43018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

analyses. Afterwards, the Department 

will publish either a determination that 

the standards for commercial and 

industrial electric motors need not be 

amended or a NOPR proposing to 

amend those standards. Any NOPR will 

include proposed energy conservation 

standards for the equipment covered by 

this rulemaking, and interested parties 

will be given an opportunity to submit 

written and oral comments on the 

proposed standards. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17878 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1926 

[Docket No. OSHA–2011–0184] 

RIN 1218–AC65 

Updating OSHA Construction 

Standards Based on National 

Consensus Standards; Head 

Protection; Correction of Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is correcting a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with 

regard to the construction industry head 

protection standards to eliminate 

confusion resulting from a drafting 

error. OSHA published the NPRM on 

June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37617). OSHA also 

is publishing a correction to the direct 

final rule that it published the same day 

in the Federal Register (77 FR 37587). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press 

inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, 

OSHA Office of Communications, Room 

N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999; 

email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

Technical inquiries: Contact Kenneth 

Stevanus, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–2260; fax: (202) 

693–1663; email: stevanus.ken@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA is 

making the following correction in FR 

document number 2012–15031, 

appearing on page 37630 in the Federal 

Register of Friday, June 22, 2012: 

§ 1926.100 [Corrected] 

On page 37630, correct instruction 

number 16, to read as follows: 

16. Amend § 1926.100 as follows: 

a. Remove paragraph (c). 

b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

1926.100 Head protection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Criteria for head protection. (1) 

The employer must provide each 

employee with head protection that 

meets the specifications contained in 

any of the following consensus 

standards: 

(i) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2009, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1926.6; 

(ii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–2003, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Industrial Head 

Protection,’’ incorporated by reference 

in § 1926.6; or 

(iii) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z89.1–1997, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Personnel 

Protection—Protective Headwear for 

Industrial Workers—Requirements,’’ 

incorporated by reference in § 1926.6. 

(2) The employer must ensure that the 

head protection provided for each 

employee exposed to high-voltage 

electric shock and burns also meets the 

specifications contained in Section 9.7 

(‘‘Electrical Insulation’’) of any of the 

consensus standards identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(3) OSHA will deem any head 

protection device that the employer 

demonstrates is at least as effective as a 

head protection device constructed in 

accordance with one of the consensus 

standards identified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section to be in compliance with 

the requirements of this section. 

Signed at Washington, DC on July 17, 2012. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17871 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0553; FRL–9702–7] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans for Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina; Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Transport Requirements for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) for Florida, Mississippi, 

and South Carolina submitted on 

September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009 

and September 18, 2009, respectively. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

determinations, contained in those 

submittals, that the existing SIPs for 

Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 

are adequate to meet the obligation 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to address 

interstate transport requirements with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, 

the interstate transport requirements 

contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA prohibit a state’s emissions 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 

state. EPA is proposing to approve the 

States’ determinations that their existing 

SIPs satisfy this requirement and to 

conclude that additional control 

measures are not necessary under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because 

emissions from Florida, Mississippi and 

South Carolina do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other 

state. EPA is also proposing to 

disapprove the SIP submissions from 

Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to the extent that they rely on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule to meet the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Because 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule has been 

remanded by the court and did not 

address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, it 

cannot be relied upon to satisfy any 

requirements related to that NAAQS. In 

this action, EPA is only addressing the 

SIP revisions respecting section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43019 

1The rule establishing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS 

was signed by the Administrator and publically 

disseminated on September 21, 2006. Because EPA 

did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP submittals, these submittals 

were due on September 21, 2009, three years from 

the September 21, 2006, signature date pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(1). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The SIP revisions 

respecting the remainder of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(M), except for sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(I) 

nonattainment area requirements, are 

being addressed in separate actions. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0553, 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–2010– 

0553,’’ 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. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0553. 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 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure 

Requirements 

B. Background on Infrastructure Actions 

C. Transport Rules 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s, 

Mississippi’s and South Carolina’s 

compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure 

Requirements 

On September 21, 2006, EPA revised 

the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and 

secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to 

submit to EPA SIPs that provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS within 3 years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe.1 Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require these submissions to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA thus 

refers to these submissions as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. States were 

required to submit such SIPs to EPA no 

later than September 21, 2009, for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. SIPs must 

address the requirements of 110(a)(2), as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint alleging that EPA had failed 

to take final action on SIP submittals 

addressing 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 sign for publication in the 

Federal Register a notice of the 

Agency’s final action either approving, 

disapproving, or approving in part and 

disapproving in part the Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP submittals 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 the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), no later than 

September 30, 2012. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ and the September 25, 2009, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

3See Id., 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

4EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

5See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NOX SIP 

Call; 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (Transport Rule, also known 

as Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR). 

B. Background on Infrastructure Actions 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to EPA for each new or 

revised NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may 

need to adopt language specific to the 

PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have 

adequate SIP provisions to implement 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

elements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

related to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. As a 

general matter, the infrastructure 

requirements are listed in EPA’s October 

2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

September 25, 2009, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Although all the elements 

are identified below, today’s action 

pertains only to Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and the applicable 

requirements of part D.2

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. EPA has 

previously discussed the scope of such 

actions in prior infrastructure actions. 

See, e.g., 76 FR 14631 (March 17, 2011); 

76 FR 41123 (July 13, 2011). Because 

today’s action is focused on only the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) infrastructure element, 

EPA is not repeating its previously 

articulated discussion on the scope of 

infrastructure SIP actions; however, 

such considerations remain applicable 

here. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, NSR permitting program 

submissions required to address the 

requirements of part D, and a host of 

other specific types of SIP submissions 

that address other specific matters. 

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).3 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.4 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s implementation 

plans. 

C. Transport Rules 

EPA has previously addressed the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

in past regulatory actions such as the 

1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 Clean 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the 2011 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

also known as the Transport Rule.5 In 

the 1998 NOX SIP call, EPA evaluated 

whether or not the ozone-season NOX

emissions in certain states had 

prohibited interstate impacts, and if 

they had such impacts, required the 

states to adopt substantive SIP revisions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43021 

to eliminate the NOX emissions, 

whether through participation in a 

regional cap and trade program or by 

other means. EPA’s general approach to 

section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX SIP call 

was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213 

F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert denied, 

532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA’s 

approach to interference with 

maintenance in the NOX SIP call was 

not explicitly reviewed by the court. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 

907–09 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

On May 12, 2005, EPA published the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in the 

Federal Register. See 70 FR 25162. 

CAIR required States to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment and 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any 

downwind state. EPA was sued by a 

number of parties on various aspects of 

CAIR and on July 11, 2008, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued its 

decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR federal 

implementation plans (FIPs) in their 

entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Among other 

things, the Court found that EPA failed 

to give independent meaning to the term 

‘‘interfere with maintenance.’’ 

Subsequently, in response to EPA’s 

petition for rehearing, the Court issued 

an order remanding CAIR to EPA 

without vacating either CAIR or the 

CAIR federal implementation plans 

(FIPs). See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing 

CAIR to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with [the 

court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. 

In order to address the judicial 

remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated a 

new rule to address interstate transport 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in 

the eastern United States, the ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone’’ (i.e., the Transport 

Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). In the Transport 

Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes 

to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and 

the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 

2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 48321. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of the Transport Rule and CAIR 

in response to motions filed by 

numerous parties seeking a stay of the 

Transport Rule pending judicial review. 

In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolution of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s, 

Mississippi’s, and South Carolina’s 

compliance with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance entitled, ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance). 

EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance to provide 

additional recommendations to states 

for developing SIP submissions to meet 

the requirements of section 110, 

including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained 

that submissions from states pertaining 

to the ‘‘significant contribution’’ and 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

must contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit air pollutant emissions from 

within the state that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state. In the 

Infrastructure Guidance, EPA explained 

that states could not rely on the CAIR 

to comply with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because 

CAIR does not address this NAAQS. 

Recognizing that the demonstration 

required may be a challenging task for 

the affected states, EPA also noted in the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance the Agency’s 

intention to complete a rule to address 

interstate pollution transport in the 

eastern half of the continental United 

States (i.e., the Transport Rule). As 

noted above EPA published the 

Transport Rule in the Federal Register 

on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 48208. 

On September 23, 2009, October 6, 

2009, and September 18, 2009, Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina, 

respectively, provided EPA with 

infrastructure submissions certifying 

that their current SIPs addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In these 

submissions Florida, Mississippi and 

South Carolina all relied on CAIR to 

meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. CAIR addressed only the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with 

respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and did not address the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements 

related to that NAAQS. In previous 

actions disapproving SIP revisions for 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that relied on CAIR, 

EPA explained both its rationale for 

disapproving those SIP revisions as well 

as describing a number of 

considerations for states for providing 

an adequate demonstration to address 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g., 76 FR 

43128 (July 20, 2011); 76 FR 4588 

(January 26, 2011). Among the 

considerations, EPA explained that the 

state should explain whether or not 

emissions from the state contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in any other state, and that 

such a conclusion should be supported 

by a technical analysis. As explained in 

the prior disapprovals, a state may not 

rely on CAIR to satisfy the requirements 

of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect 

to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR 

addressed only the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and did not address the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements 

related to that NAAQS. In addition, 

CAIR was found flawed and remanded 

to EPA by the court. North Carolina, 550 

F.3d at 1176–1178. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the States’ 

submission to the extent they rely on 

CAIR to meet these requirements. 

Since receiving these submittals, EPA 

conducted additional modeling, as part 

of the Transport Rule. This modeling 

supports the conclusion that these 

States’ existing implementation plans 

are adequate to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This 

modeling is consistent with the types of 

analyses and considerations that EPA 

recommended states undertake in 

determining whether their SIPs were 

adequate to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

Thus, EPA is now proposing to 

determine that the SIPs for Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina are 

adequate to satisfy the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS based on modeling conducted 

by EPA for the Transport Rule. The 

Transport Rule air quality modeling 

technical support document can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0553. Today, EPA is also proposing to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

disapprove the States’ reliance on CAIR 

to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, to the extent that this rule is 

relied upon in the infrastructure 

submissions. 

The air quality modeling conducted 

for the Transport Rule evaluated 

interstate contributions from emissions 

in upwind states to projected future 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA used air 

quality thresholds to indentify linkages 

between upwind states and downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. The air quality threshold was 

calculated as 1 percent of the NAAQS, 

which is 0.35 mg/m3 for 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA found states with 

emissions projected to exceed this air 

quality threshold at one or more 

downwind nonattainment receptors 

emissions to be linked to all such 

receptors. Emissions from states with 

one or more linkages were subject to 

further evaluation. EPA did not conduct 

further evaluation of emissions from 

states that were not linked to any 

downwind receptors. The air quality 

modeling for the Transport Rule did not 

find emissions from either Florida, 

Mississippi, or South Carolina linked to 

any downwind receptors for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a 

summary of the air quality modeling 

results for Florida, Mississippi, and 

South Carolina. A technical support 

document explaining the modeling in 

much greater detail can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 (μG/M3) NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

State 

Largest downwind contribution 

to nonattainment 

for 24-hour PM2.5

(μg/m3) 

Largest downwind contribution 

to 

maintenance for 

24-hour PM2.5

(μg/m3) 

Florida .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.07 0.03 

Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.06 0.07 

South Carolina ................................................................................................................................................. 0.29 0.25 

EPA believes it is appropriate to rely 

on this modeling even though the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

stayed the Transport Rule pending 

judicial review. The stay of the rule 

does not, by itself, invalidate the 

modeling and nothing in the court order 

staying the rule suggests that it would 

be improper for EPA to rely on technical 

modeling conducted during the lengthy 

rulemaking process. Further, EPA is not 

proposing to rely on any requirements 

of the Transport Rule or emission 

reductions associated with that rule to 

support its conclusion that these three 

states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

obligations with respect to the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove revisions to the 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for 

Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 

submitted on September 23, 2009, 

October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009 

respectively. EPA is proposing to 

approve the determinations that the 

existing SIPs of Florida, Mississippi, 

and South Carolina have adequate 

provisions to satisfy the obligation 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

CAA to address interstate transport 

requirements with regard to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA proposes to 

base this action on air quality modeling, 

conducted by EPA during the 

rulemaking process for the Transport 

Rule. Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove, the SIP submissions from 

Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina 

to the extent they rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule to meet the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA notes, 

that once finalized, the partial 

disapproval will not trigger a FIP for 

these States so long as today’s proposed 

determination that the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS for the Florida, 

Mississippi and South Carolina SIPs are 

met, is finalized. No further action will 

be required on the part of Florida, 

Mississippi or South Carolina as a result 

of the proposed partial disapproval 

because the SIPs themselves are not 

deficient. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this 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 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 proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications for Florida and 

Mississippi as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because these SIPs are not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43023 

1For each State, the first docket number refers to 

the docket for the 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure 

submittal and the second docket number refers to 

the docket for the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure 

submittal. 

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. With regard to South 

Carolina, EPA notes that, pursuant to 

the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement 

Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, the 

Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, 

which is located within the State of 

South Carolina, is subject to all state 

and local environmental laws and that 

South Carolina regulations apply to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and authorities. 

Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to 

the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

today’s proposed rule determining that 

the South Carolina SIP meets the State’s 

obligation under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its 

reliance upon CAIR does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249). EPA has 

also preliminarily determined that these 

revisions will not impose any 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law in 

South Carolina. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 12, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17885 Filed 7–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317 and EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0321 (CT); EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0318 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0322 

(ME); EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 and EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0323 (MA); EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0460 and EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 (NH); A–1–FRL–9704–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire; Infrastructure SIPs for 

the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

most elements of submittals from the 

States of Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We 

are also proposing to conditionally 

approve certain elements of these 

submittals, as well as disapprove a few 

elements of Massachusetts’ submittals. 

The submittals outline how each state’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets 

the requirements of section 110(a) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for both the 1997 

and 2006 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 the EPA. This 

SIP is commonly referred to as an 

infrastructure SIP. These actions are 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Connecticut,1 EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0322 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for Maine, EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0459 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0323 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Massachusetts, and EPA–R01–OAR– 

2009–0460 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0324 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for New Hampshire by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0317; 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0321; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0318; EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0322; EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459; 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323; EPA–R01– 

OAR–2009–0460; or EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0324,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. 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 legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR– 

2011–0317 or EPA–R01–OAR–2011– 

0321 for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Connecticut, EPA– 

R01–OAR–2011–0318 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0322 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Maine, EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0459 or 

EPA–R01–OAR–2011–0323 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Massachusetts, and EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0460 or EPA–R01– 

OAR–2011–0324 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

New Hampshire. 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 

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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS