Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12267 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0961; FRL–9782–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham and 

Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a limited maintenance plan update 

submitted by the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, on August 2, 2012. The 

limited maintenance plan update is for 

the Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham and 

Winston-Salem carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance areas. Specifically, the 

State submitted a limited maintenance 

plan update for CO, showing continued 

attainment of the 8-hour CO National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham and 

Winston-Salem Areas. The 8-hour CO 

NAAQS is 9 parts per million. EPA is 

proposing to approve the limited 

maintenance plan update because the 

State has demonstrated that it is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s policy for limited maintenance 

plans. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0961, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0961, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong, 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) 562–8726. 

Mr. Wong can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: February 11, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04012 Filed 2–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0094; FRL–9783–2] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan; California; Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District and Feather 

River Air Quality Management District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

permitting rules submitted by California 

as a revision to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and 

Feather River Air Quality Management 

District (FRAQMD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These rules were adopted by the 

PCAPCD and FRAQMD to regulate the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources of air pollution 

within each District. EPA is proposing 

to approve these SIP revisions based on 

the Agency’s conclusion that the rules 

are consistent with applicable Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements, policies and 

guidance. Final approval of these rules 

would make the rules federally 

enforceable and correct program 

deficiencies identified in a previous 

EPA rulemaking (76 FR 44809, July 27, 

2011). 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0094, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. http://

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2013–0094. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http://


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
12268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 In our previous action, we stated that Rule 502, 

New Source Review would replace existing SIP 

approved Rule 508, New Source Review. However, 

in our final action, we did not include the proper 

regulatory text to remove Rule 508 from the SIP. As 

part of this action, we will include the necessary 

regulatory text to remove Rule 508 from the SIP, 

since it has already been replaced by Rule 502. 

2 VOCs and NOX are subject to NSR as precursors 

to ozone, and NOX and SOX are subject to NSR as 

precursors to PM2.5 in both Districts. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C). 

3Section 110(l) of the CAA requires SIP revisions 

to be subject to reasonable notice and public 

hearing prior to adoption and submittal by states to 

EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 

revision that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3534, yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Proposed action and request for public 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the dates they 

were adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ........................................................ 502 New Source Review ...................................... 10/31/11 11/18/11 

FRAQMD ........................................................ 10 .1 New Source Review ...................................... 2/7/12 9/21/12 

CARB’s SIP submittal includes 

evidence of public notice and adoption 

of these regulations. We find that the 

submittals for PCAPCD and FRAQMD 

Rules 502 and 10.1, respectively, meet 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

EPA approved a previous version of 

Rules 502 and 10.1, into the SIP on July 

27, 2011 (76 FR 44809).1

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP include, among other 

things, a preconstruction permit 

program to provide for regulation of the 

construction and modification of 

stationary sources within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D of title I of the 

CAA. For areas designated as 

nonattainment for one or more NAAQS, 

the SIP must include preconstruction 

permit requirements for new or 

modified major stationary sources of 

such nonattainment pollutant(s), 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘Nonattainment New Source Review’’ 

or ‘‘NSR.’’ CAA 172(c)(5). 

The Sacramento Valley Air Basin and 

Mountain Counties Air Basin portions 

of Placer County are currently 

designated and classified as severe 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The Sacramento 

Valley Air Basin portion of Placer 

County is currently designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. 

The FRAQMD contains all or parts of 

the Sacramento Valley (Sutter County 

portion), the Yuba City-Marysville (all 

of Sutter County and a portion of Yuba 

County) and the Sutter Buttes (Sutter 

County portion) Air Basins. The 

Sacramento Valley portion is currently 

designated and classified as severe 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and designated 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Sutter Buttes 

portion is currently designated and 

classified as moderate nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Yuba CityMarysville portion is currently 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

81.305. 

Therefore, California is required 

under part D of title I of the Act to adopt 

and implement a SIP-approved NSR 

program for the nonattainment portions 

of each District that applies, at a 

minimum, to new or modified major 

stationary sources of the following 

pollutants: volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

particular matter of 2.5 microns or less 

(PM2.5) and sulfur oxides (SOX).2

Rule 502 (New Source Review) and 

Rule 10.1 (New Source Review) 

implement the NSR requirements under 

part D of title I of the CAA for new or 

modified major stationary sources of 

these nonattainment pollutants within 

each District. The PCAPCD and 

FRAQMD amended Rules 502 and 10.1, 

respectively, to correct program 

deficiencies identified by EPA on July 

27, 2011 (76 FR 44809). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

permitting rules for compliance with the 

CAA’s general requirements for SIPs in 

CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA’s 

regulations for stationary source permit 

programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I 

(‘‘Review of New Sources and 

Modifications’’), and the CAA 

requirements for SIP revisions in CAA 

section 110(l).3 As explained below, 

EPA is proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval for each of the 

submitted rules. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

With respect to procedures, CAA 

sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that 

revisions to a SIP be adopted by the 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices, by prominent advertisement 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 12269 

in the relevant geographic area, of a 

public hearing on the proposed 

revisions, a public comment period of at 

least 30 days, and an opportunity for a 

public hearing. 

Based on our review of the public 

process documentation included in the 

PCAPCD’s November 18, 2011 and 

FRAQMD’s September 21, 2012 rule 

submittals, we find that the State has 

provided sufficient evidence of public 

notice and opportunity for comment 

and public hearings prior to adoption 

and submittal of these rules to EPA. 

With respect to substantive 

requirements, EPA has reviewed the 

submitted rules in accordance with the 

CAA and regulatory requirements that 

apply to NSR permit programs under 

part D of title I of the Act. Based on our 

evaluation of these rules, except for the 

deficiencies noted in the TSDs and 

summarized in the Proposed Action 

section of this notice, we are proposing 

to find that the rules meet the CAA and 

regulatory requirements for NSR permit 

programs in part D of title I of the Act 

and EPA’s NSR implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR section 51.165 for 

new or modified major stationary 

sources proposing to locate within each 

District. Final approval of Rule 502 and 

Rule 10.1 would correct all deficiencies 

in PCAPCD’s and FRAQMD’s permit 

programs identified in our July 27, 2011 

final rule. See 76 FR 44809. The 

Technical Support Documents (TSD) for 

this action contains a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation. 

C. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

For the reasons given above, under 

CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we 

are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Rule 502 and 

Rule 10.1 because, although each rule 

would strengthen the SIP and they meet 

the applicable requirements for SIPs in 

general, they contain certain 

deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in 

particular that prevent our full approval. 

The primary deficiencies for Rule 502 

pertain to an inadequate definition of 

the term ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ and 

a missing justification for the stated 

PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios. The 

primary deficiencies for Rule 10.1 

pertain to an inadequate definition of 

the term ‘‘Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ and 

certain language in new Sections B.4 

and B.5 which exempts pollutants 

which are designated nonattainment 

when EPA approves a redesignation to 

attainment for that pollutant. As 

worded, the provision is too broad, in 

that it exempts such pollutants from all 

the requirements of Section E of the 

rule, rather than just those provisions 

which apply to major sources of 

nonattainment pollutants. Please refer to 

the TSD for this action for additional 

information. The deficiencies can be 

remedied by each District by revising 

their rule to update the definition of 

‘‘Regulated Air Pollutant’’ and 

correcting the rule language cited above. 

If EPA finalizes the limited approval 

and limited disapproval action, as 

proposed, then a sanctions clock, and 

EPA’s obligation to promulgate a 

Federal implementation plan, would be 

triggered because the revisions to the 

District rule for which a limited 

approval and limited disapproval is 

proposed is required under the 8-hour 

ozone standard and 24-hr PM2.5

standard. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 12, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04000 Filed 2–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–193] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Updates and Corrections to 

TelcoMaster Table for Connect 

America Cost Model 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau seeks 

comment to confirm the attribution of 

price cap carrier operating company 

wire centers to particular holding 

companies for purposes of Connect 

America Phase II implementation. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 14, 2013. If you anticipate that 

you will be submitting comments, but 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1