Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 76867 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action 

have been examined, and it has been 

determined to be a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

given year. This rule will have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this interim final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This 

interim final rule will temporarily freeze 

the copayments that certain veterans are 

required to pay for prescription drugs 

furnished by VA. The interim final rule 

affects individuals and has no impact on 

any small entities. Therefore, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is 

exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program number and title for 

this rule are as follows: 64.005, Grants 

to States for Construction of State Home 

Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation 

Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary 

Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care 

Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing 

Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental 

Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription 

Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic 

Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State 

Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State 

Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans 

State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing 

Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, 

Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and 

Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans 

Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, 

VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per 

Diem Program. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on December 7, 2012, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant 

programs-veterans, Health care, Health 

facilities, Health professions, Health 

records, Homeless, Medical and dental 

schools, Medical devices, Medical 

research, Mental health programs, 

Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Scholarships and fellowships, Travel 

and transportation expenses, Veterans. 

Approved: December 7, 2012. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as 

follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), and as noted 

in specific sections. 

§ 17.110 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.110 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2), 

remove ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ each place 

it appears and add, in each place, 

‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(b)(1)(iv), remove ‘‘December 31, 2011’’ 

each place it appears and add, in each 

place, ‘‘December 31, 2013’’. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31432 Filed 12–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0504; 

FRL–9763–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; 

Determination of Attainment of the 

2006 Fine Particle Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is determining that the 

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY–NJ–CT fine particle (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

determination of attainment will 

suspend the requirements for the New 

York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY– 

NJ–CT PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, reasonable further progress, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning state implementation plans 

(SIPs) related to attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as the 

area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0504. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region II, 290 

Broadway, New York, New York 10007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gavin Lau, (212) 637–3708, or by email 

at lau.gavin@epa.gov if you have 

questions related to New York or New 

Jersey. If you have questions related to 

Connecticut, please contact Alison C. 


ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
76868 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

does not itself expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5

standard, the statutory interpretation that it 

embodies is identical and is applicable to both the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

2This discussion refers to subpart 1 because 

subpart 1 contains the requirements relating to 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Simcox, (617) 918–1684, or by email at 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What action Is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s action? 

III. What comments did EPA receive on its 

proposal and what is EPA’s response? 

IV. What Is the effect of this action? 

V. What is EPA’s final action? 

VI. Statutory and executive order reviews 

I. What action Is EPA taking? 

EPA is determining that the New 

York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJCT fine particle (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

referred to from this point forward as 

the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. This determination is based 

upon quality-assured, quality-controlled 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the 2007–2009, 2008–2010, 

and 2009–2011 monitoring periods. 

Specific details regarding the 

determination and the rationale for 

EPA’s action are explained in the 

proposed rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on August 30, 

2012 (77 FR 52626). 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

action? 

EPA’s determination is being made in 

accordance with its longstanding 

interpretation under the Clean Data 

Policy, and with previously issued rules 

and determinations of attainment. A 

brief description of the Clean Data 

Policy with respect to the 2006 PM2.5

standard is set forth below. In addition, 

the docket for this rulemaking includes 

documentation providing more detail 

regarding the application of EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy to determinations of 

attainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5

Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5

standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007). 

In March, 2012, EPA published 

implementation guidance for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Final Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (March 2, 2012). In that 

guidance, EPA stated its view ‘‘that the 

overall framework and policy approach 

of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

continues to provide effective and 

appropriate guidance on the EPA’s 

interpretation of the general statutory 

requirements that states should address 

in their SIPs. In general, the EPA 

believes that the interpretations of the 

statute in the framework of the 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant 

to the statutory requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * * *’’ Id., 

page 1. With respect to the statutory 

provisions applicable to 2006 PM2.5

implementation, the guidance 

emphasized that ‘‘EPA outlined its 

interpretation of many of these 

provisions in the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule. In addition to 

regulatory provisions, the EPA provided 

substantial general guidance for 

attainment plans for PM2.5 in the 

preamble to the final the [sic] 2007 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule.’’ Id., page 2. 

In keeping with the principles set forth 

in the guidance, and with respect to the 

effect of a determination of attainment 

for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA is 

applying the same interpretation here 

with respect to the implications of clean 

data determinations that it set forth in 

the preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

and in the regulation that embodies this 

interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).1 EPA 

has long applied this interpretation in 

regulations and individual rulemakings 

for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards, the PM–10 standard, 

and the lead standard. 

In 1995, based on the interpretation of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 171 and 

172, and section 182 in the General 

Preamble, EPA set forth what has 

become known as its ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy’’ for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, ‘‘Reasonable Further 

Progress, Attainment Demonstration, 

and Related Requirements for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA 

indicated its intention to extend the 

Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See Memorandum from Steve Page, 

Director, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ 

(December 14, 2004). 

The Clean Data Policy represents 

EPA’s interpretation that certain 

requirements of subpart 1 of part D of 

the Act are by their terms not applicable 

to areas that are currently attaining the 

NAAQS.2 The specific requirements 

that are inapplicable to an area attaining 

the standard are the requirements to 

submit a SIP that provides for: 

attainment of the NAAQS; 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures; reasonable 

further progress (RFP); and 

implementation of contingency 

measures for failure to meet deadlines 

for RFP and attainment. 

It is important to note that the 

obligation of a State with respect to an 

area which attains the 2006 PM2.5

standard based on three years of data, to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and related planning submissions is 

suspended only for so long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. If EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking, that the area 

has violated the NAAQS, the 

requirements for the State to submit a 

SIP to meet the previously suspended 

requirements would be reinstated. It is 

likewise important to note that the area 

remains designated nonattainment 

pending a further redesignation action. 

III. What comments did EPA receive on 

its proposal and what is EPA’s 

response? 

EPA received one adverse comment 

on the proposal, from a pseudonymous 

commenter. A summary of the comment 

submitted and EPA’s response is 

provided below. 

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

the determination of attainment for the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

inappropriate due to particulate matter 

released from burning and allegedly 

inadequate air quality monitoring. The 

commenter also questioned the 

interaction between the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

and EPA. 

Response: In this rulemaking, EPA is 

making the determination that the NYNJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area has 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

finalizing its determination only after 

conducting notice and comment 

rulemaking, through a transparent 

process in which the information on 

which the determination is based has 

been made available in the docket and 

also placed in the Technical Support 

Document for this rulemaking. EPA’s 

determination of attainment is based on 

quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data. 

These data establish that, for 2007– 

2009, 2008–2010, and 2009–2011 the 

NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area 


ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 76869 

3PM2.5 Design Values can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 4The monitor located in Nassau County had 

incomplete data for 2007 which led to inability to 

calculate design values for the period of 2007–2009. 

The monitor did not show previous violations and 

therefore it was deemed that determining the design 

values though alternative procedures was not 

necessary. 

5The monitor in New York County located at 

Public School 59 was the highest reading monitor 

in the County at the time EPA made designations 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Midway through 2008, 

the monitor at PS 59 was shut down due to the 

demolition of the building site. Since missing 2008 

data affected calculation of the design value for the 

24-hour standard, EPA used an alternative 

procedure to determine the design value for the 24- 

hour standard. Detailed information on this 

alternative procedure can be found in the Technical 

Support Document for this rulemaking. 6 Design Value was calculated using the 

alternative procedure described in the Technical 

Support Document for this rulemaking. 7The air monitor at the Newark Willis Center 

station in Essex County was discontinued on July 

24, 2008 due to an unexpected loss of access, and 

replaced with a new monitor at the Newark 

Firehouse. PM2.5 monitoring was established at the 

firehouse on May 13, 2009. EPA used an alternative 

procedure to determine the design value for the 24- 

hour standard for 2007–2009 and 2008–2010. The 

monitor did not show any violations in 2009 and 

2010, therefore it was deemed that determining the 

design value for 2009–2011 through alternative 

procedures was not necessary. For 2009 and 2010, 

the 98th percentile value for the new monitor was 

24 mg/m3. Detailed information on this alternative 

procedure can be found in the Technical Support 

Document for this rulemaking. 

meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Air monitoring data available for 2012 

also indicate that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area is continuing to 

meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Contrary to the commenter’s contention, 

the air monitoring networks for 

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York 

are adequate, and meet the requirements 

for monitoring as specified in 40 CFR 

Part 58. EPA meets annually with the 

states to determine the adequateness of 

the monitoring networks. Air 

monitoring network approval letters are 

included in the Technical Support 

Document and docket for the proposed 

rule. In conclusion, the determination of 

attainment is being made based on 

quality-assured air quality data from 

approved monitoring networks. The 

suspension of requirements for this area 

to submit attainment-related planning 

SIP submission requirements lasts only 

as long as the area continues to meet 

that standard. No other requirements are 

suspended and no control measures in 

the SIP are being relaxed. This action 

does not change the implementation of 

control measures, or air quality, in the 

area. 

Table 1 shows the design values by 

county (i.e., the 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the NY–NJ–CT PM2.5

nonattainment area monitors for the 

years 2007 through 2011 based on 

complete (except where otherwise 

noted), quality-assured and certified air 

quality monitoring data. As shown in 

Table 1, none of the design values for 

the periods of 2007–2009, 2008–2010, 

and 2009–2011 in the NY–NJ–CT PM2.5

nonattainment area exceeds the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES 3 BY COUNTY FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS FOR THE NY–NJ–CT MONITORS IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (μG/M 3). THE STANDARD FOR THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS IS 35.0 μG/M 3

County 

2007–2009 

PM2.5 Design 

Values 

2008–2010 

PM2.5 Design 

Values 

2009–2011 

PM2.5 Design 

Values 

New York 

Bronx ................................................................................................................................ 33 29 28 

Kings ................................................................................................................................ 30 27 25 

Nassau 4 ........................................................................................................................... INC 25 23 

New York 5 ....................................................................................................................... 6 33 6 31 28 

Orange ............................................................................................................................. 26 24 23 

Queens ............................................................................................................................ 30 28 26 

Richmond ......................................................................................................................... 29 26 24 

Rockland .......................................................................................................................... NM NM NM 

Suffolk .............................................................................................................................. 26 25 23 

Westchester ..................................................................................................................... 29 28 25 

NJ 

Bergen ............................................................................................................................. 31 28 25 

Essex 7 ............................................................................................................................. 6 30 6 26 INC 

Hudson ............................................................................................................................. 32 29 28 

Mercer .............................................................................................................................. 29 27 26 

Middlesex ......................................................................................................................... 27 23 20 

Monmouth ........................................................................................................................ NM NM NM 

Morris ............................................................................................................................... 26 23 23 

Passaic ............................................................................................................................ 30 INC 25 

Somerset .......................................................................................................................... NM NM NM 

Union ................................................................................................................................ 6 32 30 30 

Connecticut 

Fairfield ............................................................................................................................ 31 28 26 

New Haven ...................................................................................................................... 31 29 28 

NM—No monitor located in county. 

INC—Counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period. 


ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
76870 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. What is the effect of this action? 

This final action, in accordance with 

the Clean Data Policy, which is reflected 

in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the 

requirements for the States of 

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, RFP, contingency measures, 

and other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area for so long as the 

area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

This action does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because 

the area does not have an approved 

maintenance plan as required under 

section 175A of the CAA. Nor is it a 

determination that the area has met the 

other requirements for redesignation. 

The designation status of the area 

remains nonattainment for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that the area, and/or a 

State portion thereof, meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment. 

V. What is EPA’s final action? 

EPA is determining that the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

determination is based upon qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that show that the area has monitored 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the 2007–2009 and 2008– 

2010 and 2009–2011 monitoring 

periods. Preliminary air monitoring data 

available for 2012 are consistent with 

the determination that the NY-NJ-CT 

PM2.5 nonattainment area is continuing 

to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This final action, in accordance with the 

Clean Data Policy, suspends the 

requirements for the States of New York, 

New Jersey and Connecticut to submit, 

for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, RFP, contingency measures, 

and other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the area for so long as the 

area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA 

subsequently determines, after noticeand-comment rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, that the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area has violated the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis 

for the suspension of the specific 

requirements would no longer exist for 

the area, and the affected States would 

thereafter have to address the applicable 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

EPA finds there is good cause for this 

action to become effective immediately 

upon publication. A delayed effective 

date is unnecessary due to the nature of 

a determination of attainment, which 

suspends the obligation to submit 

certain attainment-related CAA 

planning requirements that would 

otherwise apply. The immediate 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

The purpose of the 30-day waiting 

period prescribed in section 553(d) is to 

give affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the affected 

States of the obligation to submit certain 

attainment-related planning 

requirements for this PM2.5

nonattainment area. For these reasons, 

EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) for this action to become 

effective on the date of publication of 

this notice. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action makes an attainment 

determination based on air quality and 

results in the suspension of certain 

Federal requirements, and it does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

For these reasons, 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 

located in the state, 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 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 1, 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, 


ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 76871 

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, Particulate matter. 

Dated: November 28, 2012. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region II. 

Dated: December 11, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, Region I. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.379 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 52.379 Control strategy: PM2.5. 

* * * * * 

(g) Determination of Attainment. EPA 

has determined, as of December 31, 

2012, that the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained 

the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. This determination 

suspends the requirements for this area 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, a reasonable further progress 

plan, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Subpart FF—New Jersey 

■ 3. Section 52.1602 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1602 Control strategy and 

regulations: PM2.5. 

* * * * * 

(e) Determination of Attainment. EPA 

has determined, as of December 31, 

2012, that the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained 

the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. This determination 

suspends the requirements for this area 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control 

measures, a reasonable further progress 

plan, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Subpart HH—New York 

■ 4. Section 52.1678 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1678 Control strategy and 

regulations: Particulate matter. 

* * * * * 

■ (f) Determination of Attainment. EPA 

has determined, as of December 31, 

2012, that the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area has attained 

the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. This determination 

suspends the requirements for this area 

to submit an attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably control available 

measures, a reasonable further progress 

plan, contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31214 Filed 12–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770, FRL–9734–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

May 25, 2011 that addresses regional 

haze. Colorado submitted this SIP 

revision to meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) and 

our rules that require states to prevent 

any future and remedy any existing 

man-made impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). EPA is taking 

this action pursuant to section 110 of 

the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically 

through www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if, at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Lawsuits 

C. Our Proposal 

D. Public Participation 

II. Final Action 

III. Basis for Our Final Action 

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s 

Response 

A. NOX BART for Tri-State Craig Unit 1 

and Unit 2 

B. NOX BART Determination for Martin 

Drake Units 5, 6, and 7 

C. BART Determination for Colorado 

Energy Nations (CENC) Unit 4 and Unit 

5 

D. NOX BART Determination for Cemex 

Lyons Kiln 

E. NOX BART Determination for Comanche 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 

F. NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

for Craig Unit 3 

G. NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

for Nucla 

H. Reasonable Progress for Rio Grande 

Cement Company (GCC) 

I. Legal Issues 

1. Public Service Company of Colorado 

(PSCO) BART Alternative 

2. Timing of Implementation 

3. Compliance With Section 110(l) 

J. Comments Generally in Favor of Our 

Proposal 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 


ebenthall on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with