63234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 are 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 final 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment plan requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C). 

[FR Doc. 2012–25300 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015; FRL–9739–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina 

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

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve in part and conditionally 

approve in part portions of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

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 SIP 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 EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. North Carolina 

certified in two separate submissions 

that its 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’’). With the 

exception of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

110(a)(2)(J), North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on April 1, 2008, and September 

21, 2009, address all the required 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is 

conditionally approving these 

requirements. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

November 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–1015. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

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. This Action 

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 24, 2012, EPA 

proposed to approve North Carolina’s 

April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, 

infrastructure submissions for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 77 FR 43196. A summary of the 

background for today’s final action is 

provided below. See EPA’s July 24, 

2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 

43196 for more detail. 

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. The data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affect 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, states typically 

have met the basic program elements 

required in section 110(a)(2) through 

earlier SIP submissions in connection 

with previous PM NAAQS. 

More specifically, 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 

already mentioned, 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 final rulemaking are 

listed below1 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.’’ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63235 

2This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

3Today’s final rule does not address element 

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

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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,’’ but as mentioned above is not relevant 

to today’s final rulemaking. 

5EPA intends to act on North Carolina’s 

outstanding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in a separate action. 

• 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 prevention of 

significant deterioration (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. 

II. This Action 

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. North Carolina 

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. 

With the exceptions of elements 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

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

PSD requirements, EPA is taking final 

action to approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions as 

demonstrating that the State’s 

implementation plan meets portions of 

the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements for both the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. North 

Carolina submitted a letter to EPA on 

July 10, 2012, to address certain 

outstanding requirements related to the 

PM2.5 standard for its PSD program and 

committing to providing the necessary 

SIP revision to address the requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) PSD 

requirements for which the SIP is 

currently deficient. This letter of 

commitment meets the requirements of 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k)(4), and as such, EPA is today 

finalizing its proposed action to 

conditional approve these elements. See 

EPA’s July 24, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking at 77 FR 43196 for more 

detail. If North Carolina fails to submit 

these revisions by October 16, 2013, 

today’s conditional approval will 

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, with the exceptions noted 

above, and those approved elements 

will replace the relevant conditionallyapproved elements in the SIP. 

In addition, EPA is today relying 

upon an earlier commitment by North 

Carolina to address the CAA section 

128(a)(1) and (2) requirements in order 

to conditionally approve its 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). North Carolina’s 

earlier commitment, which was made in 

connection with the State’s 2008 8-hour 

Ozone infrastructure SIP submission, 

committed the State to addressing CAA 

section 128(a)(1) and (2) requirements 

by submitting a SIP revision to EPA to 

address these requirements by February 

2, 2013. As the underlying requirements 

of section 128 are the same for purposes 

of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA is today relying upon this 

earlier commitment to conditionally 

approve the State’s 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

infrastructure SIPs for purposes of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As with the conditional 

approvals for the other elements 

discussed above, if the State fails to 

submit this revision 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. 

With the exception of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

related to interstate transport, EPA is 

today taking final action to determine 

that North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions, provided to EPA on April 

1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, and 

the January 11, 2012, and July 3, 2012, 

letters of commitment address all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.5

III. EPA’s Response to Comments 

EPA received adverse comments from 

the Sierra Club on the July 24, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking to approve North 

Carolina’s April 1, 2008, and September 

21, 2009, infrastructure submissions as 

meeting the requirements of certain 

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

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of the 

comments and EPA’s response are 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that North Carolina’s SIP does not 

contain the requisite enforceable limits 

for PM2.5, and therefore, EPA cannot 

approve the State’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

The Commenter asserts that North 

Carolina’s SIP does not distinguish 

between filterable and condensable PM 

to demonstrate that condensable PM2.5

emissions are limited and monitored. In 

addition, the Commenter states that 

North Carolina regulations do not 

currently provide adequate enforceable 

limitations for PM2.5 emissions from 

individual sources. In support of this 

position, the Commenter notes that the 

North Carolina SIP addresses emissions 

of particulate matter generally, and does 

not distinguish between PM10 and PM2.5.

The Commenter also references the 

particulate matter maximum emission 

rates for two coal-fired power plants by 

way of example and argues that because 

test methods, such as Reference Test 

Method 5, do not test for condensable 

PM, as a practical matter, the SIP does 

not currently contain PM2.5 emissions 

limits for sources that have not recently 

undergone new source review. The 

Commenter asserts that, as a result, the 

SIP does not ensure specific sources in 

North Carolina maintain the PM2.5

NAAQS in attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. The Commenter 

concludes that this constitutes a SIP 

deficiency germane to EPA’s 

determination respecting the sufficiency 

of the State’s infrastructure SIP for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s contention that the State’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6See Implementation of the New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5), 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008); 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49(vi); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). 

7See North Carolina’s PSD regulations at 15A NC 

Admin. Code 2D.0530, incorporates by reference 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi), which requires that 

condensable emissions be accounted for in 

applicability in determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5.

infrastructure SIP submission is not 

approvable with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(A) because it does not contain 

adequate enforceable emissions 

limitations on PM2.5.

With respect to the Commenter’s 

specific concerns about the adequacy of 

emissions limitations at stationary 

sources, the Commenter is incorrect 

with respect both to the scope of what 

is germane to an action on an 

infrastructure SIP and with respect to 

when certain regulatory requirements 

for stationary sources became operative. 

This comment pertains to EPA’s action 

on an infrastructure SIP, which must 

meet the general structural requirements 

described in section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA reads as 

follows: 

Each implementation plan submitted by a 

State under this Act shall be adopted by the 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. Each such plan shall include 

enforceable emission limitations and other 

control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

The Commenter seems to believe that 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) 

explicitly requires that a state adopt all 

possible new enforceable emission 

limits, control measures and other 

means developed specifically for 

attaining and maintaining the new 

NAAQS within the state. 

EPA does not believe that this is a 

reasonable interpretation of the 

provision with respect to infrastructure 

SIP submissions. Rather, EPA believes 

that different requirements for SIPs 

become due at different times 

depending on the precise applicable 

requirements in the CAA. For example, 

some state regulations are required 

pursuant to CAA section 172(b), as part 

of an attainment demonstration for areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

standard. The timing of such an 

attainment demonstration would be 

after promulgation of a NAAQS, after 

completion of designations, and after 

the development of the applicable 

nonattainment plans. The Commenter 

seems to believe that EPA should 

disapprove a states infrastructure SIP if 

the state has not already developed all 

the substantive emissions limitations 

that may ultimately be required for all 

purposes, such as attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS as part of an 

attainment plan for a designated 

nonattainment area. 

The Commenter focuses upon the 

adequacy of specific stationary source 

maximum emission rates in the North 

Carolina SIP—specifically the existing 

emissions rates for the Allen and 

Asheville coal-fired power plants 

provided at 15A N.C. Admin. Code 

02D.0536—to support its argument that 

the SIP does not require adequate 

enforceable emissions limitations for 

PM2.5 for existing sources. As described 

above, for purposes of approving North 

Carolina’s infrastructure submittal as it 

relates to section 110(a)(2)(A), EPA’s 

evaluation is limited to whether the 

State has adopted, as necessary and 

appropriate, enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures 

to meet applicable structural 

requirements of the CAA. Today’s 

action does not involve source specific 

evaluations of particular emissions 

limits or whether the state has correctly 

imposed emissions limitations on each 

stationary source. Moreover, EPA 

disagrees that the Allen and Asheville 

coal-fired power plant examples cited 

by the Commenter demonstrate a SIP 

deficiency germane to an EPA approval 

action respecting infrastructure 

110(a)(2)(A) requirements. The 

Commenter has not identified how these 

maximum emissions limits, which were 

approved into the SIP on February 14, 

1996, demonstrate that North Carolina 

has not sufficiently addressed the 

treatment of condensables in the State 

consistent with EPA guidance and the 

requirements of the CAA. In the 

implementation regulations for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA separately 

authorized states to elect not to address 

condensable emissions in their air 

pollution programs until on or after 

January 1, 2011.6 Thus, the State was 

not required to address condensables at 

the time these maximum emission rates 

were incorporated into the SIP. The 

State’s compliance with what EPA 

authorized with respect to condensables 

is not grounds for disapproval of the 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission. 

Likewise, the fact that existing 

sources which have not gone through 

new source review in recent years are 

not subject to PM2.5 emissions limits is 

not grounds for disapproving section 

110(a)(2)(A). As referenced above, 

consistent with EPA authorization, 

states may elect not to address 

condensable emissions in their air 

pollution programs until on or after 

January 1, 2011. The fact that existing 

sources would not be subject to such 

requirements prior to this applicability 

date is not a grounds upon which to 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(A). EPA believes that the 

better approach to ensure that sources 

are evaluated in due course for 

condensable emissions as required by 

federal regulations after January 1, 2011, 

is through revisions to the PSD program 

consistent with the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). 

As discussed in the proposal for today’s 

action, EPA is today conditionally 

approving North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to the section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

PSD requirements. This conditional 

approval is based upon a commitment 

by the State to make a submission to 

meet current PSD program 

requirements, including proper 

evaluation of condensable emissions on 

an ongoing basis, in future regulatory 

actions, such as PSD permits. In 

addition, EPA notes that as a matter of 

State law, North Carolina has already 

elected to incorporate by reference 

EPA’s own regulations relevant to the 

May 16, 2008, PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule.7 Thus, as a 

practical matter, EPA believes that 

sources will in fact be evaluated for 

condensable emissions in the interim 

prior to the SIP submission from the 

State to meet the conditional approval 

requirement for section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

(J). 

For purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and for purposes of an infrastructure SIP 

submission, EPA believes that the 

proper inquiry is whether the state has 

met the basic structural SIP 

requirements appropriate at the point in 

time EPA is acting upon it. As stated in 

EPA’s proposed approval for this rule, 

to meet section 110(a)(2)(A), North 

Carolina submitted a list of existing 

emission reduction measures in the SIP 

that control PM emissions. These 

include all the required measures 

previously adopted for the control of 

PM. The Commenter identifies a 

number of ways in which it believes 

that the State’s implementation plan 

fails to meet such current requirements, 

but EPA concludes that the Commenter 

has not identified any deficiency that 

justifies disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP submission in this 

action. 

Comment 2: The Commenter states 

that North Carolina’s SIP does not meet 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63237 

8Although the notice was published by the 

Federal Register on July 24, 2012, the notice was 

signed by the Regional Administrator on July 13, 

2012, before the statutory deadline for submission 

of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments. 

the requirements of CAA 

section110(a)(2)(D)(ii) because the North 

Carolina regulations cited in the 

proposed rule do not make any mention 

of notification requirements and fail to 

make any other reference to interstate or 

international transport. 

Response 2: This comment pertains to 

infrastructure requirements described in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA 

requires that ‘‘each implementation plan 

submitted by a State under this Act 

shall * * * contain adequate provisions 

* * * insuring compliance with 

applicable requirements of sections 

[126] and [115] * * * relating to 

interstate and international pollution.’’ 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

assertion that none of the state 

regulations referenced in the proposed 

rule make any mention of this 

notification requirement, nor make any 

other reference to interstate or 

international transport issues.’’ 

Specifically, NCAC 2D.0530, Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration, states that 

‘‘[a] permit application subject to this 

Regulation shall be processed in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q).’’ 40 

CFR 51.166(q) requires that ’’a copy of 

the notice of public comment to the 

applicant, the Administrator and to 

officials and agencies having cognizance 

over the location where the proposed 

construction would occur as follows: 

Any other State or local air pollution 

control agencies, the chief executives of 

the city and county where the source 

would be located; any comprehensive 

regional land use planning agency, and 

any State, Federal Land Manager, or 

Indian Governing body whose lands 

may be affected by emissions from the 

source or modification.’’ The 

Commenter has not provided how the 

above-described notification 

requirements fail to address the 

requirements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, the 

Commenter does not identify any 

submittal required by section 

110(a)(2)(A) that is overdue or deficient. 

The Commenter also alleges 

deficiencies with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and section 115 

international transport requirements, 

without articulating any specific reason. 

EPA does not believe that a state has 

any SIP requirements with respect to 

section 115 unless EPA has previously 

made a finding that emissions from the 

state cause or contribute to air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare in a 

foreign country. EPA has made no such 

finding with respect to North Carolina, 

and thus the infrastructure SIP of that 

state need not contain or reference any 

provisions to address that requirement 

substantively. 

Comment 3: The Commenter states 

that, although EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve North Carolina’s 

infrastructure submissions with respect 

to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J), 

North Carolina’s SIP must include PM2.5

increments and significant emission 

rates under the PSD Program before EPA 

can fully approve the State’s PM 

infrastructure submissions. The 

Commenter also states that any future 

submission by North Carolina that 

includes the significant impact levels 

for PM2.5 cannot be approved by EPA for 

the reasons the Commenter articulated 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 10–1413 (DC 

Circuit). 

Response 3: EPA first notes that the 

Commenter mischaracterizes the scope 

of EPA’s proposed conditional approval 

of North Carolina’s infrastructure 

submissions. As described in the 

proposed rule for today’s action, EPA 

only proposed to conditionally approve 

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

relate to PSD requirements, and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 77 FR 43196. EPA 

did not propose any action respecting 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in the August 24, 

2012 proposed rule, and proposed 

approval of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requirements. See 77 FR 43198, note 3; 

43202. 

With respect to the Commenter’s 

statements as they relate to EPA’s 

proposed conditional approval of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) related to 

PSD requirements, EPA agrees that 

presently the North Carolina SIP does 

not contain the requisite significant 

emissions rate provisions necessary for 

EPA to approve these sections of the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submissions. 

As such, EPA proposed conditional 

approval for sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

consistent with EPA’s authority under 

section 110(k)(4), and based upon a 

commitment by the State to address 

these deficiencies within one year. As 

described in section 110(k)(4), should 

North Carolina fail to meet its 

commitment to address these 

deficiencies, a final conditional 

approval for these elements would 

become a disapproval. The Commenter 

has failed to state a reason why this 

proposed action is inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

In addition, EPA disagrees with 

Commenter’s suggestion that EPA must 

approve North Carolina’s PM2.5

increments prior to fully approving 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Pursuant to 

the 2010 PM2.5 NSR Rule and CAA 

section 166(b), States were not required 

to submit a revised SIP addressing the 

PM2.5 increments until July 20, 2012. 

The Agency proposed action on North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP in a notice 

signed on July 13, 2012.8 Therefore, on 

the date that the proposed rule was 

signed by the Agency, the PM2.5

increments were not required to be 

included in the North Carolina SIP in 

order for North Carolina to meet the 

PSD requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the Act. 

The Commenter’s concerns relate to 

the timing of agency action on 

collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. 

These concerns highlight an important 

overarching question that the EPA has 

to confront when assessing the various 

infrastructure SIP submittals addressed 

in the proposed rule: how to proceed 

when the timing and sequencing of 

multiple related SIP submissions impact 

the ability of the State and the Agency 

to address certain substantive issues in 

the infrastructure SIP submission in a 

reasonable fashion. 

It is appropriate for EPA to take into 

consideration the timing and sequence 

of related SIP submissions as part of 

determining what it is reasonable to 

expect a state to have addressed in an 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

NAAQS at the time when EPA acts on 

such submission. EPA has historically 

interpreted section 110(a)(2)(C) and 

section 110(a)(2)(J) to require EPA to 

assess a State’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to the thenapplicable and federally enforceable 

PSD regulations required to be included 

in a State’s implementation plan at the 

time EPA takes action on the SIP. 

However, EPA does not consider it 

reasonable to interpret section 

110(a)(2)(C) and section 110(a)(2)(J) to 

require EPA to propose to disapprove a 

State’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

because the State had not yet, at the 

time of proposal, made a submission 

that was not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5

NSR Rule. To adopt a different approach 

by which EPA could not act on an 

infrastructure SIP, or at least could not 

approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever 

there was any impending revision to the 

SIP required by another collateral 

rulemaking action would result in 

regulatory gridlock and make it 

impracticable or impossible for EPA to 

act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in 

the process of revising collateral PSD 

regulations. EPA believes that such an 

outcome would be an unreasonable 

reading of the statutory process for the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

infrastructure SIPs contemplated in 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). 

EPA acknowledges that it is important 

that these additional PSD program 

revisions be evaluated and approved 

into the State’s SIP in accordance with 

the CAA, and EPA intends to address 

the PM2.5 increments in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

Finally, EPA notes that the 

Commenter’s statements regarding 

future EPA action on potential North 

Carolina PM2.5 significant impact level 

submittals are not relevant to today’s 

action, which as described in the 

proposed rule, 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—certain CAA requirements. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that EPA cannot approve future North 

Carolina submissions to meet CAA 

section 110(2)(D)(i) interstate transport 

and visibility obligations if it relies on 

the now vacated Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule to satisfy such 

obligations. 

Response 4: As described in the 

proposed rule for today’s action, EPA is 

not taking any action with respect to 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Comments related to 

EPA action on SIP submissions from 

North Carolina to address the 

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

including the interference with 

visibility prong in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are not relevant to 

today’s action. 

IV. Final Action 

As already described, North Carolina 

has addressed the elements of the CAA 

110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements 

pursuant to EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

guidance to ensure that 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in North Carolina. EPA is taking final 

action to approve in part, and 

conditionally approve in part, North 

Carolina‘s April 1, 2008, and September 

21, 2009, submissions, with noted 

exceptions, for 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because these 

submissions are consistent with section 

110 of the CAA. Today’s action is not 

approving any specific rule, but rather 

making a determination that North 

Carolina‘s already approved SIP meets 

certain CAA requirements. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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 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, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 17, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(e) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63239 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Federal Register citation Explanation 

Capital Area, North Carolina Interagency Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement.1/1/2002 12/27/2002 67 FR 78986. 

Durham-Chapel Hill Interagency 

Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement.

1/1/2002 12/27/2002 67 FR 78986. 

Winston-Salem Interagency Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement.1/01/2002 12/27/2002 67 FR 78986. 

High Point Interagency Transportation Conformity Memorandum 

of Agreement.

1/01/2002 12/27/2002 67 FR 78986. 

Greensboro Interagency Transportation Conformity Memorandum 

of Agreement.

1/01/2002 12/27/2002 67 FR 78986. 

Gaston, North Carolina Interagency 

Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement.

1/1/2002 12/27/02 67 FR 78986. 

Mecklenburg-Union Interagency 

Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement.

8/7/2003 9/15/2003 68 FR 53887. 

10 Year Maintenance Plan Update 

for the Raleigh/Durham Area.

6/4/2004 9/20/2004 69 FR 56163. 

10 Year Maintenance Plan Update 

for the Greensboro/WinstonSalem/High Point Area.

6/4/2004 9/20/2004 69 FR 56163. 

Attainment Demonstration of the 

Mountain, Unifour, Triad and 

Fayetteville Early Action Compact 

Areas.

12/21/2004 9/21/2005 70 FR 48874. 

Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 

Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide 

Second 10-Year Maintenance 

Plan.

3/18/05 3/24/06 71 FR 14817. 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for 

the Rocky Mount, North Carolina 

area (Edgecombe and Nash 

Counties).

6/19/2006 11/6/2006 71 FR 64891. 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for 

the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina area (Durham, 

Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham 

County).

6/7/2007 12/26/2007 72 FR 72948. 

1-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan 

revision for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area (Davidson, Forsyth, and Guilford 

counties and a portion of Davie 

County).

2/4/2008 4/8/2008 73 FR 18963. 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

for the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park Area.

7/24/2009 12/07/2009 74 FR 63995. 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan for the Hickory, North Carolina Area (Catawba County).

12/18/2009 11/18/2011 76 FR 71452. 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan for the Hickory, North Carolina Area—MOVES Update.

12/22/2010 11/18/2011 76 FR 71452. 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan for the Greensboro, North 

Carolina Area (Davidson and 

Guilford Counties).

12/18/2009 11/18/2011 76 FR 71455. 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan for the Greensboro, North 

Carolina Area—MOVES Update.

12/22/2010 11/18/2011 76 FR 71455. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
63240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued 

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Federal Register citation Explanation 

North Carolina 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

12/12/2007 2/6/2012 77 FR 5703. 

1997 8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the Triad Area.4/13/2011 3/26/2012 76 FR 3611. 

Supplement to 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the Triad Area.5/18/2011 3/26/2012 76 FR 3611. 

North Carolina portion of bi-state 

Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

11/12/2009 5/4/2012 77 FR 26441. 

Regional Haze Plan ........................ 11/17/2007 6/27/2012 77 FR 38185. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

4/1/2008 10/16/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

With the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 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 conditionally approved these requirements. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

9/21/2009 10/16/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

With the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 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 conditionally approved these requirements. 

■ 3. Section 52.1773 is amended by 

redesignating the existing text in 

§ 52.1773 as paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1773 Conditional approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) North Carolina submitted a letter 

to EPA on July 10, 2012, with a 

commitment to address the State 

Implementation Plan deficiencies 

regarding requirements of Clean Air Act 

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

they both relate to Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards. EPA is 

conditionally approving North 

Carolina’s commitment to address 

outstanding requirements promulgated 

in the New Source Review (NSR) PM2.5

Rule related to the PM2.5 standard for 

their PSD program and committing to 

providing the necessary SIP revision to 

address these NSR PM2.5 Rule 

requirements. If North Carolina fails to 

submit these revisions by October 16, 

2013, the conditional approval will 

automatically become a disapproval on 

that date and EPA will issue a finding 

of disapproval. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25301 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 02–278; FCC 12–21] 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection associated with 

the Commission’s document Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991 

(Report and Order). This notice is 

consistent with the Report and Order, 

which stated that the Commission 

would publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of those amendments. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

64.1200(a)(2) and (3) published at 77 FR 

34233, June 11, 2012, are effective 

October 16, 2013, 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(7) 

published at 77 FR 34233, June 11, 

2012, is effective November 15, 2012, 

and 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(3), published at 

77 FR 34233, June 11, 2012, is effective 

January 14, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Johnson, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 

418–7706, or email 

Karen.Johnson@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on 

September 17, 2012, OMB approved, for 

a period of three years, the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

Commission’s Report and Order, FCC 

12–21, published at 77 FR 34233, June 

11, 2012. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0519. The Commission publishes 

this notice as an announcement of the 

effective date of those amendments. If 

you have any comments on the burden 

estimates listed below, or how the 

Commission can improve the 

collections and reduce any burdens 

caused thereby, please contact Cathy 

Williams, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

Please include the OMB Control 

Number, 3060–0519, in your 

correspondence. The Commission will 

also accept your comments via the 

Internet if you send them to 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 

(202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received OMB approval on September 

17, 2012, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES