23178 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

additional days of the due date for 

initial comments. 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. Docket No. RM2012–4 is 

established for the purpose of receiving 

comments in advance of developing 

regulations regarding new rules of 

procedure for evaluating requests for 

advisory opinions under 39 U.S.C. 3661. 

2. Interested parties may submit 

comments no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. 

3. Reply comments may be filed no 

later than 30 days from the due date for 

initial comments. 

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia 

Gallagher is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9300 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169; FRL–9660–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Deferral for CO2 Emissions From 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) on December 14, 2011. This 

revision proposes to defer until July 21, 

2014 the application of the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting requirements to biogenic 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 

bioenergy and other biogenic stationary 

sources in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0169 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169, 

Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0169. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the www.

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On December 14, 2011, VADEQ 

submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to maintain 

consistency with Federal greenhouse 

gas (GHG) permitting requirements 

under the PSD program. 

I. Background 

A. The Tailoring Rule 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the 

purpose of relieving overwhelming 

permitting burdens from the regulation 

of GHG’s that would, in the absence of 

the rule, fall on permitting authorities 

and sources (75 FR 31514). EPA 

accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program of the CAA. 

In particular, EPA established in the 

Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for 

PSD applicability and established the 

first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which began on January 2, 2011, PSD 

requirements apply to major stationary 

source GHG emissions only if the 

sources are subject to PSD anyway due 

to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA did not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most noticeably 

the best available control technology 

(BACT) requirement as defined in CAA 

section 169(3), apply to projects that 

increase net GHG emissions by at least 

75,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2

equivalent (CO2e), but only if the project 

also significantly increases emissions of 

at least one non-GHG pollutant. CO2e is 

a metric used to compare the emissions 

from various greenhouse gases based 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23179 

1As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral 

addresses both PSD and Title V requirements. 

However, EPA is only taking action on Virginia’s 

PSD program as part of this action. 

upon their global warming potential 

(GWP). The CO2e for a gas is determined 

by multiplying the mass of the gas by 

the associated GWP. The applicable 

GWP’s and guidance on how to 

calculate a source’s GHG emissions in 

tpy CO2e can be found in EPA’s 

‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks,’’ which is updated 

annually under existing commitment 

under the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC). 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which began on July 1, 2011, phased in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the potential to emit (PTE), at least 

100,000 tpy CO2e are subject to the PSD 

requirements. In addition, sources that 

emit or have the PTE at least 100,000 

tpy CO2e and that undertake a 

modification that increases net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e 

are also be subject to PSD requirements. 

For both steps, EPA noted that if sources 

or modifications exceed these CO2eadjusted GHG triggers, they are not 

covered by permitting requirements 

unless their GHG emissions also exceed 

the corresponding mass-based triggers 

in tpy. 

Virginia adopted the regulations at 

9VAC5 chapter 85 (9VAC5–85) to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds and submitted them to EPA 

for approval in to the SIP. The Tailoring 

Rule and the regulations at 9VAC5–85 

address both PSD and Title V 

requirements. However, only the PSD 

regulations were submitted to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP. On May 13, 

2011, EPA took final action to approve 

that SIP revision (76 FR 27898). 

B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule 

On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated 

the final ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions 

from Bioenergy and other Biogenic 

Sources Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title 

V Programs’’ (Biomass Deferral). 

Following is a brief discussion of the 

deferral. For a full discussion of EPA’s 

rationale for the rule, see the notice of 

final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490. 

The biomass deferral delays until July 

21, 2014 the consideration of CO2

emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to 

as ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’) when 

determining whether a stationary source 

meets the PSD and Title V applicability 

thresholds, including those for the 

application of BACT.1 Stationary 

sources that combust biomass (or 

otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions) 

and construct or modify during the 

deferral period will avoid the 

application of PSD to the biogenic CO2

emissions resulting from those actions. 

The deferral applies only to biogenic 

CO2 emissions and does not affect nonGHG pollutants or other GHG’s (e.g., 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) 

emitted from the combustion of biomass 

fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to 

biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and 

Title V programs and does not pertain 

to any other EPA programs such as the 

GHG Reporting Program. Biogenic CO2

emissions are defined as emissions of 

CO2 from a stationary source directly 

resulting from the combustion or 

decomposition of biologically-based 

materials other than fossil fuels and 

mineral sources of carbon. Examples of 

‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’ include, but 

are not limited to: 

• CO2 generated from the biological 

decomposition of waste in landfills, 

wastewater treatment or manure 

management processes; 

• CO2 from the combustion of biogas 

collected from biological decomposition 

of waste in landfills, wastewater 

treatment or manure management 

processes; 

• CO2 from fermentation during 

ethanol production or other industrial 

fermentation processes; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of municipal solid 

waste or biosolids; 

• CO2 from combustion of the 

biological fraction of tire-derived fuel; 

and 

• CO2 derived from combustion of 

biological material, including all types 

of wood and wood waste, forest residue, 

and agricultural material. 

EPA recognizes that use of certain 

types of biomass can be part of the 

national strategy to reduce dependence 

on fossil fuels. Efforts are underway at 

the Federal, state and regional level to 

foster the expansion of renewable 

resources and promote bioenergy 

projects when they are a way to address 

climate change, increase domestic 

alternative energy production, enhance 

forest management and create related 

employment opportunities. We believe 

part of fostering this development is to 

ensure that those feedstocks with 

negligible net atmospheric impact not 

be subject to unnecessary regulation. At 

the same time, it is important that EPA 

have time to conduct its detailed 

examination of the science and 

technical issues related to accounting 

for biogenic CO2 emissions and 

therefore have finalized this deferral. 

The deferral is intended to be a 

temporary measure, in effect for no 

more than three years, to allow the 

Agency time to complete its work and 

determine what, if any, treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the 

PSD and Title V programs. The biomass 

deferral rule is not EPA’s final 

determination on the treatment of 

biogenic CO2 emissions in those 

programs. The Agency plans to 

complete its science and technical 

review and any follow-on rulemakings 

within the three-year deferral period 

and further believes that three years is 

ample time to complete these tasks. It is 

possible that the subsequent 

rulemaking, depending on the nature of 

EPA’s determinations, would supersede 

the biomass deferral rulemaking and 

become effective in fewer than three 

years. In that event, Virginia may revise 

its SIP accordingly. 

For stationary sources co-firing fossil 

fuel and biologically-based fuel, and/or 

combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire 

derived fuels, municipal solid waste 

(MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions 

from that combustion are included in 

the biomass deferral. However, the fossil 

CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of CO2

from processing of mineral feedstocks 

(e.g., calcium carbonate) are also not 

included in the deferral. Various 

methods are available to calculate both 

the biogenic and fossil portions of CO2

emissions, including those methods 

contained in the GHG Reporting 

Program (40 CFR Part 98). Consistent 

with the other pollutants in PSD and 

Title V, there are no requirements to use 

a particular method in determining 

biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions. 

EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an 

interim deferral for biogenic CO2

emissions only and does not relieve 

sources of the obligation to meet the 

PSD and Title V permitting 

requirements for other pollutant 

emissions that are otherwise applicable 

to the source during the deferral period 

or that may be applicable to the source 

at a future date pending the results of 

EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking 

action. This means, for example, that if 

the deferral is applicable to biogenic 

CO2 emissions from a particular source 

during the three-year effective period 

and the study and future rulemaking do 

not provide for a permanent exemption 

from PSD and Title V permitting 

requirements for the biogenic CO2

emissions from a source with particular 

characteristics, then the deferral would 

end for that type of source and its 

biogenic CO2 emissions would have to 

be appropriately considered in any 

applicability determinations that the 

source may need to conduct for future 

stationary source permitting purposes, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

23180 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

consistent with that subsequent 

rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule 

(e.g., a major source determination for 

Title V purposes or a major modification 

determination for PSD purposes). EPA 

also wishes to clarify that we did not 

require that a PSD permit issued during 

the deferral period be amended or that 

any PSD requirements in a PSD permit 

existing at the time the deferral took 

effect, such as BACT limitations, be 

revised or removed from an effective 

PSD permit for any reason related to the 

deferral or when the deferral period 

expires. 

Section 52.21(w) of 40 CFR requires 

that any PSD permit shall remain in 

effect, unless and until it expires or it 

is rescinded, under the limited 

conditions specified in that provision. 

Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a 

source while the deferral was effective 

need not be reopened or amended if the 

source is no longer eligible to exclude 

its biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD 

applicability after the deferral expires. 

However, if such a source undertakes a 

modification that could potentially 

require a PSD permit and the source is 

not eligible to continue excluding its 

biogenic CO2 emissions after the 

deferral expires, the source will need to 

consider its biogenic CO2 emissions in 

assessing whether it needs a PSD permit 

to authorize the modification. 

Any future actions to modify, shorten, 

or make permanent the deferral for 

biogenic sources are beyond the scope 

of the biomass deferral action and this 

proposed approval of the deferral into 

the Virginia SIP, and will be addressed 

through subsequent rulemaking. The 

results of EPA’s review of the science 

related to net atmospheric impacts of 

biogenic CO2 and the framework to 

properly account for such emissions in 

Title V and PSD permitting programs 

based on the study are prospective and 

unknown. Thus, we are unable to 

predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if 

any, currently subject to the deferral as 

incorporated into the Virginia SIP 

would be subject to any permanent 

exemptions or which currently deferred 

sources would be potentially required to 

account for their emissions in the future 

rulemaking EPA has committed to 

undertake for such purposes in three or 

fewer years. Only in that rulemaking 

can EPA address the question of 

extending the deferral or putting in 

place requirements that would have the 

equivalent effect on sources covered by 

the biomass deferral. Once that 

rulemaking has occurred, Virginia may 

address related revisions to its SIP. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Similar to our approach with the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the 

biomass deferral into the regulations 

governing state programs and into the 

Federal PSD program by amending the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 

respectively. Virginia has adopted this 

same approach. The proposed SIP 

revision incorporates the Biomass 

Deferral into Virginia’s PSD program by 

amending the definition of ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under 9VAC5–85–50(C). 

The language adopted by Virginia 

mirrors the language in the Federal 

regulations. EPA last took action on 

these provisions on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 

27898). In addition to the incorporation 

of the Biomass Deferral, the proposed 

SIP revision makes a minor, clarifying 

revision to 9VAC5–85–50(B). 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that it is consistent with 

Federal regulations. EPA is proposing to 

approve the Virginia SIP revision 

incorporating the Biomass Deferral, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23181 

which was submitted on December 14, 

2011. EPA is soliciting public comments 

on this proposed approval of Virginia’s 

SIP revision request. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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 relating 

to GHG permitting under Virginia’s PSD 

program 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse Gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Action Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9339 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0809; FRL–9659–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

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

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, conditionally approve, and 

disapprove in part, the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) on 

December 13, 2007, and supplemented 

on April 18, 2008, to demonstrate that 

the State meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). 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. DEP certified that 

the Florida SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Florida (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA 

is taking four related actions on DEP’s 

infrastructure submission for Florida. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0809, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0809,’’ 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, 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–2011– 

0809. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS