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Rosalyn L. Cole, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Nevada have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The counties of Douglas, Lyon, Storey, and Washoe; the
independent city of Carson City; and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Nevada are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-05168 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43159-43167]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17998]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012-201130; FRL-9438-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Georgia; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Submission for the 2006
24-Hour PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 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 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is responding to comments received
on EPA's January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval of the aforementioned
portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission. On October 21, 2009,
the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD), provided a letter to EPA certifying that the Georgia
state implementation plan (SIP) meets the interstate transport
requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 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. The effect of today's action will be the
promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Georgia no
later than two years from the date of disapproval. The proposed
Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA intends to implement
for Georgia.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Responses to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that NAAQS. On December 18, 2006, EPA
revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and secondary
NAAQS from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m \3\) to 35
[micro]g/m \3\, thus states were required to provide submissions to
address section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA (infrastructure SIPs) for
this revised NAAQS. Georgia provided its infrastructure submission for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 21, 2009. On January 26,
2011, EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of Georgia's October 21,
2009, infrastructure submission related to interstate transport (i.e.,
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR
4584. A summary of the background for this final action is provided
below.
    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. 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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, the submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to make additional recommendations to states 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 CAA.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to
the impacts of interstate transport. Specifically, the SIP must prevent
sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states;
(3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility in other states.
    In the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, EPA
explained that submissions from states pertaining to the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air pollutant emissions from within the state that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or

interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA
described a number of considerations for states for providing an
adequate demonstration to address interstate transport requirements in
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. First, EPA
noted that the state's submission should explain whether or not
emissions from the state contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state and, if so,
address the impact. EPA stated that the state's conclusion should be
supported by an adequate technical analysis. Second, EPA recommended
the various types of information that could be relevant to support the
state's submission, such as information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and the potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state, and air
quality modeling. Third, EPA explained that states should address the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirement independently which requires
an evaluation of impacts on areas of other states that are meeting the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated
nonattainment. Lastly, EPA explained that states could not rely on the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS. CAIR, promulgated by
EPA on May 12, 2005 (see 70 FR 25162), required states to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that significantly
contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR was
intended to provide states covered by the rule with a mechanism to
satisfy their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference
with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR provisions and
submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the CAIR
requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit or Court) issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety.
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit, July 11, 2008).
However, in response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued
an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Circuit, December 23,
2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to ``temporarily
preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces
it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The
Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July
11, 2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements that emissions from
sources in a state must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Georgia significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas. EPA has now completed the
modeling for the final Transport Rule and, as indicated by the
technical support documents for this action, Georgia in fact
contributes to downwind nonattainment in another state or interferes
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, provided
a letter to EPA certifying that the Georgia SIP meets the interstate
transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\3\ 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. On January 26, 2011,
EPA proposed 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 made the preliminary determination
that Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for this NAAQS.
This action is finalizing EPA's disapproval of Georgia's October 21,
2009, submission with regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See EPA's January 26,
2011, proposed disapproval rulemaking at 76 FR 4584 for further
information on EPA's rationale for this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 final rulemaking 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 a rulemaking separate from today's
final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Responses to Comments

    EPA received three sets of adverse comments on the January 26,
2011, proposed rulemaking to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, infrastructure submission on the interstate transport
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A full set of the comments provided by GA
EPD, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and Georgia Power (hereinafter referred to as ``the
Commenters'') are provided in the docket for this final action. As a
general matter, the comments overlapped on some issues, and as a
result, EPA has organized the response to comments by issue. In
addition, EPA acknowledges Georgia's comments regarding SIP processing
in general. As Georgia is aware, EPA is considering improvements to the
SIP process and appreciates Georgia's comments in that regard.
    For the most part, the Commenters oppose EPA's proposed disapproval
action for the interstate portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009,
infrastructure submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The comments fall generally into the following categories: (1)
Correction for reference to ``CSA''; (2) concerns regarding states'
inability to rely on CAIR to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) apparent
lack of guidance from EPA on how states should meet the requirements;
(4) concerns regarding the procedure of taking action to disapprove

Georgia's submittal; (5) acknowledgement of states' efforts and air
quality conditions; and (6) concerns related to the Transport Rule. A
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Correction for Inadvertent Reference to ``CSA'' in Georgia Rulemaking

    Comment 1: One Commenter states that on page 4586 of the Federal
Register notice of EPA's January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval, that
``EPA makes a reference to `CSA' that appears to be completely out of
place.'' The Commenter goes on to state that ``[t]here appears to be no
basis for this reference and certainly has no relation to anything that
Georgia included in our SIP submittal.''
    Response 1: EPA agrees with this comment, and notes that the
reference to ``CSA'' in EPA's January 26, 2009, proposed disapproval
action related to a portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission
was a typographical error. ``CSA'' should be replaced with ``Georgia
Multi-pollutant Rule'' and as such is being corrected in this final
rule. In reviewing Georgia's SIP revision, EPA was aware of Georgia's
multi-pollutant rule.

States' Inability To Rely on CAIR To Satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

    Comment 2: All Commenters express concern with EPA's proposed
disapproval and assert that states should be able to rely on the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address the transport requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
The Commenters explain that the Court left CAIR in place and opine that
states should be able to rely on emissions reductions from CAIR to
address transport. One Commenter also mentions that ``[t]he Court did
not impose a schedule on EPA for completing the Transport Rule;
therefore, states have no assurances that EPA will ever replace the
CAIR rule. Since there is no guarantee that the Transport Rule will be
promulgated in a timely manner, states cannot rely on the reductions in
the proposed Transport Rule and must rely on the CAIR reductions, which
are permanent and enforceable.'' Another Commenter states: ``[b]ased on
the belated guidance, EPA prohibits the states from relying in any way
on emission reductions required under CAIR even though the rule remains
in place today, is federally enforceable and is achieving the
anticipated emissions reductions.''
    Response 2: As discussed in EPA's September 25, 2009, guidance,
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2009
Guidance''), states cannot rely on the CAIR rule for the submission for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address
this NAAQS, and was never intended to address this NAAQS. CAIR was
originally put in place to address the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. In order to adequately address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), states can only rely on permanent
emission reductions to address transport for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and must include an appropriate technical
demonstration.

Comments Regarding Guidance From EPA on How States Should Meet the
Requirements

    Comment 3: Two Commenters note that that 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIPs for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were due September 21,
2009, but EPA's guidance was not released to the states until September
25, 2009.
    Response 3: While EPA's 2009 Guidance regarding the 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was
released on September 25, 2009, this guidance did not establish new
requirements beyond those already required by section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Relevant portions of section 110(a)(2)
require, as follows, ``Each [implementation plan submitted by a State
under this chapter] shall * * * contain adequate provisions--(i)
prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard * * * '' States are statutorily obligated
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This above-quoted provision provides
States with the requirement.
    Comment 4: Two Commenters express concern about communication in
the SIP process. The Commenters go on to say that ``[e]ven though EPA's
guidance was released only a short time later, EPA Region 4 gave
absolutely no indication to its co-regulators that there would be a
fatal flaw with the submittal.'' The commenter further states that,
``it wasn't until a year later that states were informed via an e-mail
on August 27, 2010, that `All Region 4 states submitted complete
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and our
intention is to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of those
unless it is withdrawn by the state.' ''
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' assertion that they
were initially notified in an August 27, 2010, e-mail about EPA's
expectations and concerns with states' submissions reliance on CAIR to
meet the requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As was explained above, Georgia's
obligation stems from the CAA. As is EPA's practice, EPA reminded the
States on a number of occasions of the interstate transport obligations
in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In addition to the informal reminders (via e-
mail and teleconferences, among other avenues), EPA's January 2011
proposal served as a formal, legal notification and provided for a
formal opportunity for public comment.
    Although EPA reminded states of EPA's expectations and concerns
with states' reliance on CAIR to meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in an
August 27, 2010, e-mail, EPA formally notified states of the
expectations and concerns in the EPA's 2009 Guidance. Specifically, EPA
noted that SIP submissions that relied on CAIR for satisfying the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS would be inadequate, as CAIR did not address this NAAQS. EPA's
proposed disapproval of the portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009,
submission did not occur until January 2011, which was over a year
after EPA's notification (through the release of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance) of any states'
deficiency for meeting the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS had that state relied on CAIR. Thus,
Georgia had notification and an opportunity to provide supplemental
information between the release of EPA's 2009 Guidance and EPA's
proposed disapproval action in January 2011.
    Georgia did provide some information in its comment letter on the
January 2011 proposal. This information was also provided to EPA as
part of Georgia's comments on the proposed Transport Rule. EPA's
Transport Rule is expected to address those issues as part of the
Federal Implementation Plan included as part of the Transport Rule.
However, the information provided in Georgia's comment letter is not
adequate to meet the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a formal SIP submittal.
    Comment 5: One Commenter raises concerns with EPA treating its 2009
Guidance as ``binding'' and suggests that this action is contrary to
statements made by EPA in support of EPA and states being ``co-
regulators.''
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the
proposed disapproval is contrary to EPA treating the states as co-
regulators. As was explained earlier, EPA has regular contact with its
state co-regulators. With regard to the proposed disapproval action,
EPA corresponded with Georgia regarding the October 21, 2009, submittal
prior to the proposed disapproval. In the past several months, EPA has
corresponded with Georgia on a number of occasions regarding other SIP
revisions and EPA's consideration of those revisions--as is EPA's
typical practice to support the co-regulator relationship.
    Further, EPA notes that the January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval
of Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission as it relates to satisfying
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on EPA's determination that Georgia did
not provide adequate information to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for Georgia. No new requirements were introduced
in EPA's 2009 Guidance. This guidance simply provided additional
clarifications but the CAA requirements existed long before Georgia's
September 21, 2009, deadline for a SIP submission. Notably, Georgia's
submission was provided after EPA's 2009 Guidance.
    Comment 6: One Commenter mentions that ``EPA has not stated the
amount of reduction they believe is needed to satisfy the transport
requirements. Not only is this a situation where EPA moves the finish
line (by releasing guidance AFTER the due date), the finish line isn't
even knowable (because EPA refuses to inform the states how much
reduction is enough to satisfy the requirements). EPA seems to say that
it has to be whatever the final Transport Rule says, even though there
is no final Transport Rule.''
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with this comment. As was explained
earlier, the state obligation stems from the CAA itself. As co-
regulators, EPA makes efforts to assist states in submitting approvable
revisions--and EPA took such action with EPA's 2009 Guidance. States
had an opportunity to conduct their own analyses regarding interstate
transport. Section 110(a)(2) requires that the state's submission
contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions from the state that
contribute significantly to nonattainment of or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In order to ensure
compliance with the CAA's mandate of ``adequate'' provisions, the
state's SIP revision must be supported by an adequate technical
analysis, including, but not limited to, information concerning
emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and the
potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the
state and the potentially impacted states, the distance to the nearest
area that is not attaining the NAAQS in another state, and air quality
modeling. EPA appreciates that Georgia has initiated the process of
such an analysis (which is included in Georgia's comment letter).
    Comment 7: One Commenter notes EPA's statement in the January 26,
2011, proposed disapproval where the Agency states: ``* * * 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 Commenter mentions that they, and possibly
other states, were precluded from providing the necessary technical
analysis by EPA because EPA did not release the guidance until after
the SIP submission deadline. Further, the Commenter notes that EPA did
not provide specific criteria for the technical analysis in the 2006
PM2.5 Infrastructure Guidance, and mentions that ``[h]ad EPA
provided adequate criteria for an approvable SIP in a timely manner, it
is likely that [the state] would have been able to submit an approvable
SIP by the statutory deadline.'' Another Commenter states: ``EPA has
not provided Georgia and other similarly situated states with a
meaningful opportunity to develop the required SIP.'' Further, the
Commenter mentions that ``States cannot possibly be expected to develop
approvable SIPs without knowing in advance the standards against which
those SIPs will be judged.''
    Response 7: EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertions. As
was explained earlier, the SIP submission requirement is identified in
the CAA. EPA provided guidance before Georgia submitted its October 21,
2009, SIP revision. In addition, States were alerted that a technical
analysis that involved modeling and permanent, enforceable emission
reductions could be used to make an adequate demonstration to satisfy
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS when EPA promulgated CAIR in 2005. Due to the legal status
of CAIR, states relying on CAIR as permanent were taking a risk given
EPA's proposed Transport Rule and the court decision on CAIR. Further,
states were officially informed that the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS could not be satisfied by
reliance on CAIR (since that rule did not consider the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS) when EPA released EPA's 2009 Guidance . The
submittal by Georgia relied on CAIR and it did not include a technical
analysis--despite EPA's efforts to alert states that mere reliance on
CAIR, on its own, would not meet the CAA requirements. EPA appreciates
that Georgia's comment letter on the January 2011 proposal did provide
additional technical support. As Georgia itself noted, some of the
information provided by Georgia on the January 2011 disapproval
proposal was also provided to EPA in response to the proposed Transport
Rule. As was discussed in an earlier response, the technical
information provided is not adequate to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements.
    Comment 8: One Commenter mentions that ``Georgia learned for the
first time in this proposed disapproval that the only thing preventing
us from having our SIP approved is an adequate technical analysis.''
The Commenter then asserts that ``* * * since EPA has not provided a
`reasonable deadline' to correct the deficiency, we are including our
technical analysis as part of our comments on this proposal.''
    Response 8: Consistent with section 110 of the CAA and implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 51, and as a general matter, ``adequate
technical analyses'' are a cornerstone of ensuring that SIP revisions
are approvable. EPA has addressed the timing of information in previous
comments, but to underscore that point, EPA alerted states formally
upon the release of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance that CAIR could not be used to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Georgia acknowledges
as such in the October 21, 2009, infrastructure submission. With regard
to the latter point in the comment and the technical analysis, see
Response 7, above. In addition, there are formal SIP revision
requirements described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. EPA does not agree
that Georgia's comments on the January 2011 disapproval proposal may be
considered a ``SIP revision;'' nonetheless, EPA did review the comments
as was described in Response 7, above. Further information regarding
the path forward

following today's action is described below.
    Upon disapproval of Georgia's submittal, EPA has a legal
obligation, pursuant to the Act, to promulgate a FIP. Section 110(a)(1)
of the Act requires states to submit SIPs that meet certain
requirements within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS. These SIPs
are required to contain, among other things, adequate provisions
``prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--(I) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard.'' Section 110(a)(1) gives the
Administrator authority to prescribe a period shorter than three years
for the states to adopt and submit such SIPs, but does not give the
Administrator authority to lengthen the time allowed for submission.
    Section 110(c)(1) of the Act, in turn, requires EPA to promulgate
FIPs if EPA has found that the state has failed to make a required
submission or if EPA has disapproved a state submission our found it to
be incomplete. Specifically, section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP within two years after the Administrator ``(A) finds
that a state has failed to make a required submission or finds that the
plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not satisfy the
minimum criteria established under subsection (k)(1)(A) of this section
or (B) disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or
in part.'' The Act uses mandatory language, finding that EPA shall
promulgate a FIPs at any time within 2 years after the actions
identified 110(c)(1)(A) or 110(c)(1)(B) have occurred. EPA's legal
obligation to promulgate FIPs arises when those actions occur without
regard to the underlying reason for the underlying state SIP
deficiency. The obligation to promulgate a FIP must be discharged by
EPA unless two conditions are met: (1) The state corrects the
deficiency; and (2) the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision, before the Administrator promulgates the FIP.
    Under this statutory scheme, EPA has authority and an obligation to
promulgate a FIP to correct a SIP deficiency if the actions identified
in section 110(c)(1)(A) or (B) have been taken, and the two conditions
identified in 110(c)(1) have not been met. The question of whether EPA
has authority to promulgate any particular FIP, therefore, must be
considered on a state specific basis.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's suggestion that the rule is
inconsistent with the CAA because it does not give states time to
develop, submit and receive EPA approval of SIPs before the FIP goes
into effect. Section 110(a)(2) calls on states to submit SIPs that
contain adequate provisions prohibiting the emissions proscribed by
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, when EPA has not received such SIP
submission or has disapproved a SIP submission, it has an obligation
created by section 110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP that meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA does not believe it has
authority to adjust the deadlines established in the Act in order to
give states additional time, after promulgation of the Transport Rule,
to submit SIPs that comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA does
not believe it has authority to alter the statutory requirement that it
promulgate FIPs within two years of making a finding of failure to
submit. EPA sought to discharge this duty with respect to the states
covered by CAIR for the PM2.5 NAAQS by promulgating CAIR;
however, the Court found that rule unlawful and not sufficiently
related to the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For
this reason, EPA does not believe it could argue that the CAIR FIPs
completely discharged its duty to promulgate FIPs with respect to the
states whose section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs are disapproved.
    EPA is following the SIP process established in the statute. The
110(a) SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 standard were due in 2009. In
each case, states were given the full 3 years to meet the requirement.
The Transport Rule provides the FIP to fulfill the requirement that was
unmet by the states through SIPs. EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years of a state's failure to have an approved SIP. States
were in fact given the first chance to fulfill the requirement of
Section 100(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's action is subsequent to the State's
opportunity to first fulfill the requirement.
    EPA has made every attempt to smooth the transition between the
requirements of CAIR and those of the forthcoming Transport Rule. For
future requirements, EPA will also make every effort to address
transition issues. However, EPA cannot ignore its statutory obligations
and therefore cannot ensure that no new requirements will be placed on
the sources being regulated by this action. Every time a NAAQS is
revised, there is a statutory obligation for states to submit SIPs to
address certain CAA requirements. If states fail to meet the deadlines
or submit incomplete or inadequate SIPs, EPA must act to ensure that
the requirements are put into place.
    Even though EPA is issuing a FIP, the State still has the
opportunity to submit a SIP that can tailor requirements to the
specific needs and concerns of the State in order to meet the
applicable state budgets. Prior to this action, states had ample time
under the provisions of the CAA to develop and submit approvable SIPs
and did not. No state affected by the Transport Rule has submitted a
SIP to replace the emission reductions that were required by CAIR,
despite the North Carolina opinion issued in December 2008 that clearly
said CAIR did not adequately address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the
remand left CAIR in place and states and sources were required to
continue to comply with it, states had the opportunity to develop
replacement measures to ensure that 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) components of
their SIPs would continue to be fulfilled in the future.

Objection to the Use of Disapproval Actions for States' Implementation
Plans

    Comment 9: Three Commenters express concerns about EPA's proposed
disapproval and indicate that EPA had an obligation to use section
110(k)(5) of the CAA. One Commenter states: ``EPA continues to be
resistant to exploring a legislative approach to fixing some of the SIP
issues, yet the correct process under the existing Clean Air Act to
appropriately address this issue is not being used.'' The Commenter
goes on to state: ``Section 110(k) requires that when EPA finds a plan
to be inadequate, EPA shall (1) require the state to revise the plan,
(2) notify the state of the inadequacy, and (3) may establish
reasonable deadlines not to exceed 18 months.'' Additionally, the
Commenter mentions that in their opinion, ``The proposed disapproval
completely ignores 1 and 3 and only partially
satisfies 2. Regarding 2, the EPA proposal simply
states EPA's position that the SIP is inadequate, but fails to notify
us `of the inadequacy.' '' The Commenter asserts that ``* * * EPA still
has failed to provide any specificity on what is required of a state to
submit an approvable SIP,'' and mentions that ``These Clean Air Act
requirements are not discretionary, and that `EPA must comply with the
provisions of Section 110(k)(5) by providing a reasonable period of
time to allow [the state] to satisfy the inadequacy and sufficient and
timely instructions on what is required to revise the plan instead of

relying on a theoretical FIP as the sole remedy.' '' The Commenter
concludes by stating that ``EPA may not take final action on this
proposal until it complies with Section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air
Act.'' Another Commenter states ``[s]ection 110(k)(5) requires EPA to
notify the State of the inadequacies and authorizes the Agency to
establish reasonable deadlines for the submission of such plan
revisions.'' That Commenter goes on to conclude that ``[t]he proposed
disapproval of Georgia's SIP in combination with the proposed FIP
violates these requirements.''
    Response 9: The issues raised in this comment are also addressed by
Response 8, above. To further clarify what is included in Response 8,
Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is being
disapproved pursuant to sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, not
section 110(k)(5). Section 110(k)(5) is applicable to SIPs that have
been federally-approved, and are subsequently found to be substantially
inadequate. This is not the case for Georgia's October 21, 2009,
submission relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The October 21, 2009, submission was provided
to EPA for a new requirement that was triggered by the promulgation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006. EPA is required under
section 110(k)(3) to act upon a state submittal with an approval or
disapproval, within the time period designated under section 110(k)(2).
With this action, EPA is disapproving Georgia's October 21, 2009,
submission relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA has made
the determination that the Georgia SIP does not satisfy these
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Georgia's submission
is inadequate for its failure to meet the statutory requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as noted above. The State can correct the deficiency
by submitting a transport SIP that meets the provisions of the final
Transport Rule or otherwise eliminates significant contribution and
interference with maintenance. See Response to Comment 8.
    Comment 10: One Commenter expresses concern about EPA's statement
in the January 26, 2011, proposed disapprovals regarding the Agency not
taking action on some elements of the states' 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions, and notes the Agency's
statutory timeframe for taking action on SIP submissions. Specifically,
the Commenter cites the following statement from EPA's January 26,
2011, proposed rule: ``[t]herefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove
those provisions which relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration
and to take no action on the remainder of the demonstration at this
time.'' The Commenter mentions that EPA is ``clearly in violation of
Clean Air Act Section 110(k)(2)'' by not taking action on the remainder
of the states' submissions.
    Response 10: In this action, EPA is disapproving certain elements
of the State's submission related to the requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA has also determined that these elements are
severable from the rest of the submission. Comments on elements that
are not being addressed here are not relevant to this action and have
no bearing on the appropriateness of this disapproval. As noted herein,
EPA intends to act on those elements in a subsequent action.
    Comment 11: One Commenter indicates that EPA could use section
110(k)(4) to conditionally approve the states' implementation plans for
the transport requirements related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in anticipation of the promulgation of the final Transport Rule,
``[a]ssuming EPA adequately addresses modeling and emissions inventory
concerns raised during the comment period* * *''
    Response 11: EPA does not agree that the use of 110(k)(4) for a
conditional approval is appropriate in this circumstance. Conditional
approvals may be used to approve a plan revision based on a written
commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of
the plan revision. If the State does not adopt specific enforceable
measures within a year, the conditional approval automatically converts
to a disapproval. The forthcoming Transport Rule is an action that is
being promulgated from EPA and not the State, so it is unclear what
``condition'' the State would be responsible for satisfying by relying
on the final promulgation of the Transport Rule. Further, as the
Commenter implies, use of 110(k)(4) is optional.
    Comment 12: One Commenter states: ``EPA's disapproval of SIPs is
part of a larger effort by EPA to bypass the states in addressing
interstate transport under the 1997 ozone and annual PM2.5
standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.'' The
Commenter goes on to state that ``[i]n EPA's proposed Transport Rule
and in the proposed disapproval of the interstate transport portions of
states' 24-hour PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs, EPA is usurping
states' rights to address air quality issues within their borders.''
    Response 12: EPA disagrees with this comment. The forthcoming
Transport Rule will help to protect downwind states from adverse
impacts of emissions from upwind states. Otherwise, the remedy for such
downwind states would be to individually petition the Administrator for
a finding that any major source or group of stationary sources emits or
would emit any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Further, the October 21, 2009, SIP revision submitted
by Georgia was not adequate to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). (Similar issues are also discussed in Response 8,
above.)
    Comment 13: One Commenter mentions that ``[g]iven the role reserved
to states by Congress, EPA must afford the states a meaningful
opportunity to develop SIPs before EPA issues a federal implementation
plan (FIP).''
    Response 13: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the
State did not have meaningful opportunity to develop a SIP revision
(i.e., in this case, to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). To the contrary, states had
three years from the time the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were
promulgated to develop a SIP revision to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for this NAAQS. Specifically, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS was promulgated on September 21, 2006, and thus
submissions to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were due from the states on September
21, 2009. EPA released its guidance in September 2009 and did not
propose disapproval of the Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP revision
until January 26, 2011, which was more than a year after the State was
formally made aware that the State could not rely on CAIR to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See also Response to comment 8.
    Comment 14: One Commenter states: ``[w]hile the courts have
recognized that EPA has a role to play in resolving interstate
transport issues, the Agency has no `roving commission' to effectively
leapfrog over the SIP process and impose its own choices on states and
regulated parties.'' The Commenter indicates that EPA is circumventing
the SIP process with the proposed disapproval action, and cites
Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075, 1084 (DC Cir. 2001) for support of its
proposition. Specifically, the Commenter mentions ``EPA's disapproval
of Georgia's SIP combined with the impending FIP

usurps the role of the states in the federal-state partnership.''
Further, the Commenter states ``[t]he proposed disapproval and the
proposed transport rule both suggest that EPA intends to supplant the
SIP process with its own Transport Rule FIP this year.''
    Response 14: First, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's suggestion
that the proposed disapproval action for the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, SIP revision and the Agency's option to put the
forthcoming Transport Rule in place as a FIP is circumventing the SIP
process. As noted in previous responses in this rulemaking (such as
Response 8 and 13), states had three years from the date of
promulgation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to develop an
adequate submission to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS. Specifically, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated on September 21, 2006, and thus
submissions to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were due from the states on September
21, 2009. While EPA did not release the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance until September 25, 2009, EPA also did not
propose disapproval of the Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP revision
until January 26, 2011, which was more than a year after the State was
formally made aware that the State could not rely on CAIR to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA notes that CAIR was not intended to meet the transport
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As was
discussed at length in Response 8 above, EPA's process with regard to
today's disapproval and the forthcoming Transport Rule follow clear
processes described in the CAA. EPA appreciates that commenter would
have preferred that another approach be utilized; however, EPA's action
today followed an established process for such actions. Lastly, the
Michigan v. EPA case cited to by the commenter simply does not apply to
the current action. That case involved EPA's implementation of a
permitting program (not a SIP action) where there were complicating
questions of Indian Law and jurisdiction. In today's action, EPA is
acting consistent with the procedures set forth in the CAA, as was
described in detail in Response 8.

Acknowledgement of States' Efforts and Air Quality Conditions

    Comment 15: Two Commenters mention innovative air pollution control
strategies that states have implemented to reduce emissions, and seem
to indicate that the adoption of those strategies, in-and-of itself,
complies with the interstate transport provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Commenters opine that state laws and rules have resulted in enormous
reductions of pollutants that are key pollutants to interstate
transport.
    Response 15: EPA agrees that states have implemented innovative air
pollution control strategies that have provided significant reductions
in emissions, and the Agency commends states for their efforts.
However, today's action relates to whether Georgia has provided an
adequate technical analysis and emissions reductions to show compliance
with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for Georgia. It is EPA's final determination
that Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission (as well as the technical
analysis provided in the public comments) do not provide an adequate
technical analysis and emissions reductions for this determination and
thus EPA is disapproving the portion of Georgia's October 21, 2009,
submission as it relates to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Georgia.

Concerns Related to the Transport Rule

    Comment 16: One Commenter expresses concern regarding EPA's
statement in the January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval regarding the
modeling used to support the proposed Transport Rule, and the findings
in relation to whether states significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in downwind areas. The Commenter states that ``based on 2007-2009
monitoring data, all of these areas are currently meeting the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' and expresses concern that EPA did not
note the area's status with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in the proposal. The Commenter goes on to say ``we noted in our
official comments on the proposed Transport Rule, EPA had numerous
errors in the modeling inputs and failed to ensure that the model
performance was acceptable. This may explain the disparity between
EPA's modeling results and the real world monitors.''
    Response 16: Today's action relates to whether the State provided
an adequate technical analysis and emissions reductions to show
compliance with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Georgia, and is not based on the
attainment status of Georgia areas. Georgia did not provide adequate
technical analysis to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. With regard to the Commenter's concern about the forthcoming
Transport Rule, EPA notes that the Agency received numerous comments on
the proposed Transport Rule and is considering those comments as it
works toward promulgation of a final Transport Rule. All comments on
the Transport Rule will be addressed in that context.
    Comment 17: All Commenters assert that EPA's proposed finding of
significant contribution for the proposed Transport Rule is based on an
inaccurate emissions inventory, fails to take into account all of the
reductions required by the state rules already in effect, and contains
numerous other errors that only compound these problems.
    Response 17: EPA received numerous comments on the proposed
Transport Rule and is considering those comments as it works toward
promulgation of a final Transport Rule. All comments on the Transport
Rule will be addressed in that context.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action 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 determination that Georgia's SIP does not
satisfy the requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of
Georgia's October 21, 2009, submission relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA acknowledges the State's efforts to address
this requirement in its October 21, 2009, submission. Unfortunately,
the submittal relies on CAIR and without an adequate technical analysis
EPA does not believe that states can adequately address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
purpose of the 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. In today's action, EPA is not taking any
disapproval action on the remaining elements of the submission,
including other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements, and
specifically the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion regarding
interference with measures required in the applicable SIP for another
state designed to prevent 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. section
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 disapproved in today's notice) were not submitted to meet
requirements for Part D, and therefore, no sanctions will be triggered.
This final action 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 to satisfy the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for Georgia for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. 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 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-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final 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 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 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 disapproves 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 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 disapproving 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 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.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.578 is amended by adding paragraph (d), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.578  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (d) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving portions of Georgia's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
addressing interstate transport, specifically with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

[FR Doc. 2011-17998 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42362-42363]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13948]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721; FRL-11118-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Chemical Data Reporting Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Chemical Data Reporting under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA ICR Number 1884.15; OMB
Control Number 2070-0162), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through June 30, 2023. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on September 21, 2021, during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2013-0721 to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support
Branch (7602M), Office of Chemical

Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
566-1204; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR
which is currently approved through June 30, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on September 21, 2021 during a 60-day comment period (86 FR 52547).
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the
EPA will be collecting are available in the docket for this ICR. The
docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection request addresses the
paperwork requirements contained in the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting
(CDR) rule. Under TSCA section 8(a), EPA is authorized to collect
certain information on chemical substances manufactured (including
imported) or processed in the United States. The CDR collection
provides chemical manufacture, processing, and use information that
helps EPA identify what chemicals the public may be exposed to as
consumers or in commercial and industrial settings. The data also help
EPA assess routes of potential exposure to those chemicals. Beginning
in 1986, EPA has used the CDR rule eight times to collect basic
manufacturing information for selected chemical substances on the TSCA
Inventory. More recent collections, beginning in 2006, included
additional information relating to the manufacture, processing, and use
of those chemical substances. The reporting requirements have been
modified through rulemaking, with the most recent major changes
occurring in 2020. The 2020 revisions included a phase-in approach for
some of its provisions. All provisions will be fully implemented for
the 2024 CDR reporting cycle. The changes are described on EPA's CDR
web page, at: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-datareporting/summary-reportingrequirement-changes-due-cdr-revisionsand-small.
    The CDR collection is on a four-year reporting cycle and contains
detailed manufacturing, processing, and use information drawn from the
principal reporting year; the rule also contains basic information on
production volume, by year, for the three years prior to the principal
reporting. Individual sites manufacturing (including importing)
chemical substances will submit the required information. The
information will be stored electronically for reference by EPA staff
and others. Within the constraints of confidentiality claims, the
information will be made public through the Agency's website: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-datareporting. Further discussion on how the
information is used, stored, and collected is included in this
document.
    Form Numbers: Form U (Form #: 9600-010), Form U Primary
Manufacturer Import (Form #: 9600-011), Form U Primary Co-Manufacturer
Contracting (Form #: 9600-012), Form U Primary Co-Manufacturer
Producing (Form #: 9600-013), Form U Secondary or Tertiary (Form #:
9600-014), and Form U Secondary Notifying Tertiary (Form #9600-015).
    Respondents/affected Entities: Potentially affected entities may
include but are not limited to the following: 325 Chemical
Manufacturing and 324 Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, TSCA section 8(a)
and 40 CFR part 711.
    Estimated number of respondents: 5,460 (total).
    Frequency of response: Every four years.
    Total estimated burden: 729,465 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $78,616,166 (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 10,194 hours in
the total estimated burden compared with that currently approved by
OMB. This increase reflects a combination of reporting requirement
changes including changes to the information reported (+35,611 hours)
and changes to the number of reporters (-25,417 hours) due to
byproducts exemptions and a new small manufacturer definition, which
were included in two ICR addendums approved by OMB in 2020 (one
associated with the 2020 CDR Revisions Rule and the other with the 2020
8(a) SMD Update Rule).

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-13948 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P