42682 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

information which the state is required 

to submit to the EPA. States are required 

to allow the EPA to routinely review 

state records, reports, and files relevant 

to the administration and enforcement 

of the approved program. See also 40 

CFR 123.41, 40 CFR 123.43. Because 

these two provisions are part of the 

NPDES program, the EPA believes, at 

this time, NPDES authorized states have 

basic information from the permit 

application for at least those CAFOs 

with NPDES permit coverage, and that 

states will share that information with 

the EPA. In states where the EPA 

administers the NPDES program for 

CAFOs, the EPA has information for 

CAFOs with NPDES permit coverage 

from permit applications or notices of 

intent. 

The EPA believes an efficient 

approach that does not duplicate efforts 

is the appropriate next step to collecting 

CAFO information. Thus, the EPA 

believes that before determining 

whether to issue a rule requiring CAFOs 

to submit information, the Agency 

should obtain existing information from 

federal agencies, states, local partners, 

and other resources that already collect 

data. This decision also recognizes that 

many CAFOs have provided their 

information to some governmental 

entity, although perhaps not to the EPA. 

While the EPA may not be the entity 

that received the information initially, it 

is reasonable at this time for the EPA to 

work with its federal, state, and local 

partners to obtain existing information 

rather than asking CAFOs to re-submit 

information that they have already 

submitted to another governmental 

entity. Collecting existing information, 

evaluating it, and compiling it in one 

format will better inform the Agency of 

what additional information may be 

needed and the best way to collect that 

information, if necessary. 

Continued implementation of the 

permitting program for CAFOs likely 

will result in improvements in data 

tracking and availability and analysis of 

CAFO information. For example, some 

states with established programs have 

comprehensive data on CAFOs. The 

EPA described existing data sources in 

the proposed CAFO Reporting Rule, of 

which state permitting authorities are 

just one source. In addition to working 

with the state permitting authorities to 

exchange information mainly on CAFOs 

with NPDES permit coverage, the EPA 

may need to use other existing sources 

of data to obtain information about 

CAFOs without NPDES permit coverage. 

The EPA acknowledges some states will 

have information about CAFOs without 

NPDES permit coverage through other 

state programs, such as state operating 

permits. To fill in information gaps, the 

Agency may use existing tools, such as 

site visits and individual information 

collection requests. 

At this time, the EPA has concluded 

that working with USDA and states, 

who maintain direct relationships with 

CAFO owners or operators is an 

effective approach to obtaining CAFO 

information that will minimize the 

burden on states and CAFOs. 

VI. Impact Analysis 

Because the EPA is not promulgating 

a regulatory reporting requirement, 

there are no compliance costs or 

impacts associated with today’s final 

action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Today’s action does not establish new 

regulatory requirements. Hence, the 

requirements of other regulatory statutes 

and Executive Orders that generally 

apply to rulemakings (e.g., the 

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not 

apply to this action. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 122 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Hazardous substances, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water pollution control. 

Dated: July 13, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17772 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0343; FRL–9701–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Alabama; 

Disapproval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

Infrastructure Requirement for the 

1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

submitted by the State of Alabama, 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on July 25, 2008, and on September 23, 

2009, to demonstrate that the State 

meets requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(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 EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that requires the State to 

comply with section 128 of the CAA. 

EPA is taking a separate action to 

address all the other infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0343 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–2012–0343, 

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: Ms. 

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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0343.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42683 

1Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and September 23, 

2009, submissions explained that Alabama’s current 

SIP sufficiently addresses requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, however, today’s proposed action 

only relates to the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is addressing the other section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in relation to 

Alabama’s SIP in rulemaking separate from today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in 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: This 

section provides additional information 

by addressing the following questions: 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

rulemaking? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

submission for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s rulemaking? 

On July 25, 2008, and on September 

23, 2009, the State of Alabama, through 

ADEM, provided submissions to EPA 

certifying that the Alabama SIP meets 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) of the CAA for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.1

Specifically, Alabama certified that its 

current SIP adequately addresses the 

elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that states 

comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act. In today’s action, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and 

September 23, 2009, submissions 

related to the requirements respecting 

state boards for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that these submissions do 

not meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for this 

NAAQS. EPA’s rationale for this 

proposed disapproval is provided in the 

Section III of this rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, no 

later than October 2009 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 

10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice which required 

EPA, among other things, to complete a 

Federal Register notice announcing 

EPA’s determinations pursuant to 

section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each 

state had made complete submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

October 5, 2008. In accordance with the 

consent decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 

2008. 

On October 22, 2008, EPA published 

a final rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans 

Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS’’ making a finding that 

each state had submitted or failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 73 FR 62902). 

For those states that did receive 

findings, the findings of failure to 

submit for all or a portion of a state’s 

implementation plan established a 24- 

month deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a federal implementation plan (FIP) to 

address the outstanding SIP elements 

unless, prior to that time, the affected 

states submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. The findings that all or 

portions of a state’s submission are 

complete established a 12-month 

deadline for EPA to take action upon the 

complete SIP elements in accordance 

with section 110(k). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42684 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Alabama’s infrastructure submissions 

were received by EPA on July 25, 2008, 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

on September 23, 2009, for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions 

were determined to be complete on 

January 25, 2009, and March 23, 2010, 

respectively. Alabama was among other 

states that did not receive findings of 

failure to submit because it had 

provided a complete submission to EPA 

to address the infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 

3, 2008. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint related to EPA’s failure to 

take action on the SIP revision related 

to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a 

consent decree with WildEarth 

Guardians and Sierra Club which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice of 

the Agency’s final action either 

approving, disapproving, or approving 

in part and disapproving in part the 

Alabama 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure SIP revision addressing 

the applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(H), (J)–(M), except for 

section 110(a)(2)(C), the nonattainment 

area requirements and section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), interstate transport 

requirements, by September 30, 2012. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

disapprove the portion of Alabama’s 

July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, 

submissions which was intended to 

meet the requirement to address subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s submission for section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On July 25, 2008, and on September 

23, 2009, the State of Alabama, through 

ADEM, provided letters to EPA 

certifying that Alabama’s SIP meets the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, for sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) Alabama’s July 25, 2008, 

submission states that ‘‘Requirements 

dictating the roles of local or regional 

governments (local programs) are 

derived from Ala Code § 22–28–11 

(2006 Rplc.Vol), as amended * * *’’ 

and the September 23, 2009, submission 

states that ‘‘This requirement is met 

through Ala Code § 22–22A–6(j) which 

ensures that the state comply with 

section 128 of the CAA.’’ 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

each implementation plan provide that 

states comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act. Section 128 

requires that: (1) The majority of 

members of the state board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders represent the public interest and 

do not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permitting or enforcement orders under 

the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts 

of interest by such board or body, or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

After reviewing Alabama’s SIP, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that the State’s implementation plan 

does not contain provisions to comply 

with section 128 of the Act, and thus 

Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and on 

September 23, 2009, submissions do not 

meet the requirements of the Act. While 

Alabama has state statutes that may 

address, in whole or part, requirements 

related to state boards at the state level, 

these provisions are not included in the 

SIP as required by the CAA. 

Based on an evaluation of the 

federally-approved Alabama SIP, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Alabama’s 

certification that its SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the 

CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submitted 

provisions which purport to address 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) are severable from the 

other infrastructure elements. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove those 

provisions which relate only to subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

portion of Alabama’s July 25, 2008, and 

September 23, 2009, submissions, 

relating to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). This 

proposed disapproval is based on EPA’s 

preliminary determination that 

Alabama’s SIP does not satisfy these 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because 

provisions required by section 128 of 

the CAA are not approved in the 

Alabama SIP. Today’s proposed action 

only relates to the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is addressing the other 

section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for Alabama’s SIP in a 

rulemaking separate from today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

call) starts a sanctions clock. Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the 

provisions being proposed for 

disapproval in today’s notice) were not 

submitted to meet requirements for Part 

D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA 

takes final action to disapprove this 

submittal, no sanctions will be 

triggered. However, if this disapproval 

action is finalized, that final action will 

trigger 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 EPA approves the plan 

or plan revision before EPA promulgates 

such FIP. 

V. 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 

proposed SIP disapproval under section 

110 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 42685 

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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed 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 proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 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 proposed 

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 proposes to 

disapprove 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 proposing 

to disapprove 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 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 proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 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 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42686 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 12, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17768 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0140; FRL–9702–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; the 2002 Base Year 

Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 2002 

base year emissions inventory portion of 

the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Maryland, through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE), 

on April 3, 2008. The emissions 

inventory is part of the Maryland April 

3, 2008 SIP revision that was submitted 

to meet nonattainment requirements 

related to Maryland’s portion of the 

Washington DC-MD-VA nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as Maryland 

Area or Area) for the 1997 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) SIP. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2002 base year PM2.5

emissions inventory in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0140 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0140, 

Donna Mastro, Acting Associate 

Director, Office of Air Program 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0140. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by 

email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), 

EPA established the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, including an annual standard 

of 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 

mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 

98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. EPA established the 

standards based on significant evidence 

and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to PM2.5. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state airquality agencies initiated the monitoring 

process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and, 

by January 2001, established a complete 

set of air-quality monitors. On January 

5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial airquality designations for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS (70 FR 944), which became 

effective on April 5, 2005, based on airquality monitoring data for calendar 

years 2001–03. 

On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated 

a supplemental rule amending the 

agency’s initial designations (70 FR 

19844), with the same effective date 

(April 5, 2005) at 70 FR 944. As a result 

of this supplemental rule, PM2.5

nonattainment designations are in effect 

for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties 

within 20 states (and the District of 

Columbia) nationwide, with a combined 

population of approximately 88 million. 

The Maryland Area which is the subject 

of this rulemaking was included in the 

list of areas not attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The Maryland Area consists of 

the following counties in Maryland: 

Charles, Frederick, Montgomery and 

Prince Georges. 

On January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146), 

EPA determined that Maryland had 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Maryland Area. That determination was 

based upon quality assured, quality 

controlled and certified ambient air 

monitoring data that showed the Area 

had monitored attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2004–2006 

monitoring period and that continued to 

show attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS based on 2005–2007 data. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS