19998 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–07653 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9797–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; Prong 3 

of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Infrastructure 

Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve in part, and disapprove in part, 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions, submitted by the State of 

Florida, through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on 

April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009. 

This final action addresses the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requirements 

pertaining to prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is approving 

in part, and disapproving in part, the 

submission for Florida that relates to 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air 

quality. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

associated with Florida have been 

addressed in separate rulemakings. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective May 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0814. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the 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 

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: 

Sean Lakeman, 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. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

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 new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS. On December 5, 2012, EPA 

proposed to approve in part, and 

disapprove in part, Florida’s submission 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

related to PSD. A summary of the 

background for today’s final action is 

provided below. See EPA’s December 5, 

2012, proposed rulemaking (77 FR 

72287) for more detail. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. The data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

already mentioned, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. However, in this action, 

EPA is only addressing element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to PSD. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in SIP submissions. 

The first two prongs, which are codified 

in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are 

provisions that prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

In previous actions, EPA has already 

taken action to address Florida’s SIP 

submissions related to sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Today’s final rulemaking 

action relates only to requirements 

related to prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously 

described, requires that the SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 19999 

1 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call, 

Final Rule’’ 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). 

2 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan—Final Rule’’ 75 FR 

82246 (December 30, 2010). 

significant deterioration of its air 

quality. 

II. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

in part, and disapprove in part Florida’s 

infrastructure submissions as 

demonstrating that the State meets the 

applicable requirements of prong 3 of 

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

relate to adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air quality 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the 

CAA requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which 

is commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. 

On December 5, 2012, EPA proposed 

to approve in part, and disapprove in 

part, Florida’s April 18, 2008, and 

September 23, 2009, infrastructure 

submissions for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, addressing 

prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). At 

present, there are four regulations that 

are required to be adopted into the SIP 

to meet the PSD-related infrastructure 

requirements. Of these four regulations 

EPA has approved the following three 

into the Florida SIP. 

1. EPA’s approval of Florida’s PSD/ 

New Source Review (NSR) regulations 

which address the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update 

requirements was published in the 

Federal Register on June 15, 2012 (77 

FR 35862). 

2. EPA’s approval of Florida’s NSR 

PM2.5 Rule was published in the Federal 

Register on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 

58027). 

3. EPA’s approval of Florida’s PSD/ 

PM2.5 approving PM2.5 increments was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58027). 

These three approval actions 

demonstrate that Florida’s SIP-approved 

PSD program meets three of the four 

required regulatory elements necessary 

to satisfy prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). See EPA’s December 5, 

2012, proposed rule (77 FR 72287) for 

more detail. 

With respect to the fourth necessary 

PSD regulatory element—the 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule— 

Florida did not submit a SIP revision to 

adopt the appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions as promulgated in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. Therefore, Florida’s 

federally-approved SIP contained errors 

that resulted in its failure to address, or 

provide adequate legal authority for, the 

implementation of a GHG PSD program 

in Florida. In the GHG SIP Call,1 EPA 

determined that the State of Florida’s 

SIP was substantially inadequate to 

achieve CAA requirements because its 

existing PSD program does not apply to 

GHG-emitting sources. This rule 

finalized a SIP call for 15 state and local 

permitting authorities including Florida. 

EPA explained that if a state, identified 

in the SIP call, failed to submit the 

required corrective SIP revision by the 

applicable deadline, EPA would 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) under CAA section 

110(c)(1)(A) for that state to govern PSD 

permitting for GHG. On December 30, 

2010, EPA promulgated a FIP 2 because 

Florida failed to submit, by its 

December 22, 2010, deadline, the 

corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD 

program to sources of GHG consistent 

with the thresholds described in the 

GHG Tailoring rule. The FIP ensured 

that a permitting authority (i.e., EPA) 

would be available to issue 

preconstruction PSD permits to GHGemitting sources in the State of Florida. 

EPA took these actions through interim 

final rulemaking, effective upon 

publication, to ensure the availability of 

a permitting authority—EPA—in Florida 

for GHG-emitting sources when those 

sources became subject to PSD on 

January 2, 2011. 

The Florida SIP currently does not 

provide adequate legal authority to 

address the GHG PSD permitting 

requirements at or above the levels of 

emissions set forth in the GHG Tailoring 

Rule, or at other appropriate levels. As 

a result, EPA has determined that the 

Florida SIP does not satisfy a portion of 

prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

requirements. Therefore, EPA is 

disapproving FDEP’s submission for 

prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it 

relates relate to GHG PSD permitting 

requirements. EPA’s disapproval of this 

element does not result in any further 

obligation on the part of Florida, 

because EPA has already promulgated a 

FIP for the Florida PSD program to 

address permitting GHG at or above the 

GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 76 

FR 25178. Thus, today’s final action to 

approve in part, and disapprove in part, 

FDEP’s submission for prong 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), will not require 

any further action by either FDEP or 

EPA. 

EPA received one comment on its 

December 5, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking. The Commenter wanted ‘‘to 

congratulate EPA workers for trying to 

decrease particles and increase the 

public’s health.’’ This comment does 

not appear to be related to the issues 

presented in the proposed rulemaking, 

and instead, appears related to a wholly 

separate topic—promulgation of the PM 

NAAQS. EPA does not interpret this 

comment as relevant to the topic of 

EPA’s December 5, 2012, proposed 

action. Instead, EPA interprets this 

comment as being off-topic and outside 

of the scope of today’s final rulemaking. 

III. Final Action 

As described above, EPA is approving 

in part, and disapproving in part, the 

SIP submission from Florida to 

incorporate provisions into the State’s 

implementation plan to address prong 3 

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

both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is 

approving the State’s prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions as they 

relate to the ‘‘Phase II Rule,’’ the ‘‘NSR 

PM2.5 Rule,’’ and the ‘‘PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it 

relates to PM2.5 increments)’’ because 

they are consistent with section 110 of 

the CAA. EPA also is disapproving 

Florida’s submissions for the portion of 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 3 

requirements related to the regulation of 

GHG emissions for both the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA notes that on September 19, 

2012, the Agency approved the 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC) portion of the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the SIPs 

for Florida. See 77 FR 58027. Since that 

time, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 

10–1413, 2013 WL 216018 (Jan. 22, 

2013), issued a judgment that, inter alia, 

vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5

SMC to the federal regulations, at 40 

CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated 

as part of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In its 

decision, the court held that EPA did 

not have the authority to use SMCs to 

exempt permit applicants from the 

statutory requirement in section 

165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient 

monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in 

all PSD permit applications. Thus, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3 In lieu of the applicants’ need to set out PM2.5

monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may 

submit PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing 

monitoring networks when the permitting authority 

deems such data to be representative of the air 

quality in the area of concern for the year preceding 

receipt of the application. EPA believes that 

applicants will generally be able to rely on existing 

representative monitoring data to satisfy the 

monitoring data requirement. 

although the PM2.5 SMC was not a 

required element of a State’s PSD 

program and thus not a structural 

requirement for purposes of 

infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved 

PSD program that contains such a 

provision to use that provision to issue 

new permits without requiring ambient 

PM2.5 monitoring data, such application 

of the SIP would be inconsistent with 

the court’s opinion and the 

requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the 

CAA. 

Given the clarity of the court’s 

decision, it would now be inappropriate 

for Florida to continue to allow 

applicants for any pending or future 

PSD permits to rely on the PM2.5 SMC 

in order to avoid compiling ambient 

monitoring data for PM2.5. Because of 

the vacatur of EPA regulations, the SMC 

provisions, included in Florida’s SIPapproved PSD programs on the basis of 

EPA’s regulations are unlawful and no 

longer enforceable by law. Permits 

issued on the basis of these provisions 

as they appear in the approved SIP 

would be inconsistent with the CAA 

and difficult to defend in administrative 

and judicial challenges. Thus, the SIP 

provisions may not be applied even 

prior to their removal from the SIP. 

Florida should instead require 

applicants requesting a PSD permit, 

including those having already been 

applied for but for which the permit has 

not yet been received, to submit ambient 

PM2.5 monitoring data in accordance 

with the CAA requirements whenever 

either direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5

precursor is emitted in a significant 

amount.3 As the previously-approved 

PM2.5 SMC provisions in the Florida SIP 

are no longer enforceable, EPA does not 

believe the existence of the provisions 

in the State’s implementation plan 

precludes today’s approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions as they 

relate to prong 3 of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking 

to correct SIPs that were approved with 

regard to the PM2.5 SMC prior to the 

court’s decision. EPA also advises 

Florida to begin preparations to remove 

the PM2.5 provisions from its state PSD 

regulations and SIP. However, EPA has 

not yet set a deadline requiring states to 

take action to revise their existing PSD 

programs to address the court’s 

decision. 

EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 

08–1250, 2013 WL 45653 (D.C. Cir., 

filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated with 

09–1102, 11–1430), issued a judgment 

that remanded EPA’s 2007 and 2008 

rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The court ordered EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’ 

Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of 

the CAA establishes additional 

provisions for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 rule 

that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. 

Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the 

need to revise any PSD requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to 

comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s actions for the 

Florida infrastructure SIPs as related to 

element (D)(i)(II) with respect to the 

PSD requirements promulgated by the 

2008 implementation rule does not 

conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the 

Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due 3 years after adoption 

or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these 

elements are typically referred to as 

nonattainment SIP or attainment plan 

elements, which would be due by the 

dates statutorily prescribed under 

subpart 2 through 5 under part D, 

extending as far as 10 years following 

designations for some elements. 

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 approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian 

country, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20001 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 June 3, 2013. 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 26, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register notice Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

4/18/2008 4/3/2013 [Insert citation of publication] ......... EPA disapproved the State’s prong 

3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it 

relates to GHG PSD permitting 

requirements. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

9/23/2009 4/3/2013 [Insert citation of publication] ......... EPA disapproved the State’s prong 

3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it 

relates to GHG PSD permitting 

requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07654 Filed 4–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket No.: EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0017; 

FRL–9796–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Sandpoint PM10 Nonattainment Area 

Limited Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving in part 

and disapproving in part the Limited 

Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by 

the State of Idaho on December 14, 

2011, for the Sandpoint nonattainment 

area (Sandpoint NAA) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to a nominal 10 

micrometers (PM10), and approving the 

State’s request to redesignate this area to 

attainment for the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The EPA is disapproving a 

separable part of the Sandpoint NAA 

LMP that does not meet LMP eligibility 

criteria or applicable requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The part 

of the Sandpoint NAA LMP that the 

EPA is approving complies with 

applicable requirements and meets the 

requirements of the CAA for full 

approval. The EPA is also approving the 

State’s redesignation request because it 

meets CAA requirements for 

redesignation. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2012–0017. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information the 

disclosure of which 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA 

requests that 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: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES