43196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

40. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at 202– 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18009 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION 

25 CFR Parts 543 and 547 

Minimum Internal Control Standards 

and Technical Standards 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the National 

Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) 

published in the Federal Register two 

notices of proposed rulemaking for 

public comment. The deadline for 

submission of public comments was 

July 31, 2012. In response to public 

requests to extend the comment period, 

the NIGC has determined that an 

extension of the end of the public 

comment period from July 31, 2012 

until August 15, 2012, is appropriate. 

This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to analyze the 

proposed rules and prepare their 

comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rules published June 1, 2012, 

at 77 FR 32444 and 77 FR 32465, is 

extended. Comments on the proposed 

rules must be received on or before 

August 15, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Walters, National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 

9100 Washington, DC 20005. 

Telephone: 202–632–7003; email: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 543 

addresses minimum internal control 

standards (MICS) for Class II gaming 

operations. The regulations require 

tribes to establish controls and 

implement procedures at least as 

stringent as those described in this Part 

to maintain the integrity of the gaming 

operation and minimize the risk of theft. 

The MICS were last amended in 2009 

in the first phase of what was intended 

to be a multi-phase process of revising 

the MICS and separating Class II and III 

controls. This proposed rule furthers 

that multi-phase process and includes 

amendments to update the MICS to 

reflect widespread technological 

advances in the industry. 

Dated: July 16, 2012. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17649 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015; FRL– 9703–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Annual and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and conditionally approve in 

part, the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of 

North Carolina, through the Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources 

(NC DENR), Division of Air Quality 

(DAQ), as demonstrating that the State 

meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the 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 the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. DAQ certified that 

the North Carolina SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in North Carolina (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘infrastructure submissions’’). EPA is 

proposing to determine that North 

Carolina’s infrastructure submissions, 

provided to EPA on April 1, 2008, and 

on September 21, 2009, addressed all 

the required infrastructure elements for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exception of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(J). With respect to sections 

110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD 

requirements, 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD requirements, 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve these requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–1015, 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– 

1015,’’ 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–2010– 

1015. 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 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43197 

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. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how North 

Carolina addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

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 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). North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions were received by EPA on 

April 1, 2008, for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and on September 21, 2009, for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submissions were determined to be 

complete on October 1, 2008, and March 

21, 2010, respectively. North Carolina 

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 submittal 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 

North Carolina 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal 

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)(II) visibility 

requirements, by September 30, 2012. 

On July 20, 2011, EPA published a final 

rulemaking disapproving the interstate 

transport requirements for section 

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

PM2.5 NAAQS for North Carolina. See 

76 FR 43167. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve in part, and to conditionally 

approve in part North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions for both the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for sections 110(a)(2)(A)–(H), 

(M), with the exception of sections 

110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD 

requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport requirements, 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to 

PSD requirements. With respect to 

sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) as they 

relate to PSD requirements, EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP as it 

relates to these requirements. Today’s 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) but does 

provide detail on how North Carolina’s SIP 

addresses 110(a)(2)(C). 

2This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

3Today’s proposed rule does not address element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport 

requirements were formerly addressed by North 

Carolina consistent with the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was 

remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 

without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to this 

remand, EPA took final action to approve North 

Carolina SIP revision, which was submitted to 

comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 56914 (October 5, 

2007). In so doing, North Carolina CAIR SIP 

revision addressed the interstate transport 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, 

EPA has recently finalized a new rule to address the 

interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur 

oxides in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (Transport Rule). That rule 

was recently stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of 

Appeals. EPA’s action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

will be addressed in a separate action. 

4This 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. 

5See Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

action is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that North 

Carolina’s already approved SIP meets— 

or in the case of the elements proposed 

for conditional approval will meet—, 

with changes, certain CAA 

requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. 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. The 

requirements that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking are listed below 1

and 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.’’ 

• 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.2

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.3

• 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 meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.4

• 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. 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

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. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.5 Those Commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at 

sources, that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (director’s 

discretion). EPA notes that there are two 

other substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated in other proposals that it 

would address separately: (i) Existing 

provisions for minor source new source 

review (NSR) programs that may be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (minor source 

NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) programs that may be inconsistent 

with current requirements of EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended 

by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR 

Reform). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

from North Carolina. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational and to 

provide general notice of the potential 

existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might 

require future corrective action. EPA did 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43199 

6For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

7For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s implementation 

plan contains adequate provisions to prevent 

significant contribution to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states. This provision contains 

numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking 

by EPA in order to determine such basic points as 

what constitutes significant contribution. See ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

8See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 2005) 

(explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

9EPA 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. 

not want states, regulated entities, or 

members of the public to be under the 

misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission of a given state should be 

interpreted as a re-approval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 

infrastructure SIP for North Carolina. 

Unfortunately, the Commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

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. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.6 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.7

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).8 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.9 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 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11See ‘‘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,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

12 Id., at page 2. 

13 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

14 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by the Commenters with respect to EPA’s approach 

to some substantive issues indicates that the statute 

is not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is 

sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret 

it in order to explain why these substantive issues 

do not need to be addressed in the context of 

infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed at other 

times and by other means. 

15See ‘‘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),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure 

SIP submission for that NAAQS. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that might be necessary for purposes of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might 

be necessary for a different pollutant. 

Thus, the content of an infrastructure 

SIP submission to meet this element 

from a state might be very different for 

an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.10

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 12 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 13 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 14

However, for the one exception to that 

general assumption (i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave 

much more specific recommendations. 

But for other infrastructure SIP 

submittals, and for certain elements of 

the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each state 

would work with its corresponding EPA 

regional office to refine the scope of a 

state’s submittal based on an assessment 

of how the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the 

basic structure of the state’s 

implementation plans for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.15 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, 

neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 

Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIPs for North 

Carolina. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43201 

16EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

17EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See 61 

FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 

1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 

(November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); 

and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections 

to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

18EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 

21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the 

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.16 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.17

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.18

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

North Carolina addressed the elements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described 

below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission limits and 

other control measures: North Carolina’s 

SIP provides an overview of the 

provisions of the North Carolina Air 

Pollution Control Regulations relevant 

to air quality control regulations. The 

regulations described below have been 

federally approved in the North 

Carolina SIP and include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures. NCAC 2D.0400, Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, and 2D.0500, 

Emissions Control Standards, establish 

emission limits for PM2.5 and address 

the required control measures, means 

and techniques for compliance with the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these 

regulations and North Carolina’s 

practices are adequate to protect the 

PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS in 

the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having deficient SSM provisions to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: NCAC 

2D.0600, Monitoring, and 2D.0806, 

Ambient Monitoring and Modeling 

Analysis, along with the North Carolina 

Network Description and Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, provide for 

an ambient air quality monitoring 

system in the State. Annually, EPA 

approves the ambient air monitoring 

network plan for the state agencies. On 

July 1, 2011, North Carolina submitted 

its plan to EPA, and on October 20, 

2011, EPA approved this plan. North 

Carolina’s approved monitoring network 

plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data systems related to 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for 

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources: Regulation NCAC 2D.0530, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

and 2D.0531, Sources in a 

Nonattainment Area, pertain to the 

construction or modification of any 

major stationary source in areas 

designated as attainment, nonattainment 

or unclassifiable under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the CAA. 

These provisions are designed to ensure 

that sources in areas attaining the 

NAAQS at the time of designations 

prevent any significant deterioration in 

air quality. NCAC 2D.0531 also sets the 

permitting requirements for areas in or 

around nonattainment areas. On July 10, 

2012, North Carolina submitted a letter 

to EPA to provide the schedule to 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

address outstanding requirements 

related to the PM2.5 standard for its PSD 

program and committing to providing 

the necessary SIP revision to address its 

SIP deficiencies related to the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule requirements. Based on 

North Carolina’s commitment, EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

North Carolina’s 110(a)(2)(C) 

infrastructure SIP consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA 

intends to move forward with finalizing 

the conditional approval consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. 

In this action, EPA is also proposing 

to conditionally approve North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have minor NSR provisions that are 

contrary to the existing EPA regulations 

for this program. EPA intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

NCAC 2D.0530, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, 2D.0531, 

Sources in a Nonattainment Area, and 

2D.0532, Sources Contributing to an 

Ambient Violation, describe how the 

State will notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from new or modified 

sources. North Carolina does not have 

any pending obligation under sections 

115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

North Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: 

EPA is proposing two separate actions 

with respect to the sub-elements 

required pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E). Section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each implementation plan 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

State will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the State comply with the 

requirements respecting State Boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any plan provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provisions. 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of sub-elements 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With respect to 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards), 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve this sub-element. EPA’s 

rationale for today’s proposals 

respecting each sub-element is 

described in turn below. 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), EPA notes that DAQ is responsible 

for adopting air quality rules, revising 

SIPs, developing and tracking the 

budget, establishing the title V fees, and 

other planning needs. DAQ also 

coordinates agreements with local air 

pollution control programs. 

Additionally, the SIP submittal cover 

letter provided by North Carolina 

certifies the sufficiency of the state 

program with 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) 

requirements. As evidence of the 

adequacy of DAQ’s resources with 

respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA 

submitted a letter to North Carolina on 

March 17, 2011, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2010. 

The letter EPA submitted to North 

Carolina can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0352. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. There were no outstanding 

issues for fiscal year 2010, therefore, 

North Carolina’s grants were finalized 

and closed out. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under State Law has been 

used to carry out the state’s 

implementation plan and related issues. 

North Carolina’s authority is included 

in all prehearings and final SIP 

submittal packages submitted for 

approval by EPA. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As discussed above, with respect to 

sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP as to 

this requirement. North Carolina’s April 

1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, 

infrastructure certification letters did 

not certify the adequacy of the State’s 

implementation plan to meet the 

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

(requiring state compliance with section 

128 of the CAA), and presently North 

Carolina’s SIP does not include 

provisions to meet section 128 

requirements. 

The section 128 State Board 

requirements—as applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—provide at subsection 

(a)(1) that each SIP shall contain 

requirements that any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders be subject to the described public 

interest and income restrictions. It 

further requires at subsection (a)(2) that 

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. EPA’s proposed 

conditional approval of North Carolina’s 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure SIP is 

based upon the State’s commitment to 

adopt specific enforceable measures 

related to both 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) to 

address current deficiencies in the 

North Carolina SIP. 

For purposes of section 128(a)(1), 

initial permit approvals and 

enforcement orders are issued by 

delegated officials within NC DENR. 

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143–215.114A, 

the Secretary NC DENR is authorized to 

assess civil penalties for violations of 

the State’s Air Pollution Control laws. 

NC DENR is also authorized pursuant to 

N.C.G.S. § 143–215.114C to request the 

Attorney General of the State to institute 

a civil action seeking injunctive relief to 

restrain the violation or threatened 

violation of the State’s Air Pollution 

Control laws. The North Carolina 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43203 

19Pursuant to a recent North Carolina law, which 

became effective no later than June 15, 2012, final 

decisions on contested cases involving permits and 

enforcement orders are made by individual 

Administrative Law Judges in the North Carolina 

Office of Administrative Hearings. See North 

Carolina Session Law 2011–398, Section 18. 

However, NC DENR remains the permit-issuing 

authority. 

20Pursuant to section 55.2 of N.C. Session Law 

2011–398, the North Carolina Office of 

Administrative Hearings is directed to seek U.S. 

EPA approval to become an agency responsible for 

administering programs under the Clean Air Act. 

This ongoing separate process may result in 

additional SIP revisions implicating section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Any such actions are distinct from 

today’s proposed actions and would be addressed 

in a separate rulemaking. 

Environmental Management 

Commission is authorized pursuant to 

N.C.G.S. § 143–215.108, to approve Air 

Pollution Control permits in the State, 

however, the Commission has delegated 

by regulation this authority to the 

Secretary of the Department of 

Environment, Health, and Natural 

Resources. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 

02A.0105(a)(2).19 As such, EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to 

128(a)(1) based upon a commitment by 

the State to timely submit any SIP 

revisions necessary to remove the 

Environmental Management 

Commission’s authority to approve 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

State’s Air Pollution Act.20

Regarding section 128(a)(2) (also 

made applicable to the infrastructure 

SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)), 

North Carolina has committed to EPA to 

submit for incorporation into the SIP 

relevant provisions of N.C.G.S. § 138A, 

Article 3: Public Disclosure of Economic 

Interests, sufficient to satisfy the conflict 

of interest provisions applicable to the 

head of NC DENR and those officials 

within the Department delegated his 

authority. 

As a result, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. North 

Carolina’s above-described 

commitments are contained in the 

State’s January 11, 2012, letter of 

commitment submitted to EPA in 

connection with North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submittal for purposes of 

the 1997 Ozone NAAQS. The letter 

North Carolina submitted can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0352. In the letter of commitment, North 

Carolina committed to adopt specific 

enforceable measures related to both 

CAA sections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) to 

address deficiencies in the North 

Carolina SIP related to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Notably, changes to 

North Carolina rules regarding the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS are the same types of 

changes that would be required as part 

of today’s proposed conditional 

approval for the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA previously 

finalized a conditional approval 

regarding sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 5703 

(February 6, 2012). 

Consistent with the State’s January 11, 

2012, commitment, North Carolina must 

submit to EPA by February 6, 2013, SIP 

revisions adopting specific enforceable 

measures related to both CAA sections 

128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). If the State fails 

to submit these revisions by February 6, 

2013, a final conditional approval 

would then automatically become a 

disapproval on that date and EPA will 

issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is 

not required to propose the finding of 

disapproval. If the conditional approval 

is converted to a disapproval, the final 

disapproval triggers the Federal 

Implementation Plan requirement under 

section 110(c). However, if the State 

meets its commitment within the 

applicable timeframe, the conditionally 

approved submission will remain a part 

of the SIP until EPA takes final action 

approving or disapproving the new 

submittal. If EPA disapproves the new 

submittal, today’s conditionally 

approved submittal will also be 

disapproved at that time. If EPA 

approves the new submittal, North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP will be 

fully approved in its entirety and 

replace the conditionally approved 

element in the SIP. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submission describes how 

the State establishes requirements for 

emissions compliance testing and 

utilizes emissions sampling and 

analysis. It further describes how the 

State ensures the quality of its data 

through observing emissions and 

monitoring operations. North Carolina 

DAQ uses these data to track progress 

towards maintaining the NAAQS, 

develop control and maintenance 

strategies, identify sources and general 

emission levels, and determine 

compliance with emission regulations 

and additional EPA requirements. These 

requirements are provided in NCAC 

2D.0605, General Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements, 2D.0613, 

Quality Assurance Program, and 

2D.0614, Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring. Additionally, North 

Carolina is required to submit emissions 

data to EPA for purposes of the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 

EPA’s central repository for air 

emissions data. EPA published the Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on 

December 5, 2008, which modified the 

requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and volatile organic 

compounds. Many states also 

voluntarily report emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. North Carolina 

made its latest update to the NEI on 

December 19, 2011. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: 

NCAC 2D.0300, Air Pollution 

Emergencies, authorizes the North 

Carolina DAQ Director to determine the 

existence of an air pollution emergency 

and it describes the preplanned 

abatement strategies triggered by the 

occurrence of such an emergency. These 

criteria have previously been approved 

by EPA. On September 25, 2009, EPA 

released the guidance entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).’’ This guidance clarified that 

‘‘to address the section 110(a)(2)(G) 

element, states with air quality control 

regions identified as either Priority I, IA, 

or Priority II by the ‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’ rule at 

40 CFR 51.150, must develop emergency 

episode contingency plans.’’ EPA’s 

September 25, 2009, guidance also 

states that ‘‘until the Agency finalized 

changes to the emergency episode 

regulation to establish for PM2.5 specific 

levels for classifying areas as Priority I, 

IA, or II for PM2.5, and to establish a 

significant harm level (SHL) * * *,’’ it 

recommends that states with a 24-Hour 

PM2.5 concentration above 140 mg/m3

(using the most recent three years of 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

data) develop an emergency episode 

plan. For states where this level has not 

been exceeded, the state can certify that 

it has appropriate general emergency 

powers to address PM2.5 related 

episodes, and that no specific 

emergency episode plans are needed at 

this time. On September 19, 2008, DAQ 

submitted a letter to EPA verifying that 

it is a Class III Priority Area and is 

exempt from adopting emergency 

episode plan for PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for emergency powers 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

As previously discussed, DAQ is 

responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS. North 

Carolina has the ability and authority to 

respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

PM NAAQS. Specific to the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, North 

Carolina’s submissions have included: 

• August 21, 2009, Hickory PM2.5

Attainment Demonstration; 

• August 21, 2009, Triad PM2.5

Attainment Demonstration; 

• December 18, 2009, Triad PM2.5

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan; and, 

• December 18, 2009, Hickory PM2.5

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that North Carolina’s SIP 

and practices adequately demonstrate a 

commitment to provide future SIP 

revisions related to the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

NCAC 2D.0530, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and 2D.0531, 

Sources in a Nonattainment Area, as 

well as North Carolina’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan (which allows for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

Federal Land Managers), provide for 

consultation with government officials 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. North 

Carolina adopted state-wide 

consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity. These consultation 

procedures include considerations 

associated with the development of 

mobile inventories for SIPs. 

Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires DAQ 

to consult with federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 

approved North Carolina’s consultation 

procedures on December 27, 2002 (See 

67 FR 78983). Additionally, DAQ 

submitted a regional haze plan which 

outlines its consultation practices with 

Federal Land Managers. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with government officials related to the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public 

notification) Public notification: DAQ 

has public notice mechanisms in place 

to notify the public of PM2.5 and other 

pollutant forecasting, including an air 

quality monitoring Web site providing 

PM2.5 alerts, http://xapps.enr. 

state.nc.us/aq/ForecastCenter. North 

Carolina also has an outreach program 

to educate the public and promote 

voluntary emissions reduction measures 

including the ‘‘Turn Off Your Engine’’ 

idling reduction program. NCAC 

2D.0300, Air Pollution Emergencies, 

requires that DAQ notify the public of 

any air pollution episode or NAAQS 

violation. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate the State’s ability to 

provide public notification related to 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and 

visibility protection: North Carolina 

demonstrates its authority to regulate 

new and modified sources of PM to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

NCAC 2D.0530, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and 2D.0531, 

Sources in a Nonattainment Area, 

which describe the permit requirements 

for new major sources or major 

modifications of existing sources in 

areas classified as attainment or 

unclassifiable under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the CAA. This 

ensures that sources in areas attaining 

the NAAQS at the time of designations 

prevent any significant deterioration in 

air quality. NCAC 2D.0531 also sets the 

permitting requirements for areas in or 

around nonattainment areas. As with 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) of 

North Carolina’s SIP does not include 

provisions to meet all the requirements 

for NSR/PSD related to the PM2.5

standard. As noted above, on July 10, 

2012, North Carolina submitted a letter 

to EPA to provide the schedule to 

address outstanding requirements 

related to the PM2.5 standard for its PSD 

program and committing to providing 

the necessary SIP revision to address the 

PM2.5 NSR/PSD requirements for which 

the SIP is currently deficient. As a 

result, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to 

element 110(a)(2)(J) in accordance with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA 

intends to move forward with finalizing 

the conditional approval consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). In the event of the establishment 

of a new NAAQS, however, the 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, EPA finds that there is no 

new visibility obligation ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. This would 

be the case even in the event a 

secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is 

established, because this NAAQS would 

not affect visibility requirements under 

part C. 

12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and 

modeling/data: NCAC 2D.0300, Air 

Pollution Emergencies, and NCAC 

2D.0806, Ambient Monitoring and 

Modeling Analysis, require that air 

modeling be conducted to determine 

permit applicability. These regulations 

demonstrate that North Carolina has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide for air quality and 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: North 

Carolina addresses the review of 

construction permits as previously 

discussed in 110(a)(2)(C) above. 

Permitting fees in North Carolina are 

collected through the State’s federallyapproved title V fees program, according 

to State’s federally-approved title V fees 

program according to State Regulation 

NCAC 2Q.0200, Permit Fees. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that North Carolina’s SIP and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43205 

NCAC 2Q.0307, Public Participation 

Procedures requires that DAQ notify the 

public of an application, a preliminary 

determination, the activity or activities 

involved in a permit action, any 

emissions associated with a permit 

modification, and the opportunity for 

comment prior to making a final 

permitting decision. Furthermore, DAQ 

has demonstrated consultation with, 

and participation by, affected local 

entities through its work with local 

political subdivisions during the 

developing of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that North 

Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is now proposing two related 

types of actions. First, EPA is proposing 

to determine that the North Carolina SIP 

is currently adequate, as explained in 

North Carolina’s April 1, 2008, and 

September 21, 2009, submittals, to meet 

the requirements of CAA 110(a)(1) and 

(2)(A)–(B), (D)–(H), (K)–(M), pursuant to 

EPA’s October 2, 2007, and September 

25, 2009, guidance to ensure that the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in North Carolina. Second, 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions for both the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

regard to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J). 

VI. 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 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 13, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18051 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0026, FRL–9704–5] 

Notice of Data Availability for 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice that 

information has been posted in the 

docket pertaining to EPA’s proposed 

action on the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011, that 

addresses regional haze. (Docket ID No. 

EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0026). This 

information is relevant to the portion of 

the rulemaking pertaining to the 

proposed Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) and proposals in the alternative for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 

2. EPA is requesting comment on the 

new data provided in the docket. This 

information could impact EPA’s final 

decision on the rulemaking as it 

pertains to Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 

2. 

DATES: Comments on the NODA must be 

received on or before August 3, 2012. 

This date corresponds to the date 

comments must be received for the 

proposed rulemaking. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0026, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS